Idaho Sees Exodus of Obstetricians After State's Abortion Ban

[placeholder]

Idaho has been losing practicing obstetricians since its abortion ban took effect in August 2022, according to a new report by the Idaho Physician Well-Being Action Collaborative (IPWAC).

 

The report showed that 22% of the practicing obstetricians in Idaho stopped practicing or left the state during a 15-month period from August 2022 to November 2023. In total, the number of obstetricians practicing in the state -- with a population of approximately 960,000 women -- dropped from 268 to 210 during that period.

 

The report also noted that two hospital obstetric programs closed during this period, while two other programs are struggling to remain open due to problems recruiting obstetricians, including one that is expected to close on April 1.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/108885

 

[EVENKEEL]

Fascinating...

[Skipalongcassidy]

So 58 doctors stopped murdering in Idaho and decided to go elsewhere for the money... One was heard mumbling "f the Hippocratic oath"

[sirineou]

Make America Great, one state at the time 

MAGAMORONS 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So 58 doctors stopped murdering in Idaho and decided to go elsewhere for the money... One was heard mumbling "f the Hippocratic oath"

The state of Idaho is in the beginning stages of a grand exodus. Doctors – specifically, those who care for pregnant women and perform abortions – are fleeing the state due to new abortion restrictions.

Doctors like Lauren Miller, who has been treating women and performing abortions in Boise for the last five years. Her greatest fear? “Being tried as a felon simply for saving someone’s life,” she told CNN.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/13/us/idaho-abortion-doctors-drain/index.html

 

Idaho's restrictive abortion laws are fueling an exodus of OB/GYNs, with more than half of those who specialize in high-risk pregnancies expected to leave the state by the end of the year. 

Doctors CBS News spoke with said treating non-viable pregnancies, in which the fetus is not expected to survive, puts them and their patients in what they call an impossible position.

Dr. Anne Feighner, an OB/GYN in Boise, said she felt sad and frustrated upon hearing what one of her patients went through: delivering a baby in a hotel bathroom after traveling out of state for an abortion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-near-total-abortion-ban-driving-doctors-out-of-the-state/

[Skipalongcassidy]

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The state of Idaho is in the beginning stages of a grand exodus.    

Hardly a grand exodus, but go with that!

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Hardly a grand exodus, but go with that!

It's early days and already 22% of obgyns have left the state. And what makes that worse is that Idaho is one of the fastest growing states in the US.

 

Idaho was second-fastest growing state in the U.S. in 2022

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/01/04/idaho-was-second-fastest-growing-state-in-the-u-s-in-2022/

 

And did you notice this?  The boldface is mine: Idaho's restrictive abortion laws are fueling an exodus of OB/GYNs, with more than half of those who specialize in high-risk pregnancies expected to leave the state by the end of the year. 

[Skipalongcassidy]

If Idaho citizens choose to not condone murder then the OBGYNs who do the murdering should be free to move... oh wait they are and good riddance.  The remaining OBGYNs will adapt and quality medical treatment will prevail.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

If Idaho citizens choose to not condone murder then the OBGYNs who do the murdering should be free to move... oh wait they are and good riddance.  The remaining OBGYNs will adapt and quality medical treatment will prevail.

"The remaining OBGYNs will adapt and quality medical treatment will prevail."

Because they were underworked and had plenty of time to spare? 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So 58 doctors stopped murdering in Idaho and decided to go elsewhere for the money... One was heard mumbling "f the Hippocratic oath"

How many children have you given birth to?  What is the experience that you base your comment on?

[bamnutsak]

I think the usual ignoramuses here don't know what an Obstetrician does.

 

 

[Skipalongcassidy]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

How many children have you given birth to?   

What has that got to do with it... I don't understand the question... if you mean me as a man giving birth is not possible no matter what the liberal left thinks... if you mean as a father of children the number is not relevant.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

What has that got to do with it... I don't understand the question... if you mean me as a man giving birth is not possible no matter what the liberal left thinks... if you mean as a father of children the number is not relevant.

