A pregnant teenager in Texas died after seeking emergency care three times,

Highlighting the tragic consequences of restricted abortion laws and their effects on medical treatment for pregnant patients. Nevaeh Crain, an 18-year-old, suffered from severe pain and alarming symptoms, yet her condition was repeatedly dismissed as non-critical. Her death raises questions about how Texas’ strict abortion laws impact medical decision-making in emergencies.


On October 29, 2023, Candace Fails pleaded for help as her daughter, Nevaeh Crain, struggled to walk, feverish and bleeding. Crain had visited two hospitals in the prior 12 hours, but each time was sent home, her condition worsening with each discharge.

At the first hospital, Crain was diagnosed with strep throat, though no investigations were made into her severe abdominal cramps. At the second, she tested positive for sepsis, a potentially fatal reaction to infection. Despite the grave diagnosis, doctors noted that Crain’s six-month fetus had a heartbeat, deeming her safe to leave. On her third visit, she was moved to intensive care, but after hours of delayed treatment, her organs failed, and she died.

Doctors and legal experts attribute such tragic cases to Texas’ stringent abortion laws. The state’s bans prohibit medical interventions that could end a fetal heartbeat, even when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s health. These restrictions, according to doctors interviewed by ProPublica, have led to confusion and reluctance among healthcare providers, who worry about legal repercussions.

“Pregnant women have become essentially untouchables,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law professor at George Washington University. Texas law threatens doctors with severe penalties, including up to 99 years in prison, for performing procedures perceived as abortions without clear and extensive documentation. This fear, doctors say, often results in patients being transferred repeatedly, or, in Crain’s case, discharged without thorough treatment.

The U.S. federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires hospitals to stabilize patients in critical condition. The Biden administration has emphasized that EMTALA applies to pregnant women needing emergency abortions. However, Texas, led by Attorney General Ken Paxton, claims that state abortion bans supersede this federal mandate, arguing that EMTALA does not extend to all medical emergencies involving pregnancy complications. The ongoing legal dispute has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently declined to clarify EMTALA’s application in abortion-related cases, leaving Texas’ restrictive stance in place.

Crain’s medical records show that her symptoms—high fever, pain, and bleeding—warranted close monitoring and continuous care, according to multiple maternal-fetal medicine specialists consulted by ProPublica. One doctor noted that sending her home despite her signs of sepsis was akin to “pushing her down the path of no return.” A subsequent ultrasound confirmed the loss of Crain’s fetus, but rather than proceeding with urgent treatment, the hospital delayed her care until her blood pressure plummeted and her organs began failing.

In Texas, this tragedy is not unique. ProPublica found that at least two women have died in Texas under similar circumstances where delayed miscarriage treatment proved fatal. Hospitals, in some cases, refuse immediate intervention for fear of breaching Texas’ stringent abortion restrictions, often resulting in fatal delays.

Fails, devastated by her daughter’s death, is unable to pursue a lawsuit due to Texas’ “willful and wanton negligence” standard required for emergency room cases. Despite clear signs of medical neglect, this high burden of proof bars many families from seeking justice.The heartbreaking story of Nevaeh Crain sheds light on the repercussions of restrictive abortion laws that complicate urgent medical decisions.

As doctors grapple with legal uncertainty, pregnant patients like Crain face life-threatening delays. Texas’ stance on abortion, currently unmatched in severity, challenges federal protections intended to ensure timely care for critically ill pregnant patients. For Fails and others, the pressing question remains: when will women’s health stop being a casualty of politics?

This tragic case underscores the urgent need to reassess laws affecting maternal healthcare. Without clear legal safeguards for healthcare providers, the fate of many women continues to hang in the balance, dependent on a healthcare system struggling to balance medical ethics and state-imposed restrictions.