ProPublica, an independent nonprofit newsroom, focuses on investigating abuses of power and invites individuals to sign up for their biggest stories as they are published. The article highlights the tragic case of Nevaeh Crain, an 18-year-old who died shortly after being denied prompt medical treatment in Texas due to the state’s stringent abortion laws.
Crain, who was six months pregnant, experienced symptoms of a serious medical condition. Her mother, Candace Fails, begged hospital staff to take action. Despite having visited two emergency rooms (ERs) on three occasions within a 20-hour period for distressing symptoms, she was sent home without adequate care.
On one visit, medical professionals at the first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat but ignored her severe abdominal pain. At the second hospital, although Crain tested positive for sepsis, doctors deemed her stable since her fetus had a heartbeat, and she was discharged. Upon her third hospital visit, a doctor delayed urgent care by ordering additional ultrasounds to confirm fetal demise before admitting her into intensive care. Crain’s condition deteriorated rapidly, and she died shortly after.
Crain is one of at least two Texas women who have died due to complications possibly exacerbated by the state’s abortion restrictions. Questions have risen as to why emergencies like Crain’s are not handled as urgently as required. Experts have suggested that such fear and ambiguity around legal consequences for medical professionals are a consequence of the stringent abortion bans.
The Texas abortion ban imposes prison sentences for terminating a fetal heartbeat, with some exceptions for life-threatening cases. Due to this, doctors may hesitate in their treatment of pregnant patients with complications, leading to cases like Crain’s, where critical interventions were delayed.
Medical experts reviewed Crain’s case and suggested that the early diagnosis of serious conditions, timely hospitalization, and decisive treatment could have stabilized her situation, potentially saving both her life and the pregnancy. Hospitals involved and the doctors who treated Crain have not commented on her treatment or case specifics.
Crain and her family had personal convictions against abortion, leveraging their Christian faith as a guiding principle. However, when faced with a life-threatening situation, Fails believed medical intervention should have prioritized her daughter’s life, reflecting on the law’s impact on healthcare decisions.
The article also details Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s role in reinforcing the state’s anti-abortion stance against federal regulations that advocate for emergency care, even if it contradicts state laws. The legal battle between state law and federal guidelines has influenced hospital practices and in some cases, driven patients to seek care away from their immediate community—a testament to medical practitioners’ reluctance to engage with cases that could legally implicate them under state law.
Fails has sought justice following Crain’s death but encountered legal obstacles regarding claims of negligence, as Texas law sets stringent proof requirements for cases associated with ER treatment. This situation reflects the broader impact of restrictive abortion laws on the availability and delivery of emergency healthcare services in Texas.
