In early October, Avery Davis Bell faced a devastating reality—she and her husband were about to lose the baby they had longed for. At 34 years old and a qualified geneticist, Bell was hospitalized in Georgia, suffocating under the weight of repeated bleeding episodes. Even though she, along with her medical team, understood what procedures and care were necessary to manage her impending miscarriage and to prevent a potentially life-threatening infection, prompt medical intervention was not an option due to the restrictive abortion laws prevailing in the state.
As Bell’s experience unfolded, the stark implications of Georgia’s stringent laws on abortion care became painfully evident. Had Bell been admitted to a hospital for injuries sustained in a car accident or for an appendicitis, immediate medical action could have been implemented. Had she been experiencing a miscarriage in Boston—the city she called home until 2020—medical professionals would have been able to respond swiftly. However, the scenario drastically changed as she found herself in Georgia, where surgical intervention was unnecessarily delayed.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which revoked the federal right to abortion, further complicated the management of miscarriages, making such situations more precarious and, tragically, more life-threatening. Many miscarriages happen without the need for medical intervention, yet cases that require treatment, like Bell’s, often involve identical medicinal or surgical methods used in abortions. This surgical distinction is critical, especially in a state like Georgia, where abortion is limited to just six weeks into a pregnancy—far too early for Bell’s fetus, which was at 18 weeks gestation, to survive outside the womb.
Despite the dire nature of Bell’s situation, Georgia law mandated a 24-hour waiting period before any abortion procedure could be performed, unless there was a medical emergency. This rule placed her in an untenable position, forcing her to endure the emotional strain of waiting while her health remained in jeopardy.
In the face of such distress, Bell activated her inner crisis mode, determined to navigate through the turmoil. “I was breathing, recording everything that was happening in my mind, and thinking ‘I just need to get through it,’” she recalled. She shared poignant moments with her husband, Julian, especially during this difficult time, guiding him to focus on moving through the crisis rather than dwelling on their grief.
Bell’s frustrations did not fall upon her medical team at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta; instead, she directed her ire toward the oppressive legislation that reverberated through her medical experience. Upon the enforcement of Georgia’s six-week abortion ban, Governor Brian Kemp had assured pregnant women that the state possessed adequate resources to ensure their safety. However, Georgia’s healthcare system has historically troubled with maternal mortality, suggesting a grave disconnect between political assurances and medical reality.
Bell’s ordeal mirrored broader disheartening trends in states enforcing stark abortion restrictions after 2022. For instance, Texas saw its maternal death rate skyrocket by 56% between 2019 and 2022, spotlighting the dangerous consequences these laws have on women’s health. Reports from the centers for Disease Control and Prevention have revealed horrifying incidents, including the death of a pregnant teenager who was unable to secure timely medical care due to restrictive abortion legislation.
Between 2018 and 2020, states with abortion restrictions exhibited maternal death rates twice as fast as those without such limitations, intensifying the racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes. The crisis was particularly grave for women of color, who already faced disproportionately higher maternal mortality rates.
As Bell and her husband transitioned into starting their family, they relished the birth of their son in 2021. However, hope took a darker turn when she discovered she was pregnant again this July. The joy became increasingly marred by complications as her pregnancy progressed, ultimately necessitating medical intervention that was extensively hindered by restrictive policies impacting abortion care.
By early October, after multiple hospital visits and the grim realization that her situation was deteriorating, she was faced with a heartbreaking decision. The necessity for immediate medical attention, delayed by legal constraints, highlighted the absurdity of prioritizing bureaucratic regulations over women’s health and wellbeing.
The emotional turmoil continued for Bell due to Georgia’s mandated waiting periods and paperwork requirements, adding stress to an already fraught situation. The emotional and mental toll from waiting, combined with the reminder of impending loss, left Bell to grapple with the harsh realities of legislation that failed to reflect scientific understanding or the intricate needs of women navigating pregnancy complications.
In the end, Bell’s story serves as a reminder of the critical intersection between healthcare, legislation, and personal experience. Her experience as a scientist did little to mitigate the anguish felt while she waited in distress, ultimately calling for a reevaluation of policies that undermine women’s physical autonomy and healthcare rights. She affirms, “Nobody should have to go through this,” a sentiment reflective of the greater struggles faced by women under restrictive abortion laws and those maneuvering through similar heartbreaking circumstances.