Texas judge grants woman’s request for abortion despite state ban

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, every pregnancy has risks. So her pregnancy is not unusual in that regard.

Also, termination of a pregnancy has risks, and studies have shown termination of a pregnancy can cause issues with fertility.

It’s really a tragic situation being used in a political manner. I have seen lots of people in life threatening medical situations and this currently isn’t one of them. It could rapidly develop into a life threatening situation, and the mother would receive medical care in that case.

So you are admitting that you’d rather this woman and mother be actively dying before getting medical care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand she has had two sections already, due to structural narrowness that precludes vaginal birth. If she is forced to deliver this fetus, it will be by C section, making it her third and the medical limit for C sections. Since she and her husband want a third child, this destined to die pregnancy will be her final. Really? How do politicians get to make such medical decisions for women. Disgusting beyond belief.

“In his September editorial, Dr. Robert L. Barbieri issued a call for OBs to recount their experience with higher-order cesareans and describe any innovative techniques. Here are some of the responses:

Before I retired recently from private practice in southern California, I cared for a patient who, along with her husband, earnestly desired and lovingly provided for a large family. It was my privilege to perform 11 consecutive cesarean sections in this remarkable woman. None of her pregnancies were complicated by placenta previa, and placenta accreta was never an issue. No significant adhesions were encountered until her final section.“

Good for her. This woman is a different person. I would assume that her own personal OB (who recommended the abortion) is fully aware of the risks of additional c sections, given this woman's medical history.

My SIL has had 2 c sections and been advised not to have any more children, because of the risks inherent in another c section for her. And I work with a woman who delivered 5 of her 6 children via c section. See? Different women are different.

Yes, no one knows how, to what degree, or if at all, the woman in this case will have her fertility affected. Adhesions, for example, can only truly be evaluated through surgery.

So claiming her future fertility will be harmed is an unknowable thing. That’s why the doctors treating her now won’t take the legal risk of performing an abortion on her. If they truly thought her life was in danger they wouldn’t have to go to court. Texas law already provides for abortion in those situations.

Don't you think her own OB, who recommended the abortion, is qualified to judge her risk??? Seriously??

[Anonymous]

Future fertility is NOT the issue. The issue is this woman wants THIS pregnancy terminated due to the fact that THIS fetus is essentially dead, will never become the bAbY that forced birthers want it to become, and her CURRENT health status is at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, every pregnancy has risks. So her pregnancy is not unusual in that regard.

Also, termination of a pregnancy has risks, and studies have shown termination of a pregnancy can cause issues with fertility.

It’s really a tragic situation being used in a political manner. I have seen lots of people in life threatening medical situations and this currently isn’t one of them. It could rapidly develop into a life threatening situation, and the mother would receive medical care in that case.

B U L L S H I T

If you have Asherman syndrome, it may be hard for you to conceive. If you do, the chances of having a miscarriage are high. Getting pregnant while you have the condition is possible, but the adhesions in the walls of the uterus don't give room for fetal development.

https://www.webmd.com/women/what-is-asherman-syndrome

It’s at the most simple explanation, scar tissue and adhesions from surgical abortion. It’s a real medical condition.

It also happens all by itself sometimes and with certain diagnostic procedures. So perhaps the abortions have nothing to do with it. https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Asherman%27s_syndrome_epidemiology_and_demographics

Not that forced birthers care about women. You’re trying to condemn this woman to death for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand she has had two sections already, due to structural narrowness that precludes vaginal birth. If she is forced to deliver this fetus, it will be by C section, making it her third and the medical limit for C sections. Since she and her husband want a third child, this destined to die pregnancy will be her final. Really? How do politicians get to make such medical decisions for women. Disgusting beyond belief.

“In his September editorial, Dr. Robert L. Barbieri issued a call for OBs to recount their experience with higher-order cesareans and describe any innovative techniques. Here are some of the responses:

Before I retired recently from private practice in southern California, I cared for a patient who, along with her husband, earnestly desired and lovingly provided for a large family. It was my privilege to perform 11 consecutive cesarean sections in this remarkable woman. None of her pregnancies were complicated by placenta previa, and placenta accreta was never an issue. No significant adhesions were encountered until her final section.“

Good for her. This woman is a different person. I would assume that her own personal OB (who recommended the abortion) is fully aware of the risks of additional c sections, given this woman's medical history.

My SIL has had 2 c sections and been advised not to have any more children, because of the risks inherent in another c section for her. And I work with a woman who delivered 5 of her 6 children via c section. See? Different women are different.

Yes, no one knows how, to what degree, or if at all, the woman in this case will have her fertility affected. Adhesions, for example, can only truly be evaluated through surgery.

So claiming her future fertility will be harmed is an unknowable thing. That’s why the doctors treating her now won’t take the legal risk of performing an abortion on her. If they truly thought her life was in danger they wouldn’t have to go to court. Texas law already provides for abortion in those situations.

