Republican utopia - Texas!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Woman was sick and dying
She did not have the ability, money, or time to care for herself
Her only option becomes abortion, or death.
The baby’s death was a foregone conclusion in this scenario.
The mother’s death was preventable with an abortion.
Harping on the medical care she should have had isn’t helpful to the woman, once she needs the abortion.
Did her doctors make the likely outcomes clear to her? Doubtful due to the laws in Texas.
Sure she wanted her baby. But there is a point when that pregnancy wasn’t going to result in a healthy baby. Was she made aware of the facts? Was she able to make an informed decision?
Doubtful

She had a loser husband who didn’t do a single thing to help her get the medical insurance she qualified for.

She could have been treated by a high risk ob-gyn 51 miles and had her medications paid for and been in compliance with the treatment she needed. She improved and went downhill again because she was non-compliant with her medication.

Why wasn’t her husband helping her?

I think it is a stretch to conclude he was a loser based on the very little info we have about him. As I posted above, we seem to have about 3 data points from this story and that’s IT. No real conclusions can be drawn from those.

He was a loser. No mention if him helping his wife. He didn’t help her get insurance, he would have been the only person who could have enrolled her in Tricare. He HAD to coordinate that process. She was working while sick to pay for her medication.

Why was he not involved in the saga except to leave town with her car after she died?

Why are you so obsessed with that car?

This man suffered the loss of his wife and their baby. You are just an awful judgmental human being devoid of empathy.

His wife and baby died and the article doesn’t mention once he even attempted to get his wife on Tricare to provide her medical insurance. That fact is completely ignored. Don’t you think the husband of a pregnant woman experiencing pregnancy problems that led to her death from lack of care and needed medication should have tried to help her? She couldn’t submit paperwork to add herself to DEERS to be enrolled in Tricare; that was his job to do.

If you were pregnant and had multiple health issues, and needed medical insurance, and your husband didn’t put you on his health insurance plan, what would you think of him?

The husband did not want to talk to the reporter. So you have no idea what actually went on. Shame on you.

+1 this is what I keep trying to say. We don’t know much at all about him. He didn’t talk to the reporter.

We know he was an Army Reserve Soldier. We know he was eligible for Tricare Reserve Select. We know his wife was eligible for Tricare Reserve Select as his dependent. We know foreign born spouses are eligible to be added to DEERS and thus receive Tricare health insurance. We know JAG attorneys will assist-for free- a soldier who needed to navigate the system to add his foreign born spouse to DEERS/Tricare. We know that much.

We do? You've seen the paperwork he received? You were with him when these things were shared with him?

No, that’s just how it works for everyone in the military. They have a standard process to enroll dependents in DEERS and Tricare. It’s the same for everyone. She could even have been enrolled in DEERS without a social security card. DEERS will take documents from other countries-including Mexico.

Was he on active duty for more than 30 consecutive days? Because if not he was not eligible.


https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12215#:~:text=Reservists%20(i.e.%2C%20members%20of%20the,benefits%20as%20active%20duty%20servicemembers.

Reservists (i.e., members of the Reserves Components, including the National Guard) on federal active duty orders for more than 30 consecutive days receive identical health benefits as active duty servicemembers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh yes, the highly trained and specialized abortion advocates posting on dcum just KNOW she needed an abortion.

The highly trained medical professionals interviewed in the article just KNOW that she should have been offered that option very early when the pregnancy was causing so many complications, and that the laws in Texas prevent highly trained medical professionals from offering that option. We’ll never know what she would have decided at that point.

So women who are diabetic should not become pregnant, and if they do, they should abort their baby asap? Is that what happens in the US? Diabetic women are considered so high risk their doctors tell them they need to abort their child? That’s the standard recommendation for diabetic women when they become pregnant?

