Texas banned abortions - and then sepsis rates started to soar
ProPublica analyzed seven years of Texas hospitals' discharge data — from 2017 through 2023 — and found that since 2021, when the southern state's initial abortion ban went into effect, the rate of sepsis surged by more than 50 percent for women hospitalized when they experienced miscarriages in the second trimester.
Sepsis is a medical emergency that occurs when a patient's body improperly reacts to an infection. It can lead to organ failure or death if not treated quickly enough.
In September 2021, the state banned most abortions after a fetal heartbeat was detected. Then, in August 2022 following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade, Texas's 'trigger law' took effect, criminalizing abortion. Doctors who perform abortions could face life in prison and fines of up to $100,000. Now, abortions are banned in all cases except if the mother's health or life is at risk — a definition that the state's supreme court has refused to clarify.
The rate of sepsis among patients experiencing second-trimester pregnancy loss remained pretty steady until the state added criminal penalties for abortion providers, the analysis shows.
In 2021, before they were introduced, 67 patients who miscarried in the second trimester were diagnosed with sepsis but after, in 2022, that figure increased to 90. That number increased again to 99 in 2023.
ProPublica believe those figures could be 'conservative.'
Treating miscarriages has also become complicated as a result of these laws. Medical professionals are constrained by either having to wait for the mother's life to be in jeopardy or having to wait for the fetus' heart to stop beating.
For example, three days after the fetal heartbeat law took effect, on September 3, 2021, Josseli Barnica went to a Houston hospital at 17 weeks pregnant to discover she was battling a deadly infection as a result of a miscarriage. But doctors were restricted in how they could treat her, since her fetus still had a heartbeat. After 40 hours in pain from the infection, Barnica delivered the fetus after there was no longer a detectable heartbeat. Three days after being treated and discharged, she died from sepsis. Medical experts who reviewed her case told ProPublica that they believed her death was 'preventable.'
Another patient cited in the study, Nevaeh Crain, died after doctors waited for her fetus' heart to stop beating as her organs failed. Before rushing the teenager to the operating theter, they conducted another test to confirm her fetus had expired, the outlet reported.
The data also underscores the confusion around miscarriage treatment. The rate of sepsis was less severe for pregnant patients who were admitted to the hospital without a fetal heartbeat. The rate moved from 2.1 percent in 2017 to 3.1 percent in 2023 for those admitted with fetal death, and from 3.7 percent to 6.9 percent for those without fetal death.
'What this says to me is that once a fetal death is diagnosed, doctors can appropriately take care of someone to prevent sepsis, but if the fetus still has a heartbeat, then they aren't able to act and the risk for maternal sepsis goes way up,' Dr. Kristina Adams Waldorf, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UW Medicine, told the outlet. 'This is needlessly putting a woman's life in danger.'
Other indicators suggest pregnancy in Texas has become more dangerous. Since 2021, dozens more pregnant and postpartum women have died in Texas hospitals than had before the Covid-19 pandemic — despite a drop in maternal mortality rates at a national level in the same period.
There were 79 maternal hospital deaths in 2018 and 2019 compared to 2022 and 2023 when there were 120. Despite this alarming uptick, the Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee opted not to review pregnancy-related deaths in 2022 and 2023.
'The fact that Texas is not reviewing those years does a disservice to the 120 individuals you identified who died inpatient and were pregnant,' said Dr. Jonas Swartz, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University. 'And that is an underestimation of the number of people who died.'
The laws in place appear to be interfering with patient care, one doctor suggested.
'We have the ability to intervene before these patients get sick,' Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, told the outlet. 'This is evidence that we aren't doing that.'
Even though the Texas Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit asking for clarification over who qualifies for an abortion in the state, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called on the state legislature to clear up the language of the law. 'I do think we need to clarify any language so that doctors are not in fear of being penalized if they think the life of the mother is at risk,' he said last month.
Gov. Greg Abbott, however, doesn't seem to be convinced that any clarification is necessary. 'There have been hundreds of abortions that have been provided under this law, so there are plenty of doctors and plenty of mothers that have been able to get an abortion that saved their lives and protect their health and safety,' he told the Houston Chronicle this week before ProPublica's report was released. 'So I know as the law as it currently exists can work if it is properly applied.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
9 hours ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Allow N.I.H. to Cut D.E.I.-Related Grants
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to allow the National Institutes of Health to cancel millions of dollars in grants linked to diversity initiatives. In the emergency application, lawyers for the Trump administration asked the justices to block a ruling by a federal judge in Boston. In June, Judge William G. Young of the Federal District Court of Massachusetts had declared some of the administration's cuts to the N.I.H. 'void and illegal.' Judge Young, a Reagan appointee with 40 years of experience as a federal judge, had accused the Trump administration of prejudice against L.G.B.T.Q. people and of racial discrimination in targeting hundreds of grants that supported research into topics such as gender identity and equity in health care. The judge said that during his career, he had 'never seen government racial discrimination like this.' In March, the Trump administration began to cut N.I.H. grants that focused on research on health equity, racial disparities, vaccine hesitancy and maternal health in minority communities, sometimes by scanning for certain terms. A coalition of Democratic-led states, researchers and unions, led by the American Public Health Association, had brought legal challenges to stop a raft of cuts at the N.I.H., arguing that they endangered scientific progress. The justices have not called for a response from the groups challenging the Trump administration cuts.


The Hill
11 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow NIH to cancel health grants
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow it to continue moving forward with canceling National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants over their connections to diversity initiatives. The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the court for an emergency stay that would stop Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young's ruling last month, which halted the cancellation and forced the government to reinstate several of the grants. The case centered on a legal challenge by researchers, unions and a coalition of 16 Democratic-led states. They sued the administration after the NIH terminated grants supporting research on topics like health equity, racial disparities, vaccine hesitancy and maternal health in minority communities. The abrupt cancellations were part of the administration's quest to slash spending and end federal support for initiatives Trump officials considered to be promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). 'The district court's order directs the NIH to continue paying $783 million in federal grants that are undisputedly counter to the Administration's priorities,' DOJ wrote in the filing. 'Following the change in Administration, the NIH identified, explained, and pursued new funding priorities. That is democracy at work, not, as the district court thought, proof of inappropriate 'partisan[ship]'—let alone a permissible basis for setting agency action aside,' the filing stated. The Trump administration has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to step in when its policies have been blocked by lower courts. Thursday's filing was the administration's 21st emergency application since taking office, and the White House has found success in nearly every single instance.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration appeals to Supreme Court to allow $783 million research-funding cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow it to cut hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to roll back federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The Justice Department argued a federal judge in Massachusetts was wrong to block the National Institutes of Health from making $783 million worth of cuts to align with President Donald Trump's priorities. U.S. District Judge William Young found that the abrupt cancellations ignored long-held government rules and standards. Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, also said the cuts amounted to 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community.' The ruling came in lawsuits filed by 16 attorneys general, public-health advocacy groups and some affected scientists. His decision addressed only a fraction of the hundreds of NIH research projects that have been cut. The Trump administration's appeal also takes aim at nearly two dozen cases over funding. Solicitor General D. John Sauer pointed to a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court's emergency docket from April that allowed cuts to teacher training programs to go forward. That decisions shows that district judges shouldn't be hearing those cases at all, but rather sending them to federal claims court, he argued. Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data