It's ok to treat an ectopic pregnancy, Florida angrily admits in public

Very grumpy Florida medicrats formally identify *three* pregnancy complication treatments that are "not abortion." Must doctors now assume everything else *is* abortion?

What does it sound like when gross politics and delusions of unaccountable dictatorship eat a government bureaucrat’s brain?

Well, this is actual text from a formal “emergency” rule (Section IV in link) adopted this week by Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Note the parts in bold, particularly the snarling, defensive temper tantrum at the end about being forced to actually govern publicly, even just a little:

Effective May 1, 2024, the Heartbeat Protection Act goes into effect, and a physician may not knowingly perform or induce a termination of pregnancy if the physician determines the gestational age of the unborn baby is more than 6 weeks, except under certain circumstances. Prior to this change in the law, abortions have been permitted up to a gestational age of 15 weeks. Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), ectopic pregnancy, and molar pregnancy are medical conditions that can occur when the gestational age of an unborn child is greater than 6 weeks, and can present an immediate danger to the health, safety, and welfare of women and unborn children in hospitals and abortion clinics if immediate and proper care and treatment is not rendered. The Agency finds there is an immediate danger to the health, safety, and welfare of pregnant women and babies due to a deeply dishonest scare campaign and disinformation being perpetuated by the media, the Biden Administration, and advocacy groups to misrepresent the Heartbeat Protection Act and the State’s efforts to protect life, moms, and families. The Agency is initiating rulemaking to safeguard against any immediate harm that could come to pregnant women due to disinformation.

Let me translate that last bit for you: How dare you ask us to clarify and govern our own fake beliefs, babykillers? Don’t you know we’re “pro-life” and we have no responsibility for anything? Let’s go Brandon!

Are PPROM, ectopic pregnancy, and molar pregnancy the *only* conditions for which treatment is “not abortion”? What about Potter Syndrome and everything else?

I did not know about these new emergency rules when I sent my request to the Lakeland City Commission to demand Lakeland Regional Health (LRH) identify with comprehensive precision what miscarriage/pregnancy complications its doctors will treat — and which they won’t.

Here’s my article about that — and the Potter Syndrome Mom that LRH forced to give birth to a dead-fetus-gestating last year, even though Kelli Stargel said LRH misinterpreted her law.

---

Forced birth is local, part 2: Lakeland government owes Lakeland women clear answers on what 6-week forced birth means for them

---

And here’s a key excerpt from that article:

[Florida law] says clearly, if you don’t catch the fatal fetal anomaly before 27 weeks, you’re birthing that dead-fetus-gestating. Moreover, it’s not at all clear that Potter Syndrome, which killed the fetus in question shortly after birth, qualifies legally as a fatal fetal abnormality. That’s why we need a hard, clear list.

With great dudgeon, the grumpy, political state medicrats have now finally provided one clear, small list of conditions that allow for pregnancy termination. It stops at just three, while referring to unnamed “other” conditions. So as a simple list, it reads like this:

• Ectopic pregnancy

• Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes (up to 10 percent of all pregnancies)

• Molar pregnancy

• Other life-threatening conditions. ?? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ??

Potter Syndrome, under which Kelli Stargel claims LRH wrongfully forced Lakeland’s Potter Syndrome Mom to give doomed birth, is not on the state list. So consider this another piece of evidence that Kelli is full of hoooeey when she blames LRH for the Potter Syndrome forced birth.

Now, perhaps one can argue I am conflating two different lists: the “life threatening condition” list and the “fatal fetal anomaly” list.

But the state “fatal fetal anomaly” list does not exist.

So we’re left with only a small list of condition treatents not officially considered “abortion” for prosecution purposes. Potter Syndrome is not on it. So I suspect LRH will force the next Potter Syndrome Mom to give birth, too, out of fear of prosecution.

But I will seek to confirm that through the Lakeland City Commission on Monday.

In the meantime, maybe the angry state medicrats can start the “fatal fetal abnormality” list and release that with the same level of professional political resentment.

For premature membrane rupture treatment, your doctors must do lots of paperwork for the medicrats before they treat you

Also, check out the actual rules themselves. Molar and ectopic pregnancy seem to give a doctor carte blanche to do what’s needed.

But the PPROM procedure is incomprehensible and built to serve medicrats, not the 10 percent of pregnant women who experience premature membrane rupture. Key language here. If you can understand (1) and (2), you’re smarter than I am.

Life Threatening Conditions.

Each hospital shall maintain written policies and procedures governing the maintenance of medical records for the treatment of premature rupture of membranes, ectopic pregnancies, trophoblastic tumors, and other life-threatening conditions. The policies and procedures shall be reviewed at least annually, dated to indicate time of last review, and revised as necessary. At a minimum, the policies and procedures shall address the following:

(1) When a patient receives a diagnosis of premature rupture of membranes, the patient shall be admitted for observation unless the treating physician determines that another course of action is more medically appropriate under the circumstances to ensure the health of the mother and the unborn baby. When the treating physician determines that another course of action is more medically appropriate, the physician shall document the reasons why the alternate course of action is more appropriate.

(2) When a physician attempts to induce the live birth of an unborn baby, regardless of gestational age, to treat the premature rupture of membranes, and the unborn baby does not survive, the incident does not constitute an abortion and shall not be reported pursuant to Rule 59A-9.034. The treating physician shall document the treatment in the patient’s medical record.

(3) The treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion and shall not be reported pursuant to Rule 59A-9.034. The treating physician shall document the treatment in the patient’s medical record.

(4) The treatment of a trophoblastic tumor is not an abortion and shall not be reported pursuant to Rule 59A-9.034. The treating physician shall document the treatment in the patient’s medical record.

So I’m adding two questions to my list for the City Commission to ask LRH.

• Does LRH consider ectopic pregnancy, PPROM, and Molar pregnancy the only life-threatening pregnancy conditions for which an LRH patient can be treated? If not, how does LRH interpret the state’s very short list? Does LRH have a longer list?

• Please publicly release the LRH protocol for addressing the state’s incomprehensible requirements for treating PPROM.

It seems my fact-finding visit to the Commission is well-timed.