I don’t understand why this is so hard for you.
This woman died. She’s dead. So…. She needed abortive care in time to not die. It’s possible her disease could have been managed with better healthcare. We all wish she had had better care, and most of us are voting for candidates that are trying to make sure everyone has that. But our votes, from around the country didn’t help her in Texas. Her circumstances didn’t allow for her to do the things needed for her to survive her pregnancy. The doctors in Texas were prevented from giving her the care she needed, once that became apparent.
But that calculation wouldn’t have been spelled out to her, because she was in Texas.

[Anonymous]

Forced birthers are once again victim blaming and debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin rather than just say that their politics and policies reflect the contempt they have for women.

Women aren’t people in the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Diabetes was NOT her only health issue. Stop with the nonsense argument that all diabetic women shouldn’t have children. This particular woman, with ALL her challenges, likely should not have tried to carry a pregnancy to term. Not every body can handle pregnancy-that is just reality. Just like ectopic pregnancies have to be ended because there is no miracle procedure to reimplant them or whatever those nimrod legislators seem to think is possible. Pregnancy was what sparked the cascade of horrible reactions inside her body which ultimately killed her. It’s a horrible thing, and it was made worse by doctors being constrained to not be able to tell her about her grim reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Woman was sick and dying
She did not have the ability, money, or time to care for herself
Her only option becomes abortion, or death.
The baby’s death was a foregone conclusion in this scenario.
The mother’s death was preventable with an abortion.
Harping on the medical care she should have had isn’t helpful to the woman, once she needs the abortion.
Did her doctors make the likely outcomes clear to her? Doubtful due to the laws in Texas.
Sure she wanted her baby. But there is a point when that pregnancy wasn’t going to result in a healthy baby. Was she made aware of the facts? Was she able to make an informed decision?
Doubtful

She had a loser husband who didn’t do a single thing to help her get the medical insurance she qualified for.

She could have been treated by a high risk ob-gyn 51 miles and had her medications paid for and been in compliance with the treatment she needed. She improved and went downhill again because she was non-compliant with her medication.

Why wasn’t her husband helping her?

I think it is a stretch to conclude he was a loser based on the very little info we have about him. As I posted above, we seem to have about 3 data points from this story and that’s IT. No real conclusions can be drawn from those.

He was a loser. No mention if him helping his wife. He didn’t help her get insurance, he would have been the only person who could have enrolled her in Tricare. He HAD to coordinate that process. She was working while sick to pay for her medication.

Why was he not involved in the saga except to leave town with her car after she died?

Why are you so obsessed with that car?

This man suffered the loss of his wife and their baby. You are just an awful judgmental human being devoid of empathy.

His wife and baby died and the article doesn’t mention once he even attempted to get his wife on Tricare to provide her medical insurance. That fact is completely ignored. Don’t you think the husband of a pregnant woman experiencing pregnancy problems that led to her death from lack of care and needed medication should have tried to help her? She couldn’t submit paperwork to add herself to DEERS to be enrolled in Tricare; that was his job to do.

If you were pregnant and had multiple health issues, and needed medical insurance, and your husband didn’t put you on his health insurance plan, what would you think of him?

The husband did not want to talk to the reporter. So you have no idea what actually went on. Shame on you.

+1 this is what I keep trying to say. We don’t know much at all about him. He didn’t talk to the reporter.

We know he was an Army Reserve Soldier. We know he was eligible for Tricare Reserve Select. We know his wife was eligible for Tricare Reserve Select as his dependent. We know foreign born spouses are eligible to be added to DEERS and thus receive Tricare health insurance. We know JAG attorneys will assist-for free- a soldier who needed to navigate the system to add his foreign born spouse to DEERS/Tricare. We know that much.

We do? You've seen the paperwork he received? You were with him when these things were shared with him?

No, that’s just how it works for everyone in the military. They have a standard process to enroll dependents in DEERS and Tricare. It’s the same for everyone. She could even have been enrolled in DEERS without a social security card. DEERS will take documents from other countries-including Mexico.

Was he on active duty for more than 30 consecutive days? Because if not he was not eligible.


https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12215#:~:text=Reservists%20(i.e.%2C%20members%20of%20the,benefits%20as%20active%20duty%20servicemembers.

