>>> So this bill could make it much harder for women with ectopic pregnancies to get the abortions they need.
>
>I wouldn't call what they need an abortion, and I find it *very* hard to believe that it's difficult to get treatment for ectopic pregnancy at any tertiary center in the USA, especially if the mother's health already is in peril. If the law is an ass about it, IME physicians, nurses et al will make a stand for the good of the community.
>
>As for fetal death- sheesh, acceptance is close to 100% among every physician group and religion AFAIK that you take care of the mother and end the risk. Pennsylvania must be a weird place. ;-)

JR, I hate to start sentences with "my understanding", so take this for what it is worth - but my understanding is that in some religious hospitals, women get substandard care because of facility objections to methotrexate on spiritual grounds. This can mean alterations in therapy, transferring women to other facilities, etc. At the end of the day, it can mean exposing women to unnecessary risks. There's one study by a women's health journal back in 2011 that 3 of 16 Catholic health facilities supposedly refused to offer methotrexate.

You mention "PA must be a weird place" - it's not just PA. As much as I am disagreeing with her (especially these days), I generally agree with Tamar on this issue. I follow these ridiculous "heartbeat/personhood" bills across the nation pretty closely and I think the concern from women's group has some merit. In some states, the legal definition does not cover ectopic pregnancies, leaving enough room for general concern on what is going to be interpreted later as "unlawful".