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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. Pregnancy comes with risk. It’s part of the deal. The state of Texas legitimately passed legislation to ban abortion and, brilliantly, to empower any state resident to bring action against the enablers in civil court. If Democrats wanted to abort babies, they should have tried harder to win elections here. But instead they just want to look down on Red America.

Cox lives in Texas so she needs to step up to the plate and do her duty. We don’t know that she would die. It’s a slippery slope to let her off the hook when it’s the kid who’s supposedly dead, not her. Kudos to the Texas Supreme Court to ignore the Instagram screeds and decide according to the Law.

"Yawn" - there you have it folks. This is the Republican response to a tragic situation worsened by terrible and cruel legislation pushed through by Republicans.

Unless the PP is just a troll because what sort of inhumane cretin has this kind of view?

A little of column a, a little of column b. That is that PP’s view, but also he’s trolling because he needs a little attention - that SDE/Brock Allen Turner vibe isn’t going to cultivate itself.

I think it’s telling that, as Jeff pointed out in the blog post yesterday, the forced birthers have barely entered this thread and when they do it’s with half formed ideas they don’t really defend. The forced birther POV is beginning to reach its gross conclusions and most of the people who pushed it are beginning to realize that they and their ideology are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. Pregnancy comes with risk. It’s part of the deal. The state of Texas legitimately passed legislation to ban abortion and, brilliantly, to empower any state resident to bring action against the enablers in civil court. If Democrats wanted to abort babies, they should have tried harder to win elections here. But instead they just want to look down on Red America.

Cox lives in Texas so she needs to step up to the plate and do her duty. We don’t know that she would die. It’s a slippery slope to let her off the hook when it’s the kid who’s supposedly dead, not her. Kudos to the Texas Supreme Court to ignore the Instagram screeds and decide according to the Law.

So if women don’t want to risk death at the hands of the state they should just not get pregnant. How does that help the domestic supply of infants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. Pregnancy comes with risk. It’s part of the deal. The state of Texas legitimately passed legislation to ban abortion and, brilliantly, to empower any state resident to bring action against the enablers in civil court. If Democrats wanted to abort babies, they should have tried harder to win elections here. But instead they just want to look down on Red America.

Cox lives in Texas so she needs to step up to the plate and do her duty. We don’t know that she would die. It’s a slippery slope to let her off the hook when it’s the kid who’s supposedly dead, not her. Kudos to the Texas Supreme Court to ignore the Instagram screeds and decide according to the Law.

Texas is ill prepared to deal with some of the risks. carry your pregnancy in a state that has a robust modern medical system and laws that will protect patients and doctors as they navigate the risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they ruled there was insufficient evidence that her medical situation met the TX exception list, that if was possible she could meet it in the future.

So how will they rule in the Amanda Zurowski case? She did, eventually meet medical necessity, but suffered injury and nearly died because because she was forced to wait.

All eyes on this case moving forward.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65935189

But, but, Amanda Zurowski didn't die! See how this works?

I wonder if either one of these women voted for the GOP and believed that abortion was not pro choice and should be banned, because you know only slutty women would need an abortion. Just wondering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they ruled there was insufficient evidence that her medical situation met the TX exception list, that if was possible she could meet it in the future.

So how will they rule in the Amanda Zurowski case? She did, eventually meet medical necessity, but suffered injury and nearly died because because she was forced to wait.

All eyes on this case moving forward.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65935189

But, but, Amanda Zurowski didn't die! See how this works?

I wonder if either one of these women voted for the GOP and believed that abortion was not pro choice and should be banned, because you know only slutty women would need an abortion. Just wondering.

Maybe. But we can hope that they and other similar women have learned their lesson.

I said it upthread: a lot of forced birther voters swallowed the lie about “life.” They did not, or would not, understand that it was actually about controlling women, but I’ve got to imagine that for a number of women who have voted forced birther that they’ve learned what the party really means, where this is going to end up.

[Anonymous]

I think it is pretty clear that the whole "exceptions" ruse has been shown as the absolute BS we all knew it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is pretty clear that the whole "exceptions" ruse has been shown as the absolute BS we all knew it was.

Now imagine a national abortion and birth control ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas Supreme Court decision here:
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf

The finding itself is self-contradictory. Says a doctor shouldn't need to consult a court for permission to perform an abortion they deem medically necessary in their judgement while simultaneously denying an abortion the doctor deemed medically necessary.