I think his point was pretty clear. Some pregnancies are dangerous to a woman's health. Laws like the one in Idaho make it unclear when a physician can intervene to save a woman from the consequences of such a pregnancy. In effect, it means that a physician risks imprisonment if the state decides she has broken the law. In fact, women are already being endangered by such laws. If you were a woman with a problematic pregnancy, would you rather be in a living in a state where such laws make the government's judgement paramount?

[KhunLA]

23 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

If Idaho citizens choose to not condone murder then the OBGYNs who do the murdering should be free to move... oh wait they are and good riddance.  The remaining OBGYNs will adapt and quality medical treatment will prevail.

It's not that simple.   As if the docs (especially OBYGNs) didn't have enough to worry about being sued in civil court for a decision they make in a high risk surgery, so now they need to worry if it will carry a criminal offense of manslaughter or worse.

 

It's not about performing abortion of convenience, already banned since 2022, (appeal pending).

Do try to keep up ... 

 

From above ... link:

"About 62% of ob-gyns and 59.3% of general surgeons had been sued in their careers to date, compared to 7% allergists/immunologists and 8% of hematologists/oncologists who are at lowest risk. Even before age 55, 43.9% of general surgeons and 47.2% of ob-gyns had already been sued."

Edited February 26 by KhunLA

[Skipalongcassidy]

On 2/26/2024 at 8:49 AM, KhunLA said:

 

It's not about performing abortion of convenience, already banned since 2022, (appeal pending).

 

 

Source please... I cannot find evidence to this statement. 

...

Yes... ever since the liberals awarded grandma a million dollars for spilling her coffee in her lap the courts have been out of control... fix that problem... 

Edited March 8 by stats
unsourced quotations removed

[placeholder]

On 2/26/2024 at 9:58 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

 

Yes... ever since the liberals awarded grandma a million dollars for spilling her coffee in her lap the courts have been out of control... fix that problem... 

 

To use your own words:

"Source please... I cannot find evidence to this statement."

And where did you get the million dollar figure from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

You comment is just another instance of Pavlovian thinking.

[KhunLA]

On 2/26/2024 at 9:58 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

Source please... I cannot find evidence to this statement. 

...

Yes... ever since the liberals awarded grandma a million dollars for spilling her coffee in her lap the courts have been out of control... fix that problem... 

 

click on link already provide, usually works for my sources 

 

As pointed out, you lack a source for you 'awarded millions' as that was adjusted on appeal.   Do you need a source, see above 

[placeholder]

On 2/26/2024 at 9:58 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

Yes... ever since the liberals awarded grandma a million dollars for spilling her coffee in her lap the courts have been out of control... fix that problem... 

 

I don't know where you got that info from or why you think it's applicable. This issue is Idaho's abortion law. And here are the facts about it:

 

 Its "Defense of Life Act" would would make it a crime for "every person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion," even when the woman's health is greatly endangered. Under the Idaho law, the only exception to the abortion ban is when an abortion is "necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman."

 

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/05/1216284896/supreme-court-allows-idaho-abortion-ban-to-be-enacted-first-such-ruling-since-do

 

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

What has that got to do with it... I don't understand the question... if you mean me as a man giving birth is not possible no matter what the liberal left thinks... if you mean as a father of children the number is not relevant.

My point is that no man understands this issue like women do.  They have far more at stake, they bear the burden for the pregnancy and birth, they usually bear the majority of the burden for raising the children, and their appreciation for the sanctity of life is at the very least as great and well informed as that of men.

 

I would like to see men get out of this debate entirely and leave the matter to women.  They are clearly better qualified to make these decisions than men are.

 

Would this lead to more or fewer abortions?  I don't know.  But I'm confident that it would lead to more intelligent regulation of the practice.

 

In summary:  Guys, let's back out of this one and let the women handle it.  They'll do a much better job than we can.

[Skipalongcassidy]

On 2/26/2024 at 10:05 AM, placeholder said:

To use your own words:

"Source please... I cannot find evidence to this statement."

