Abortion-rights advocates aren't reassured at all that there's an exception to the state's ban on abortions if it's to save the life of a mother.
"I don't want doctors to be making decisions based on ambiguous legal definitions. So that's why I wanted to tell this story," said Chris G., who shared the story of her abortion with TMJ4 News.
With Roe V. Wade now overturned, a 1849 Wisconsin law banning almost all abortions will take effect. Doctors are able to perform one, however, if it's determined that would save the mother's life.
But it's unclear what conditions would permit a lifesaving abortion. The exception requires two physicians to confer and make a decision.
Chris G., 20 years ago, was 18 weeks into a planned pregnancy.
"I was excited. It was going to be a sibling for my child," said said.
But unexpectedly, her water broke. Doctors told her an infection would set it. They an advised an abortion to save her life. She wrestled with the decision.
"I could see the medical team around me getting increasingly anxious," she said. "Like this is not a hard choice – death or … but it was hard."
Her husband brought her 18-month-old to the hospital.
"And I was like this kid is not going to have a mom. I can't just hope this will go away. I have to make a decision. So I decided to terminate the pregnancy," said Chris G.
Back then, even with the backing of Roe, Chris had to wait 24 hours after she made her decision.
"We were making decisions based on the law and not based on what was best for me and my family," she said.
With Roe, Chris said, that's even more true due to the state's vague protocol for lifesaving abortions.
She said she still thinks about the son she lost. She had planned that pregnancy, she said, but not her abortion.
"Start normalizing the discussion and the word abortion as healthcare, instead of this thing like, I'll never do that. Well, you don't know that. You don't know," she said.
