Or calling themselves “Christian” while spreading more hate than any other group on earth.

This is an OB/GYN in a different state reviewing the cases at a medical level. You can be 100% sure she knows why they are occurring :

For Huntsberger, the OB-GYN, EMTALA was one of the few ways she felt protected to treat pregnant patients in Idaho, despite the state’s abortion ban. She left Idaho last year to practice in Oregon because of the ban.

What she is saying that it is absolutely shocking that these woman, in deep medical need, were turned away because of cruel and pandering state laws.

Shes making it clear that medically, these hospitals broke their hippocratic oath in order to comply with these heartless state laws while also violating federal law that requires them to provide medical care to those in need.

Corollary: Those preventing history from being taught intend to repeat it.

It is definitely not inconceivable. It is exceptionally conceivable. It is predictable as you said. If you outlaw proper maternal care, proper maternal care will not be given.

As a friend of mine always says, the cruelty is the point.

Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them. Medical facilities must comply with the law if they accept Medicare funding. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday that could weaken those protections.

Let's see how long that lasts.

Plus, the effect and point of many of these laws is to create massive liability to make pregnant patients untouchables. Running an OBGYN dept is becoming an unacceptable legal risk.

All is working as intended to harm women.

The problem is, they're already in a position where they can get charged if they do treat these women, and end up having to do something the anti-abortion assholes don't approve of.

Charging them for not treating the women puts them in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation where the only logical course of action is to shut down the hospital and leave the state.

Those charges sure are an improvement over murder in the event the actions of you or your staff could be interpreted as an abortion.

I have no love for hospital administration or their treatment of employees and patients, but it's an disturbing position with few good answers.

Hospital administration? How about we sue every backwards asshole who supports this unholy philosophy and make them pay for their consequences in real dollars an cents. We'll see how closely held their values truly are pretty quickly.

Huh. Those were the exact words that popped in my head while reading the article.

Because Texas wombs are controlled by men.

Every life* is precious.

*Not including the lives of pregnant women.

Lysistrata's solution only works if everyone agrees. Sadly, there are a lot of conservative women.

Conservatives often breed like cockroaches. They take pride in how many children they produce, impoverished or not. And too often, neglecting their children is just seen as a way to "toughen 'em up".

Source: Am from the conservative south.

They are threatened to be held responsible and imprisoned for helping a woman abort

If they accept the patient, and the patient needs an emergency abortion, then they could face legal consequences for providing one, or face losing their license for denying critical care.

Either way, if such a circumstance happens, the doctor is completely fucked, and they'd rather keep their job, and help other people.

There's confusion about what is and isn't allowed, which isn't helping. Doctors don't know what they could be sued for. Its in their best interest to not see patients like this. Doctors need protections at least, but governments have specifically taken steps to make them liable, and this confusion and refusal is part of the plan to make abortions this scary thing.

Because the state rules often aren't clear on what Drs can/cannot do, so they're scared of being arrested and charged.

because if they fuck up at all, which happens, or something unforseen happens (which, yeah), they're liable. legally.

It's a major issue with laws when they intermingle with medical practice. Laws are kind of like bad computer code. It is written with an intention but that intention is only as good as how good your technical ability to write the code is which also hinges on understanding what all the potentially the factors at play are. Particularly when your law has particularly harsh penalties for misconduct.

Human bodies are complicated and a lot of law regarding operates in the space of "potential". In a court of law in things like self defense cases where you have to defend your actions from persecution by the code have to prove you had no other "potential" avenues to take because if it can be proven you had other choices or there is a chance however small that you overreacted and things theoretically could have turned out fine the law swoops in and leaves you open to prosecution.

But medical stuff is complicated and nuanced in ways the law is not. Law is a rigid computer code. If you have a situation leaves an opening in the law for "cases that are life threatening." and someone does the thing they then leave themselves open to the potential of having to prove that every single other option was exhausted. If someone is stable and not in immediate distress... Even though you know they will be later given predictable odds it becomes a nightmare of leaving more doubt so one tactic is to just wait until things are life threatening... But the problem with life threatening cases is they hold extra damages and risks. If your life is in danger your organs are failing. There is no question the house is burning down when the flames burst through the windows but if you wanted to mitigate the damages putting it out when the candle first tipped over has the best long term results ...

Say a law stipulates that it's only permissible to help in the event the house is "burning down". This means you have to agree in a court room that your definition of "burning down" is in fact a reasonable interpretation of that specific language. One tactic to be safe is you wait until nobody can argue the state of the house. Would you say a little spot of your carpet being on fire is the house "burning down"? It's not good sure but isn't that hyperbole? What constitutes "burning down" anyway? So your carpet burning isn't the house burning down and there's no provision for the the drapes and furniture, or an oil or oven fire... Those are all not causing damage directly to the structure of the house so the house isn't even burning much less "down"... But if you wait the house will catch fire... But is it "burning down"? It's when the structure of your house is in danger of collapsing right? Down still implies a fire where the house is pretty advanced and there isn't much left afterwards right? At what point is the house actually "burning down"? When the structure catches probably isn't burning "down" is it when 25% of the structure ia compromised? If you put out the fire then the house wouldn't be "down" would it? Still a lot of house that is in fact "up". Well 50% is probably a good call right? Oh but then it's only " in imminent danger of burning down" not actively "burning down" ...

Laws like anti abortion laws tend to be created to be big and showy and easy for lay people to read because they are essentially political showboating. Every place with a total abortion ban has shown to be terrible for women's healthcare in exactly this way and none of this outcome was a surprise to the people fighting to keep abortion legal.