Reservists (i.e., members of the Reserves Components, including the National Guard) on federal active duty orders for more than 30 consecutive days receive identical health benefits as active duty servicemembers.

He was eligible for Tricare Reserve Select. If he had been on active duty for more than 30 days he could qualify for Tricare Prime, that’s the Active Duty healthcare plan.

He (and she) was eligible for Tricare Reserve Select, otherwise.

It makes zero sense she was without medical insurance.

The town they lived in was close to San Antonio. That is a huge military town. Plenty of resources available to help with the paperwork to get her enrolled. If she didn’t have the exact paperwork needed, the Military would have given her temporary insurance cards for coverage for a certain period of time while the paperwork was found and translated.

Also if a Service Member or spouse isn’t enrolled in Tricare, they can go to an ER on any Military installation and see a doctor for a actual emergency. They will see you for any actual emergency no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Diabetes was NOT her only health issue. Stop with the nonsense argument that all diabetic women shouldn’t have children. This particular woman, with ALL her challenges, likely should not have tried to carry a pregnancy to term. Not every body can handle pregnancy-that is just reality. Just like ectopic pregnancies have to be ended because there is no miracle procedure to reimplant them or whatever those nimrod legislators seem to think is possible. Pregnancy was what sparked the cascade of horrible reactions inside her body which ultimately killed her. It’s a horrible thing, and it was made worse by doctors being constrained to not be able to tell her about her grim reality.

+1. What happened to her was not informed consent. People trust doctors and they trust them to be honest. The fact they couldn’t tell her that she might die if she did not end the pregnancy probably registered in her mind as “It can’t be that bad, the doctors would have told me if it was!” Because really she had no choice whether to continue that pregnancy or not. And given her conditions and inability to access health care, she was pretty much doomed to die. All these arm chair experts on here are acting like it’s her fault- she was probably told or believed that she was not able to access any care resources, and in a place like rural Texas, that’s a reasonable assumption for an undocumented person to make.

[Anonymous]

Was this woman made aware of the risks and consequences? I’m skeptical.

I read this a week or so ago when it first came out and posted it in the Roe thread. It’s long so I may be fuzzy on the details but one of the points of highlighting this case is that every OB/Gyn the reporter talked to said that with how sick she was and how early in the pregnancy it started, she should have been offered a therapeutic abortion. And she wasn’t because Texas law forbids that.
Also thanks to the posters who have tried to shed some light on the TriCare situation. I read this totally not understanding how she was married to someone on active duty and didn’t have health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diabetes was NOT her only health issue. Stop with the nonsense argument that all diabetic women shouldn’t have children. This particular woman, with ALL her challenges, likely should not have tried to carry a pregnancy to term. Not every body can handle pregnancy-that is just reality. Just like ectopic pregnancies have to be ended because there is no miracle procedure to reimplant them or whatever those nimrod legislators seem to think is possible. Pregnancy was what sparked the cascade of horrible reactions inside her body which ultimately killed her. It’s a horrible thing, and it was made worse by doctors being constrained to not be able to tell her about her grim reality.

+1. What happened to her was not informed consent. People trust doctors and they trust them to be honest. The fact they couldn’t tell her that she might die if she did not end the pregnancy probably registered in her mind as “It can’t be that bad, the doctors would have told me if it was!” Because really she had no choice whether to continue that pregnancy or not. And given her conditions and inability to access health care, she was pretty much doomed to die. All these arm chair experts on here are acting like it’s her fault- she was probably told or believed that she was not able to access any care resources, and in a place like rural Texas, that’s a reasonable assumption for an undocumented person to make.

The story has enough holes to drive a truck through. It states that she has taken insulin for years. Insulin is expensive and needs to be paid for through a health insurance plan. Nobody can pay for insulin out of pocket. She had to previously had health insurance.

She submitted an application and nobody got back to her? Yeah, that happens. You have to call them back and stay on them. Applications get lost, etc.

