Amber Nicole Thurman, a 28-year-old medical assistant from suburban Atlanta, experienced a severe infection in her final hours. This infection was treatable with the resources available at Piedmont Henry Hospital. Thurman had taken abortion pills but faced a rare complication: not all fetal tissue had been expelled from her body. Needing a routine dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure to remove it, she sought help at the hospital.
However, Georgia had recently implemented a law making the D&C procedure a felony in most cases, putting doctors at risk of prosecution and a decade-long prison sentence. As Thurman’s condition deteriorated, her organs began to fail, yet it took the doctors 20 hours to perform the necessary surgery—by which time it was too late. An official state committee determined that her death was preventable and attributed it to the hospital’s delay in performing the critical procedure.
ProPublica has obtained reports indicating that at least two women have died in similar circumstances due to the inaccessibility of timely medical care and legal abortions. Experts review pregnancy-related deaths to improve maternal health but often face delays in examining these cases due to operational lags.
Thurman’s death marks the first publicly recognized abortion-related death deemed “preventable.” Doctors had warned legislators that making life-saving procedures illegal would result in fatalities. Although the state law includes language for exceptions to protect the mother’s life, medical experts argue that the language is vague and ignores the urgent realities of medical practice.
Doctors, including Dr. Melissa Kottke, have expressed concerns that restrictive laws force them to delay necessary treatments, waiting until patients are in extreme danger to justify interventions. Despite the availability of D&Cs following the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which significantly reduced maternal mortality, the recent bans in 22 states have pushed women into perilous situations. Doctors are often left to interpret unclear legal language under the looming threat of prosecution, which complicates providing timely care.
In Georgia, the maternal mortality committee, consisting of 32 diverse experts, highlighted the absence of specific hospital policies to manage septic abortions. After examining Thurman’s case, the committee emphasized the need for clear procedures to handle such emergencies.
At present, the reasoning behind the delay in Thurman’s care remains unclear. Piedmont Henry Hospital did not have a policy guiding doctors on handling cases like Thurman’s under the new law. In response, the hospital has since developed educational policies for staff. However, interpreting the law remains a challenge for many doctors working under the threat of legal repercussions.
Thurman’s family, unaware of her pregnancy until the hospital informed them, continues to grapple with her loss. Despite their pain, they focus on supporting her son, who grows up without his mother. As her loved ones mourn what would have been her 31st birthday, they seek closure and transparency regarding the medical care she received in her final hours.
ProPublica reporter Kavitha Surana investigated Thurman’s death by reviewing death records and consulting with experts. Surana’s findings underscore the severe implications of restrictive abortion laws on women’s health, which will undoubtedly continue to influence public debate and policy decisions.