I assume that’s deliberate. They don’t want to clog up the courts with cases — so they’ll leave it up to each doctor’s discretion. Of course there will not be specific medical guidelines provided to the physicians, just less than clear legal ones. That way they can fine, arrest, harass, yank the licenses from the physicians AFTER they’ve performed abortions. Since there are no explicit guidelines, it will be quite easy for the non-medical people who will get to decide such things to deem anything they want to as being not “medically necessary” — especially if the patient survives the procedure. Of course if the patient doesn’t survive, then that’s a whole different set of potential fines and law suits. Either way, the OB-Gyns will be screwed. So many will move to other states, thus reducing the availability of medical professionals available to provide abortions. Of course it also reduces the number of professionals available to provide medical care for women’s needs. Oh well. I’m sure they thought this through.

Is there data reflecting an exit of OB-GYN doctors from Texas and the likes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is pretty clear that the whole "exceptions" ruse has been shown as the absolute BS we all knew it was.

Now imagine a national abortion and birth control ban.

I know. They have told us what they want to do. People are being willfully deaf and blind.

[Anonymous]

Nothing fills me with more white hot rage than this story.

I hope the women of Texas learn their lesson and vote these a-holes out. Paxton, the Texas Supreme Court judges, all of them need to be out of a job.

[Anonymous]

There will be an attempt to take these policies nationally. I don’t think the Supreme Court will go along, but you never know.

Poland’s Law and Justice Party tried this and now they’ve lost power. If competitive elections survive in the US, the backlash will arrive.

Until then, it’s going to be rough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. Pregnancy comes with risk. It’s part of the deal. The state of Texas legitimately passed legislation to ban abortion and, brilliantly, to empower any state resident to bring action against the enablers in civil court. If Democrats wanted to abort babies, they should have tried harder to win elections here. But instead they just want to look down on Red America.

Cox lives in Texas so she needs to step up to the plate and do her duty. We don’t know that she would die. It’s a slippery slope to let her off the hook when it’s the kid who’s supposedly dead, not her. Kudos to the Texas Supreme Court to ignore the Instagram screeds and decide according to the Law.

So to sum you up, "women need to be at imminently at crashing at death's door before an abortion is granted, even if we already know they are headed toward crashing, we wait until they are actually crashing or almost dead."

How ethical of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be an attempt to take these policies nationally. I don’t think the Supreme Court will go along, but you never know.

Poland’s Law and Justice Party tried this and now they’ve lost power. If competitive elections survive in the US, the backlash will arrive.

Until then, it’s going to be rough.

I am not sure why you think that. We already know Alito, Thomas, Barret and Kavanaugh are fully on board. Roberts is a social conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas Supreme Court decision here:
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf

The finding itself is self-contradictory. Says a doctor shouldn't need to consult a court for permission to perform an abortion they deem medically necessary in their judgement while simultaneously denying an abortion the doctor deemed medically necessary.

I assume that’s deliberate. They don’t want to clog up the courts with cases — so they’ll leave it up to each doctor’s discretion. Of course there will not be specific medical guidelines provided to the physicians, just less than clear legal ones. That way they can fine, arrest, harass, yank the licenses from the physicians AFTER they’ve performed abortions. Since there are no explicit guidelines, it will be quite easy for the non-medical people who will get to decide such things to deem anything they want to as being not “medically necessary” — especially if the patient survives the procedure. Of course if the patient doesn’t survive, then that’s a whole different set of potential fines and law suits. Either way, the OB-Gyns will be screwed. So many will move to other states, thus reducing the availability of medical professionals available to provide abortions. Of course it also reduces the number of professionals available to provide medical care for women’s needs. Oh well. I’m sure they thought this through.

Is there data reflecting an exit of OB-GYN doctors from Texas and the likes?

There is. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maternity-care-deserts-pregnancy-hospital-closures-provider-shortages/

I think there was also a thread (Idaho may have been in the thread title?) that tracked a few cases as the last remaining OB practices left some counties across the country. Rural areas have suffered for care for decades, but the forced birther laws aren’t just anti-women and antithetical to life, they’re anti-medicine.

Here’s an article about why some stay and some leave.

[Anonymous]

FFS. https://apnews.com/article/dobbs-anniversary-roe-v-wade-abortion-obgyn-699263284cced4bd421bc83207678816