And even though she’s eligible for insurance through her spouse, no insurance there either.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the insurance piece of this would be helpful in understanding how to try to avoid those holes in patient care overall.

It doesn’t change that pregnancy was putting stress on her body that already had multiple problems that weren’t able to be treated correctly for a multitude of reasons (including not taking her meds she was already prescribed), and all of that combined to kill her

Most sane doctors in states with reasonable abortion laws presented with a patient like her would have told her that she could not carry this pregnancy at this time. The doctors in tx are prevented from offering this option during a medical appt, and even if they do so in a hush hush way, the patient doesn’t have a lot of options anyway since you apparently need to be coding in TX before they can touch you. (Kate Cox)

This patient was absolutely not given a full picture of her medical situation. Sure, the docs could have tried to get her on bed rest, complying with her meds, etc-there is no way to know if that would have prevented her death, though. I mean, maybe if she knew exactly how dire things were, she might have followed doctor’s orders?

But being in TX and not being allowed to hear the true seriousness of her situation definitely contributed to her death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the insurance piece of this would be helpful in understanding how to try to avoid those holes in patient care overall.

It doesn’t change that pregnancy was putting stress on her body that already had multiple problems that weren’t able to be treated correctly for a multitude of reasons (including not taking her meds she was already prescribed), and all of that combined to kill her

Most sane doctors in states with reasonable abortion laws presented with a patient like her would have told her that she could not carry this pregnancy at this time. The doctors in tx are prevented from offering this option during a medical appt, and even if they do so in a hush hush way, the patient doesn’t have a lot of options anyway since you apparently need to be coding in TX before they can touch you. (Kate Cox)

This patient was absolutely not given a full picture of her medical situation. Sure, the docs could have tried to get her on bed rest, complying with her meds, etc-there is no way to know if that would have prevented her death, though. I mean, maybe if she knew exactly how dire things were, she might have followed doctor’s orders?

But being in TX and not being allowed to hear the true seriousness of her situation definitely contributed to her death.

The strain on her body should have been treated by a high risk ob-gyn. She wanted her baby. She didn’t need to abort her baby. She needed medical care. If women who want an abortion are being kept from receiving abortions and it’s being termed needed healthcare, why can’t a woman who is pregnant and wants her baby and has diabetes receive the healthcare she needs to keep her baby?

Is everyone stating the only healthcare a pregnant woman should receive is abortion?

This woman’s death was preventable if she had been treated by a high risk ob-gyn. She deserved healthcare.

Why is everyone choosing abortion for a woman who didn’t want it? She didn’t want an abortion. She wasn’t compliant taking her life saving medication. She was morbidly obese and diabetic. She needed to be admitted to a hospital for treatment and given good treatment and stabilized. If she was admitted and kept hospitalized, she could have lived and her baby lived.

[Anonymous]

This patient was absolutely not given a full picture of her medical situation. Sure, the docs could have tried to get her on bed rest, complying with her meds, etc-there is no way to know if that would have prevented her death, though. I mean, maybe if she knew exactly how dire things were, she might have followed doctor’s orders?

You don’t know what her doctors told her. You think this woman saw multiple doctors while hospitalized and none of them told her what her medical status was and what she needed to do? Why isn’t the family suing the hospitals and doctors for medical malpractice then?

[Anonymous]

Most sane doctors in states with reasonable abortion laws presented with a patient like her would have told her that she could not carry this pregnancy at this time.

She could carry her baby. She made it 31 weeks into her pregnancy, even with inconsistent medication compliance and no treatment from a high risk ob-gyn.

Diabetic pregnant women have to be followed very carefully and monitor their blood sugar constantly, daily. With each meal. Their insulin use usually increases and they have to sometimes take insulin with each meal and way more insulin than they have ever taken before. They see their ob-gyn more than women without diabetes. They are constantly watching their weight and diets. Their ob-gyns are testing them and measuring them and giving them all kinds of information about what to monitor and watch for at home.