Don't you think her own OB, who recommended the abortion, is qualified to judge her risk??? Seriously??

OBVIOUSLY a rando forced birther knows better!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Future fertility is NOT the issue. The issue is this woman wants THIS pregnancy terminated due to the fact that THIS fetus is essentially dead, will never become the bAbY that forced birthers want it to become, and her CURRENT health status is at risk.

Right, and women aren’t people in the GOP so that means she doesn’t get an opinion.

This all about control and maximum pain for women. Under his eye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, every pregnancy has risks. So her pregnancy is not unusual in that regard.

Also, termination of a pregnancy has risks, and studies have shown termination of a pregnancy can cause issues with fertility.

It’s really a tragic situation being used in a political manner. I have seen lots of people in life threatening medical situations and this currently isn’t one of them. It could rapidly develop into a life threatening situation, and the mother would receive medical care in that case.

So you are admitting that you’d rather this woman and mother be actively dying before getting medical care?

Neither the mother or baby is actively dying. If either occurs, the doctors will provide medical care and save the mother’s life.

Complications can occur in pregnancy without the mother dying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand she has had two sections already, due to structural narrowness that precludes vaginal birth. If she is forced to deliver this fetus, it will be by C section, making it her third and the medical limit for C sections. Since she and her husband want a third child, this destined to die pregnancy will be her final. Really? How do politicians get to make such medical decisions for women. Disgusting beyond belief.

“In his September editorial, Dr. Robert L. Barbieri issued a call for OBs to recount their experience with higher-order cesareans and describe any innovative techniques. Here are some of the responses:

Before I retired recently from private practice in southern California, I cared for a patient who, along with her husband, earnestly desired and lovingly provided for a large family. It was my privilege to perform 11 consecutive cesarean sections in this remarkable woman. None of her pregnancies were complicated by placenta previa, and placenta accreta was never an issue. No significant adhesions were encountered until her final section.“

Good for her. This woman is a different person. I would assume that her own personal OB (who recommended the abortion) is fully aware of the risks of additional c sections, given this woman's medical history.

My SIL has had 2 c sections and been advised not to have any more children, because of the risks inherent in another c section for her. And I work with a woman who delivered 5 of her 6 children via c section. See? Different women are different.

Yes, no one knows how, to what degree, or if at all, the woman in this case will have her fertility affected. Adhesions, for example, can only truly be evaluated through surgery.

So claiming her future fertility will be harmed is an unknowable thing. That’s why the doctors treating her now won’t take the legal risk of performing an abortion on her. If they truly thought her life was in danger they wouldn’t have to go to court. Texas law already provides for abortion in those situations.

Don't you think her own OB, who recommended the abortion, is qualified to judge her risk??? Seriously??

If her ob had medical evidence to support an abortion, the ob would perform the abortion. Her ob won’t perform the abortion because the ob knows the mother’s life isn’t in danger, currently. The photo of mom smiling supports that; women who have complicated pregnancies and are dealing with life threatening complications are hospitalized. This mom is at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand she has had two sections already, due to structural narrowness that precludes vaginal birth. If she is forced to deliver this fetus, it will be by C section, making it her third and the medical limit for C sections. Since she and her husband want a third child, this destined to die pregnancy will be her final. Really? How do politicians get to make such medical decisions for women. Disgusting beyond belief.

“In his September editorial, Dr. Robert L. Barbieri issued a call for OBs to recount their experience with higher-order cesareans and describe any innovative techniques. Here are some of the responses:

Before I retired recently from private practice in southern California, I cared for a patient who, along with her husband, earnestly desired and lovingly provided for a large family. It was my privilege to perform 11 consecutive cesarean sections in this remarkable woman. None of her pregnancies were complicated by placenta previa, and placenta accreta was never an issue. No significant adhesions were encountered until her final section.“

Good for her. This woman is a different person. I would assume that her own personal OB (who recommended the abortion) is fully aware of the risks of additional c sections, given this woman's medical history.

My SIL has had 2 c sections and been advised not to have any more children, because of the risks inherent in another c section for her. And I work with a woman who delivered 5 of her 6 children via c section. See? Different women are different.

Yes, no one knows how, to what degree, or if at all, the woman in this case will have her fertility affected. Adhesions, for example, can only truly be evaluated through surgery.

So claiming her future fertility will be harmed is an unknowable thing. That’s why the doctors treating her now won’t take the legal risk of performing an abortion on her. If they truly thought her life was in danger they wouldn’t have to go to court. Texas law already provides for abortion in those situations.

Don't you think her own OB, who recommended the abortion, is qualified to judge her risk??? Seriously??

If her ob had medical evidence to support an abortion, the ob would perform the abortion. Her ob won’t perform the abortion because the ob knows the mother’s life isn’t in danger, currently. The photo of mom smiling supports that; women who have complicated pregnancies and are dealing with life threatening complications are hospitalized. This mom is at home.

