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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the fkwits on here who are twisting them themselves into pretzels trying to establish at what point a pregnant woman must be “sick enough” and close enough to death to justify “really” needing an abortion are disgusting. You are honestly complete pieces of dogsht.

+10000

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand what people are worried about. Ken Paxton and Evangelical Christianity are much better at understanding complicated health care decisions that would help a woman with a fetus with a 95% chance of dying than a stupid doctor that would suggest a medical abortion. Also, if this dumb azz obstetrician was somehow involved, we would need the court and lawyers on call at every step to ensure no laws are broken. Lawyers and the Bible know better than doctors. Doctors don’t need to be worried about lawsuits if they do the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the fkwits on here who are twisting them themselves into pretzels trying to establish at what point a pregnant woman must be “sick enough” and close enough to death to justify “really” needing an abortion are disgusting. You are honestly complete pieces of dogsht.

x20000

[Anonymous]

It took three days but Anti-abortionists finally got their talking points. I'm not going to repeat them because one should never repeat RWTP, even if trying to dispute. That just furthers their lies.

What is a FACT is that the state of Texas is forcing a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term or until the fetus is dead and/or the woman becomes septic.

Another FACT is that three Texas Supreme Court Justices are up for re-election as is Ted Cruz, top TX troll.

Please consider donating to Dem candidates and/or the Texas Democratic State Party. https://www.texasdemocrats.org/

TX Supreme Court
Place 2: Randy Sarosdy http://randyforjudge.org
Place 4: Christine Weems http://weemsforjudge.com
Place 6: No candidate... yet. Filing deadline is tomorrow, 6pm CT

[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.

Do you know how many women die every year from pregnancy related complications, or almost die, or lose their uterus? Have you ever known someone who died from pregnancy complications? I have, she was a friend who died at age 27, in perfect health, it was a sudden turn of events, and she left behind 3 motherless children. Yes, every pregnancy has risks. Every single pregnancy can turn dangerous on a dime. Which is why politicians without medical training have NO BUSINESS writing laws that affect pregnant women's ability to get the health care their doctors advise.

Abortions have notably fewer risks that bringing a fetus to term and delivering it. That is a fact.

I know women whose children are alive today because they had the option of getting an abortion for an earlier, unviable pregnancy. You'd deny such women these children because of your rigid stance.

No woman should have to wait until death's door to get an abortion on a doomed pregnancy. As soon as she knows it's doomed she should have the option to end the pregnancy then and there. There's not a SINGLE reason to force a woman to carry such a pregnancy to term if she doesn't wish to. I don't even think any of you sickos actually have tender feelings about doomed fetuses, either. You are the ones politicizing this, and you push for such extreme positions because you ridiculously think it's a winning issue for you. That is the only reason you are so stuck on telling women they need to be almost dead before they can receive an abortion. Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

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.

And do you know what's absolutely horrifying? That this woman has her private medical information made public, personal information about her body that now everyone can know about, because Republicans are ghouls and completely devoid of empathy. It's sickening.

[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.

Good. Now do c-section scarring. This woman has had 2 already. Will need a third if she is forced to go to term. 3 c-sections - that is a multiple, dangerous procedure that cuts through tissue and muscle and leaves scarring every single time. Did you understand that? Every c-section leaves scarring. One abortion - that is one and chances of Asherman's syndrome are small.

[Anonymous]

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the fkwits on here who are twisting them themselves into pretzels trying to establish at what point a pregnant woman must be “sick enough” and close enough to death to justify “really” needing an abortion are disgusting. You are honestly complete pieces of dogsht.

this

/thread

Ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s terrifying that this PP doesn’t understand that therepeutic abortions are medical care ..

It’s terrifying you don’t understand this patient isn’t entitled to a medical abortion under Texas law at this time.

Her ob-gyn will not perform a medical abortion because the patient doesn’t meet the criteria. The patient can get an abortion in NM, wait until the baby’s heart stops, or be legit diagnosed with a life threatening medical condition and receive a medical abortion in Texas.

It's terrifying you are such an obsequious, uncritical follower of harmful laws. How does someone get to be that way?

[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.

Did you really type that out and hit submit? What doctor on what planet doesn’t consider an abortion medical care?

And whoever helps her can be sued for $10k and legal expenses.

This is completely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ohio says hold my beer...A 33-year-old Ohio woman who was 22 weeks pregnant when she suffered the loss of her pregnancy is now being charged with abuse of a corpse, a fifth-degree felony.

Brittany Watts is experiencing right now is exactly what every person capable of pregnancy feared when Roe vs. Wade was overturned in 2022. In this strange, new world, a nonviable clump of cells has more legal rights than the grieving parents who suffered a medical emergency.

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article282803013.html#storylink=cpy

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article282803013.html

Yeah there’s a big angry thread about that here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1167236.page

[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.

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.

Good. Now do c-section scarring. This woman has had 2 already. Will need a third if she is forced to go to term. 3 c-sections - that is a multiple, dangerous procedure that cuts through tissue and muscle and leaves scarring every single time. Did you understand that? Every c-section leaves scarring. One abortion - that is one and chances of Asherman's syndrome are small.

Maybe the dribble mouthed forced birther is ghoulishly hoping for a little placenta percreta or something equally horrifying.

[Anonymous]

I understand why young people are abandoning organized religion. It’s because of situations like this. Get your fking Bronze age religious beliefs out of healthcare.

[Anonymous]

It is rather shocking that there are presumably "normal" people on this thread who are somehow defending the Texas state position on this.