Amid Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, Michigan Sen. Gary Peters shared details of an abortion experience he faced with his wife.
Peters and his wife Heidi became pregnant in the 1980s with their second child, a baby they both wanted. However, Heidi’s water broke four months into the pregnancy, leaving their child without amniotic fluid. Doctors advised her to wait for a natural miscarriage, but her life was potentially put at risk after it did not occur for several days.
“It’s a story of how gut-wrenching and complicated decisions can be related to reproductive health, a situation I went through with my first wife,” Peters said in an interview with Elle.
Heidi’s health worsened over the days, and doctors warned that she could lose her uterus if she did not undergo an abortion. Should she become septic from an infection in her uterus, she could die. The hospital the two initially visited declined their request for an abortion that would potentially save her life. However, they quickly found another hospital willing to perform an abortion because they were friends with the hospital’s chief administrator.
“I still vividly remember he left a message on the answering machine saying, ‘They refused to give me permission, not based on good medical practice, simply based on politics,'” Peters said, recalling a voicemail from a doctor in a hospital that denied his wife an abortion. “I recommend you immediately find another physician who can do this procedure quickly.’”
In a statement, Heidi Peters described the situation as “painful and traumatic.”
“If it weren’t for urgent and critical medical care, I could have lost my life,” she said.
Peters said he felt compelled to tell his wife’s abortion story because he fears how Barrett, President Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, may rule with regard to Roe v. Wade, a 1973 Supreme Court decision that created a constitutional right to abortion.
“It’s important for folks who are willing to tell these stories to tell them, especially now,” Peters said. “The new Supreme Court nominee could make a decision that will have major ramifications for reproductive health for women for decades to come. This is a pivotal moment for reproductive freedom.”
It’s not known how Barrett would rule on a case pertaining to Roe v. Wade, but should the decision be overruled, abortion would not be banned in all areas. It would be a matter of policy relegated to the states to regulate.
