It's worth noting that while this account has been reported by several outlets, including The Guardian and Newsweek, it appears The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) was the original source, describing the article as an “exclusive.” In their account of the story, WSJ acknowledges that Rep. Kat Cammack “declined to name the hospital where she received care.” While we can presume the WSJ conducted some verification of her story, the article does not include hospital records or statements from the treating physicians. As a result, details such as the timing of care, the clinicians’ intentions, and their reasons for delaying treatment remain unconfirmed and could differ from Cammack’s account.
That said, it is true that several months later, in September, Florida regulators issued guidance clarifying abortion exceptions. The notice referenced “misinformation being shared” but did not specify its origin.
Importantly, abortion-rights groups and legal experts have attributed provider uncertainty not to misinformation campaigns by advocacy groups, but to the vague language and strict penalties in Florida’s abortion law, particularly prior to that September clarification, when Cammack’s care reportedly took place. In the same WSJ article, Molly Duane, a senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, explains that “[at the time] the law doesn’t define ectopic pregnancy, and it isn’t always easy for doctors to tell where an embryo has implanted.”
Additionally, a 2024 report from Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), based on interviews with 25 healthcare clinicians in Florida, supports this view. It concluded:
“Clinicians described how the unworkability of the ban’s narrow exceptions and the severe chilling effect on abortion provision caused by the sweeping criminalization of abortion from a very early stage of pregnancy [were impacting care].”
Substantiating this is an example from one obstetrician-gynecologist who reported that "...her hospital still required them to have a two-doctor signoff for PPROM to protect them in case the state decided to prosecute, even though PPROM should not count as abortion provision under the AHCA emergency rule." This evidence suggests that any hesitation by Cammack's medical team was more likely driven by legal ambiguity and fear of criminal penalties, rather than pressure from pro-choice groups, as Cammack has implied. The PHR report makes no mention of propaganda or fearmongering—on either side—affecting clinical decision-making.
Without firsthand statements from the physicians involved, it is impossible to determine the precise cause of any delay in Cammack’s care. However, I couldn't find solid indication that pro-choice rhetoric or fearmongering was a primary cause.