Haven’t read the court filings? It could save you from making yourself look foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Future fertility is NOT the issue. The issue is this woman wants THIS pregnancy terminated due to the fact that THIS fetus is essentially dead, will never become the bAbY that forced birthers want it to become, and her CURRENT health status is at risk.

The baby is alive and has a heartbeat. The baby is developing, but has a genetic abnormality that causes him or her to develop in a way that is incompatible with living a normal life. This baby probably will die in utero or soon after delivery.

Mom should stop the legal posturing and go get an abortion in NM. That will achieve the peace she is seeking. She has stated she won’t do that. She will not receive an abortion in Texas unless her baby dies and has no heart beat or she legitimately suffers life threatening complications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Future fertility is NOT the issue. The issue is this woman wants THIS pregnancy terminated due to the fact that THIS fetus is essentially dead, will never become the bAbY that forced birthers want it to become, and her CURRENT health status is at risk.

Right, and women aren’t people in the GOP so that means she doesn’t get an opinion.

This all about control and maximum pain for women. Under his eye.

You need help.

She's not wrong.

Flogging a terribly written fantasy novel about as real life isn’t an action that lends itself to being correct. Or completely sane.

That ANY woman has to go through what THIS woman is going through shows what the "pro life" movement and these GOP men feel about women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand she has had two sections already, due to structural narrowness that precludes vaginal birth. If she is forced to deliver this fetus, it will be by C section, making it her third and the medical limit for C sections. Since she and her husband want a third child, this destined to die pregnancy will be her final. Really? How do politicians get to make such medical decisions for women. Disgusting beyond belief.

“In his September editorial, Dr. Robert L. Barbieri issued a call for OBs to recount their experience with higher-order cesareans and describe any innovative techniques. Here are some of the responses:

Before I retired recently from private practice in southern California, I cared for a patient who, along with her husband, earnestly desired and lovingly provided for a large family. It was my privilege to perform 11 consecutive cesarean sections in this remarkable woman. None of her pregnancies were complicated by placenta previa, and placenta accreta was never an issue. No significant adhesions were encountered until her final section.“

That’s great for that lady. My friend almost died from accreta with her fourth c-section.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Future fertility is NOT the issue. The issue is this woman wants THIS pregnancy terminated due to the fact that THIS fetus is essentially dead, will never become the bAbY that forced birthers want it to become, and her CURRENT health status is at risk.

The baby is alive and has a heartbeat. The baby is developing, but has a genetic abnormality that causes him or her to develop in a way that is incompatible with living a normal life. This baby probably will die in utero or soon after delivery.

Mom should stop the legal posturing and go get an abortion in NM. That will achieve the peace she is seeking. She has stated she won’t do that. She will not receive an abortion in Texas unless her baby dies and has no heart beat or she legitimately suffers life threatening complications.

That fetus’s condition is incompatible with life, not with living a normal life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, every pregnancy has risks. So her pregnancy is not unusual in that regard.

Also, termination of a pregnancy has risks, and studies have shown termination of a pregnancy can cause issues with fertility.

It’s really a tragic situation being used in a political manner. I have seen lots of people in life threatening medical situations and this currently isn’t one of them. It could rapidly develop into a life threatening situation, and the mother would receive medical care in that case.

So you are admitting that you’d rather this woman and mother be actively dying before getting medical care?

Neither the mother or baby is actively dying. If either occurs, the doctors will provide medical care and save the mother’s life.

Complications can occur in pregnancy without the mother dying.

So the answer is yes, then? You’d rather she suffer severe complications possibly resulting in her death instead of receiving medical care now. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, every pregnancy has risks. So her pregnancy is not unusual in that regard.

Also, termination of a pregnancy has risks, and studies have shown termination of a pregnancy can cause issues with fertility.

It’s really a tragic situation being used in a political manner. I have seen lots of people in life threatening medical situations and this currently isn’t one of them. It could rapidly develop into a life threatening situation, and the mother would receive medical care in that case.

So you are admitting that you’d rather this woman and mother be actively dying before getting medical care?

Neither the mother or baby is actively dying. If either occurs, the doctors will provide medical care and save the mother’s life.

Complications can occur in pregnancy without the mother dying.

So the answer is yes, then? You’d rather she suffer severe complications possibly resulting in her death instead of receiving medical care now. Got it.

I get you are incapable of having a discussion without being intellectually dishonest.

She would not be receiving medical care now because doctors don’t abort babies in hospitals unless there are urgent or emergent medical issues. Doctors don’t consider abortion medical care unless someone’s life is in danger. Mom is ok and baby is not able to be “fixed” with a surgical procedure.

She can drive to NM and have an elective abortion.

Abortions occur in clinics and not hospitals because doctors don’t want to perform abortions unless the medical necessity is great. They use their skill and training to save lives.