War on Women Report: ICE Lost Count of Detained Women’s Miscarriages; Sexual Assault Still Rampant on College Campuses; Post-Dobbs Ectopic Pregnancy Deaths on the Rise

TomOkay, this is the one I wanted to get into today: War on Women Report: ICE Lost Count of Detained Women’s Miscarriages; Sexual Assault Still Rampant on College Campuses; Post-Dobbs Ectopic Pregnancy Deaths on the Rise. Where do you land on it?

CarolYou’re asking where I land when half of those bullet points are still unverified rumors floating around social media. The ICE miscarriage count thing sounds like a complete fabrication until somebody actually pulls up the internal logs, because agencies don’t usually just hand over live casualty reports for political scoring. And ignoring the college assault stats because they feel depressing misses that those numbers track actual campus behavior changes since last semester.

TomCalling the ICE report a rumor skips the main point, which is that losing track of pregnancies during detention means the system isn't designed to care. Even if the exact number is contested, the lack of basic medical recordkeeping for detained women is a documented failure that has nothing to do with political scoring. Your focus on unverified numbers distracts from the clear gap in how ICE handles health emergencies.

CarolLosing track of a pregnancy isn't proof the system doesn't care, it's proof the data pipeline broke somewhere between intake and discharge. Until you can pinpoint whether that gap is due to understaffing or software issues, calling it a design flaw is just guessing at root causes without looking at the maintenance logs first.

TomA broken pipeline still leaves a woman dead or uninformed while she sits behind bars. Whether it's bad software or too few nurses, the immediate consequence for the person held there is identical, so debating the root cause doesn't change her reality. You're stuck in the technical weeds while the human cost keeps mounting.

CarolYou’re making it sound like I’m sitting in a server room picking at code while people suffer, but knowing if three nurses got reassigned versus a database crash tells us exactly who to hold accountable next week. Without that distinction, we end up blaming a faceless agency instead of fixing the specific staffing or budget line that let it happen.

TomBlaming the agency is precisely why nothing gets fixed, because the money and authority sit right there, not scattered across some obscure IT ticket. You want to chase down which nurse was reassigned, fine, but that investigation takes months while the next miscarriage happens tomorrow. Accountability starts with the entity holding the budget, regardless of whose finger slipped on the keyboard.

CarolHolding the budget holder accountable is easy, but it ignores that most detention facilities contract their nursing staff out to private vendors who answer to a different chain of command entirely. Unless you verify who actually signed the service agreement for that facility, you might be suing the wrong company while the real contractor keeps cutting corners to save money. That’s why chasing the specific vendor matters before anyone files a lawsuit.

TomSuing the wrong company still pays the legal fees while the right one shrugs, but you’re right that the paper trail decides who actually bleeds. The practical move is pulling that service agreement now, not after the next incident forces our hand.

CarolPulling that contract assumes the paperwork even exists in a format we can read, because many of these facilities run on legacy systems that predate digital archiving mandates. We need to confirm the jurisdictional rules governing that specific facility’s records retention before assuming a simple document request will yield anything usable.

TomLegacy systems are just another word for "we didn't bother updating it," and that neglect is what put those women in danger in the first place. Chasing down a missing paper file is a bureaucratic maze that lets the actual failures slide, while the next pregnant detainee waits for help that never comes. You're getting lost in the archive when you should be demanding answers from the people running the facility today.

CarolDemanding answers from people who have no record of what happened guarantees they’ll tell you whatever sounds plausible in the moment. If the file is gone, the facility can deny the negligence outright because there’s no timestamp proving the delay occurred. We need the absence of the record itself documented as evidence of institutional failure, not just assumed away in a shouting match.

TomDocumenting the missing file is fair, but you can’t build a case around a hole in the wall while the woman bleeding inside that building has nowhere to turn for help. The absence proves the system failed, sure, but it doesn’t stop the next miscarriage from happening tonight.

CarolYou keep framing this as a rescue operation where speed beats procedure, but emergency care protocols exist precisely because reacting without data kills people twice. The immediate fix isn't ignoring the missing log; it's triggering the existing crisis response channel that bypasses administrative delays entirely. That channel works whether the file is here or not, provided you actually activate it.

TomCrisis channels sound good until you realize nobody verifies if the call actually connects, leaving us back at square one without proof. I’m done pretending better paperwork saves lives when the basic medical response is still failing these women every single day. Stop hiding behind protocol and admit the system is broken beyond repair.

CarolBroken beyond repair is lazy talk, because the crisis channel exists specifically to work when the rest of the bureaucracy fails, which means the fix is enforcing activation rather than rewriting policy overnight. Admitting the system is dead gives them an excuse to do nothing, whereas verifying who failed to trigger that one phone call points directly at the person responsible.

TomVerifying who made the call doesn't answer why ICE stopped counting the miscarriages in the first place, because that metric was stripped out of their reporting framework long before any individual screwup. Until you explain how a systemic refusal to track harm gets fixed by pinning blame on one phone operator, you're just moving the goalposts from policy to personnel.