This woman could have had the care she needed and not died. It’s really repulsive that her family never stated she wanted an abortion but everyone here is claiming she had to have an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Most sane doctors in states with reasonable abortion laws presented with a patient like her would have told her that she could not carry this pregnancy at this time.

She could carry her baby. She made it 31 weeks into her pregnancy, even with inconsistent medication compliance and no treatment from a high risk ob-gyn.

Diabetic pregnant women have to be followed very carefully and monitor their blood sugar constantly, daily. With each meal. Their insulin use usually increases and they have to sometimes take insulin with each meal and way more insulin than they have ever taken before. They see their ob-gyn more than women without diabetes. They are constantly watching their weight and diets. Their ob-gyns are testing them and measuring them and giving them all kinds of information about what to monitor and watch for at home.

This woman could have had the care she needed and not died. It’s really repulsive that her family never stated she wanted an abortion but everyone here is claiming she had to have an abortion.

Because she died… we know she needed an abortion because she’s dead. We see the value in her life, even if you don’t.

[Anonymous]

No one actually knows the full story, including what exactly her docs told her. And yes, she probably should have been seeing a high risk ob. There are so many things that combined here and ultimately led to her death and the loss of the child she was carrying.

That said, the doctors interviewed in the article all say that termination should have been discussed at that critical 10 week appointment. Whether she wanted it or not doesn’t matter. It is the medical option that would have alleviated the stress on her body given the already difficult medical situation (including her noncompliance with all her meds).

If a woman who didn’t want an abortion heard that is what is probably needed, don’t you think she might have begged to know how to avoid one? Maybe starting to comply and all of the other interventions might have happened at that point, but again, hard to say.

In Texas, that discussion couldn’t happen. That we know for certain.

This story to me is a lot more than just she lived in TX-class, location, insurance, sick leave, immigration, etc all are at play here. But it definitely didn’t help the situation to live in a state with harsh restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the insurance piece of this would be helpful in understanding how to try to avoid those holes in patient care overall.

It doesn’t change that pregnancy was putting stress on her body that already had multiple problems that weren’t able to be treated correctly for a multitude of reasons (including not taking her meds she was already prescribed), and all of that combined to kill her

Most sane doctors in states with reasonable abortion laws presented with a patient like her would have told her that she could not carry this pregnancy at this time. The doctors in tx are prevented from offering this option during a medical appt, and even if they do so in a hush hush way, the patient doesn’t have a lot of options anyway since you apparently need to be coding in TX before they can touch you. (Kate Cox)

This patient was absolutely not given a full picture of her medical situation. Sure, the docs could have tried to get her on bed rest, complying with her meds, etc-there is no way to know if that would have prevented her death, though. I mean, maybe if she knew exactly how dire things were, she might have followed doctor’s orders?

But being in TX and not being allowed to hear the true seriousness of her situation definitely contributed to her death.

The strain on her body should have been treated by a high risk ob-gyn. She wanted her baby. She didn’t need to abort her baby. She needed medical care. If women who want an abortion are being kept from receiving abortions and it’s being termed needed healthcare, why can’t a woman who is pregnant and wants her baby and has diabetes receive the healthcare she needs to keep her baby?

Is everyone stating the only healthcare a pregnant woman should receive is abortion?

This woman’s death was preventable if she had been treated by a high risk ob-gyn. She deserved healthcare.

Why is everyone choosing abortion for a woman who didn’t want it? She didn’t want an abortion. She wasn’t compliant taking her life saving medication. She was morbidly obese and diabetic. She needed to be admitted to a hospital for treatment and given good treatment and stabilized. If she was admitted and kept hospitalized, she could have lived and her baby lived.

What is your party doing about making sure women don't have to ration health care because they can't afford it? What is your party doing to make sure pregnant women all get paid sick leave so they can go to doctor's appointments or stay home when they are feeling ill or their doctor put them on bed rest? Real legislation that your party and the politicians you support are proposing or backing to make sure being poor doesn't lead to poor outcomes for pregnant women.

p.s. Why did Texas reject expanding medicaid?