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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Complicated abortions where the mother’s life or health is in jeopardy absolutely occur at hospitals. And doctors do want to perform them when they’re necessary to save their patients. Including this woman’s doctor who has been to court with her.

[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.

That’s what health care professionals have had to do in states with bans all over this country. Tell women to wait in the parking lot until they’ve filled up so many pads with blood, or until they smell the terrible smell that indicates they’ve gone septic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other words, even when the outcome is certain, the increasing risk is certain, do not abort while the woman is stable with stable vital signs and hemodynamics, wait till she is at risk and perform under riskier circumstances when vital signs and hemodynamics are abnormal and risk to mother's life is higher.

That's what you prefer?

[Anonymous]

So does the state defined cutoffs for estimated blood loss level, hemoglobin level, vital signs, at which point an abortion is allowed to be performed for emergent reasons?

What if the state prosecutor thinks the hemoglobin level wasn't low enough? Is an abortion allowed to be performed if only one reading is outside of normal?

[Anonymous]

She will go back to the hospital and they will tell her to sit in the parking lot until she loses enough blood and is on death's door and then she can be admitted. But of course, by then, it may be too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight. Leaking fluid, cramping, 2 prior C sections, all severe enough for a trained medical doctor to say that this pregnancy is a threat to her health and future fertility. But the attorney general disagrees and gets another court to pause the permission that a Texas judge allowed this woman? Never mind that the fetus has a severe birth defect. Never mind that she had to go to court in the first place.

I’ve had 3 children with one pregnancy that was dangerous but it worked out OK. That experience has made me even more pro choice because I know first hand how difficult that is. It should not involve someone else’s medically uninformed opinion.

Claims of fluid leaks are insufficient to justify an abortion because the fluid leaks were not amniotic fluid.

Cramping is uncomfortable but doesn’t justify an abortion.

2 prior c-sections do not justify an abortion.

Not a single doctor on earth could make any reasonable assessment of any woman’s future fertility.

Oh an anonymous poster in DCUM has weighed in in what medical decision this person should make.
I guess that settles it.

Stay out of this woman's personal business.

Everyone here is being anon docs and anon lawyers.

Stay out of Texas state law.

Laws affect millions of citizens lives and most certainly every citizen and they should be knowledgeable and informed and engaged. Personal medical decisions have nothing to do with you or any else.

[Anonymous]

Any doctor in a sane state would have performed this termination days ago

But because she’s in TX, she has to be on death’s door and even then it is questioned

Anyone justifying this is crazy. There is absolutely no sane reason to put women through this additional trauma and ask her “why aren’t you almost dead yet? Just get to that point and we’ll consider it”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Complicated abortions where the mother’s life or health is in jeopardy absolutely occur at hospitals. And doctors do want to perform them when they’re necessary to save their patients. Including this woman’s doctor who has been to court with her.

Agreed. Her doctor went to court with her, but won’t perform the abortion because her patient doesn’t actually have life threatening complications.

This doctor and no other doctor in Texas will risk his or her license and livelihood to perform an abortion on a woman who doesn’t have life threatening complications.

It’s very easy to see what is really happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So does the state defined cutoffs for estimated blood loss level, hemoglobin level, vital signs, at which point an abortion is allowed to be performed for emergent reasons?

What if the state prosecutor thinks the hemoglobin level wasn't low enough? Is an abortion allowed to be performed if only one reading is outside of normal?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.171.htm

I am not your unpaid research assistant.

[Anonymous]

I want to thank AG Paxton for ensuring the Dems have a really good shot at sweeping the 2024 elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to thank AG Paxton for ensuring the Dems have a really good shot at sweeping the 2024 elections.

Yes, Paxton and how he is torturing this poor woman are going to give Texas to the Democrats. I’m so sorry this poor woman has to suffer so horrifically at his hands.

[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.

No, she should not go get an abortion in NM. She risks bankruptcy and significant health risk to do so.

[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.

Is that photo time-stamped? How do you know when it was taken? My understanding is that they've only had the diagnosis for the past week or 2.

So, your standard is that the woman needs to be hospitalized and clearly at imminent risk of death prior to authorizing an abortion? Ever heard of Savita Halapannavar? Google that particular case to see just how quickly one can go from non-life-threatening to dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does the state defined cutoffs for estimated blood loss level, hemoglobin level, vital signs, at which point an abortion is allowed to be performed for emergent reasons?

What if the state prosecutor thinks the hemoglobin level wasn't low enough? Is an abortion allowed to be performed if only one reading is outside of normal?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.171.htm

I am not your unpaid research assistant.

I work in healthcare and there is still a lot of grey associated with that list in terms of when one makes a call. So you have a slight infection but your wbc are not elevated, what call to make? Risk of hemorrhage is certain but it hasn't started yet, you have to wait? Basically yes, this does seem to mean waiting until a woman's health proceeds to danger even if the risk nears certainty that it will get there, but hasn't yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does the state defined cutoffs for estimated blood loss level, hemoglobin level, vital signs, at which point an abortion is allowed to be performed for emergent reasons?

What if the state prosecutor thinks the hemoglobin level wasn't low enough? Is an abortion allowed to be performed if only one reading is outside of normal?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.171.htm

I am not your unpaid research assistant.

I work in healthcare and there is still a lot of grey associated with that list in terms of when one makes a call. So you have a slight infection but your wbc are not elevated, what call to make? Risk of hemorrhage is certain but it hasn't started yet, you have to wait? Basically yes, this does seem to mean waiting until a woman's health proceeds to danger even if the risk nears certainty that it will get there, but hasn't yet.

If the woman wants to abort because she is diagnosed with cancer while pregnant, but the fetus is stable and she's only stage 1/2, is she allowed by this list? Does she have to wait till the cancer progresses?