And where did you get the million dollar figure from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

You comment is just another instance of Pavlovian thinking.

 

"They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000[3] in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,300,000 in 2022) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.[4]"

 

AND we do not know what the final amount was... but I bet it was over a million...

[Skipalongcassidy]

On 2/26/2024 at 10:07 AM, KhunLA said:

click on link already provide, usually works for my sources 

 

As pointed out, you lack a source for you 'awarded millions' as that was adjusted on appeal.   Do you need a source, see above 

 

"it's not about performing abortion of convenience"

 

As pointed out... 

"They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000[3] in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,300,000 in 2022) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.[4]"

 

AND we do not know what the final amount was... but I bet it was over a million...

Edited March 8 by stats
unsourced quote removed

[Skipalongcassidy]

On 2/26/2024 at 3:30 PM, heybruce said:

My point is that no man understands this issue like women do.  They have far more at stake, they bear the burden for the pregnancy and birth, they usually bear the majority of the burden for raising the children, and their appreciation for the sanctity of life is at the very least as great and well informed as that of men.

 

I would like to see men get out of this debate entirely and leave the matter to women.  They are clearly better qualified to make these decisions than men are.

 

Would this lead to more or fewer abortions?  I don't know.  But I'm confident that it would lead to more intelligent regulation of the practice.

 

In summary:  Guys, let's back out of this one and let the women handle it.  They'll do a much better job than we can.

 

Did you really just say that... what a totally narrow point of view in so many ways...

[placeholder]

On 2/27/2024 at 5:21 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

"it's not about performing abortion of convenience" 

 

As pointed out... 

"They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000[3] in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,300,000 in 2022) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.[4]"

AND we do not know what the final amount was... but I bet it was over a million...

 

You bet it was over a million? That's how you support your claim?  How about if the amount got reduced? Keep in mind that both sides were appealing the ruling. This is just laughable.

 

And you're conveniently forgetting that you blamed the verdict on liberals. Where's your proof of that?

[placeholder]

On 2/27/2024 at 5:21 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

"it's not about performing abortion of convenience" 

 

 

You're the one who claimed that the remaining ob-gyn specialists in Idaho would somehow manage to shoulder the additional workload without any additional risk to their patients. Magical thinking much? You've got nothing.

[heybruce]

On 2/27/2024 at 6:07 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

Did you really just say that... what a totally narrow point of view in so many ways...

 

Did you really just argue that men are better qualified to decide the abortion issue than women? 

 

What did I post that is wrong?  What is narrow about stating the obvious; women understand the issue better, have more at stake, are intellectually and morally at least as qualified as men on deciding the issue, and should take the lead on this issue?

[Skipalongcassidy]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

Did you really just argue that men are better qualified to decide the abortion issue than women?   

 

That's not what I said nor is it merited... it takes two to make the baby and it affects both of those lives... it's a joint venture to be sorted by both.

[placeholder]

On 2/28/2024 at 6:38 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

That's not what I said nor is it merited... it takes two to make the baby and it affects both of those lives... it's a joint venture to be sorted by both.

 

Actually, it would take a caveman to insist that a man would have the final say rather than the woman. You know, the person who's actually pregnant. It's obvious that a woman should have the final say in the matter. Or are claiming that somehow the issue of a split decision would never arise?  Or is this a case of you offering more magical thinking, as you did when you claimed that there would be no consequences to women's health in Idaho despite a large exodus of specialist ob-gyns?

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

That's not what I said nor is it merited... it takes two to make the baby and it affects both of those lives... it's a joint venture to be sorted by both.

It takes two to get the process started, but after that the serious work and sacrifice falls on the woman.  The man can walk away from the woman, the woman can't walk away from her womb.  Were you aware of that?

[Skipalongcassidy]

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

It takes two to get the process started, but after that the serious work and sacrifice falls on the woman.  The man can walk away from the woman, the woman can't walk away from her womb.  Were you aware of that?

You might be a "walk away"... I am not

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You might be a "walk away"... I am not

So, since you've got no sensible answer, you try to make it personal instead. You've got nothing.