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

Anonymous
Susan needs to never comment seeing as how she basically allowed this to happen
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Man I thought I was angry about this and then I saw how angry SUSAN EFFING COLLINS OF ALL PEOPLE was about this and I got so much angrier.

“I thought it was a terrible decision… that may affect her future ability to carry a child, was forced to leave Texas to get a much needed abortion — it’s just inconceivable to me.”

Susan’s mad that the leopards ate her face.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Man I thought I was angry about this and then I saw how angry SUSAN EFFING COLLINS OF ALL PEOPLE was about this and I got so much angrier.

“I thought it was a terrible decision… that may affect her future ability to carry a child, was forced to leave Texas to get a much needed abortion — it’s just inconceivable to me.”
Ef Susan. I blame Susan Collins for all of this. May she always be tortured by her vote.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Man I thought I was angry about this and then I saw how angry SUSAN EFFING COLLINS OF ALL PEOPLE was about this and I got so much angrier.

“I thought it was a terrible decision… that may affect her future ability to carry a child, was forced to leave Texas to get a much needed abortion — it’s just inconceivable to me.”


Susan “concerned” Collins can go f*ck herself.


Exactly
Anonymous
Is it not cruel and unusual to force families to go into millions of dollars of medical debt for an unviable fetus that could easily be handled via women's health care for under a few hundred dollars?.
Anonymous
My parents went into medical debt in the 80s and never recovered.... Finally up bankruptcy in the 90s allow them to start over, but that was a long upheld battle. The things are family had to go through. I would not wish on anyone
Anonymous
Sen. Ted Cruz, asked by NBC’s Kate Santaliz to comment on the Kate Cox abortion case and whether he agrees with the Paxton’s actions, declines to comment and says to call his press office. Told that his office has been contacted and not responded, he says: “Call our press office.”
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Is it not cruel and unusual to force families to go into millions of dollars of medical debt for an unviable fetus that could easily be handled via women's health care for under a few hundred dollars?.

It is, but you imply that the Republicans are acting in a surprising fashion when they act against the Constitution. They’re not; they don’t believe in the Constitution (another piece of proof: the way the Republican Party is obsessed with destroying the Post Office).

And the cruelty is the point. Accidentally sterilize a woman, make her carry a dangerous and non viable pregnancy longer, bankrupt the family, turn the existing children’s lives upside down… the cruelty is the point. There’s no “life” here. There is dark, dank cruelty.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.
https://apnews.com/article/dobbs-anniversary-roe-v-wade-abortion-obgyn-699263284cced4bd421bc83207678816

Yes, multiple hospitals in states with bans have chosen to stop all OBGyn services. The big Roe struck down thread has been tracking all of these types of developments over the last year and a half and there are lots of links in there.


+1 hospitals also have an enormous amount of potential liability if they guess wrong on providing abortion. Wait too long and it’s a huge malpractice case. Abort too soon and fines and jail for medical personnel. And it’s not easy or cheap to have in house lawyers meeting to make determinations on pregnancy care while a woman is bleeding out in the ER. Or when future harm is unclear because no one except Ken Paxton has a crystal ball. It is so much easier and less risky to get out of the baby business.

Side note, hospital lawyers have an ethical duty to protect hospitals, their clients and not to preserve the health or life of women. Thus, ethically, they have to say no if there is any doubt. Lawyers making decisions on whether a woman is close enough to death to get an abortion is a terrible idea. Especially when projecting possible future harm, as with Kate Cox, whose life or fertility may be in jeopardy, or when someone in their first trimester has stage 1 or 2 breast cancer. Immediate treatment (chemo, surgery, radiation) is the standard of care, but would kill the fetus. But the cancer was caught early (yeah! Early detection saves lives— except in red states) but, it isn’t so advanced the woman’s life is threatened today and waiting until childbirth to get treatment may or may not that may or may not kill the woman. Depends on how far the cancer spreads while the woman is not treated. A lawyer has a duty to tell the hospital not to abort because the harm isn’t imminent. And as the Kate Cox written decision makes clear, speculative future harm is not enough to allow a woman to decide whether to delay treatment or abort. Abortion to begin treatment six months earlier isn’t an option. Better hope you aren’t a woman diagnosed with stage 1-2 cancer at 8 weeks in TX.

These are not situations hospitals want to be in. And I’m a lawyer and can assure you— no one wants me and my peers making complex decisions on medical care. Easier and safer just to close the maternity ward.


Hopefully, the local, blue DA, would charge everyone involved with manslaughter if they made that decision. The problem is that right now doctors have a situation where if they err on one side they ace relatively light consequences- at most a malpractice suit that is handled by insurance. If they err on the other side, they risk jail. A local DA charging doctors, or the whole ethics committee with a felony that results in jail time when they are too cautious and a woman dies changes the calculus for the hospital.


Yeah, I am not a lawyer but that sounds like fantasy, I think the legal barriers to such charges would be very large.


Woman presents at the hospital in need of an abortion. Doctors delay to CYA, woman dies of sepsis. Assuming there is a debate in the committee, it would be hard for them to argue they didn't know the risk of waiting. Texas law says that the abortion in that circumstance would be legal. It would be enough to at least arrest them
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Is it not cruel and unusual to force families to go into millions of dollars of medical debt for an unviable fetus that could easily be handled via women's health care for under a few hundred dollars?.


Can you baby safe haven the baby at birth and let Texas pay for the millions to keep it alive for a few hours?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is it not cruel and unusual to force families to go into millions of dollars of medical debt for an unviable fetus that could easily be handled via women's health care for under a few hundred dollars?.


Can you baby safe haven the baby at birth and let Texas pay for the millions to keep it alive for a few hours?


So after a woman survived a very difficult physical and mental pregnancy to give birth to an unviable feed as she is supposed to surrender it to the state for a few hours and not even claim to be its mother or be its mother on the birth certificate.... I don't think they would have the rights to the remains then after the baby died.... And we just be cremated along with homeless people and other individuals. They don't know who the family is.... That is an entirely different type of cruelty
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Man I thought I was angry about this and then I saw how angry SUSAN EFFING COLLINS OF ALL PEOPLE was about this and I got so much angrier.

“I thought it was a terrible decision… that may affect her future ability to carry a child, was forced to leave Texas to get a much needed abortion — it’s just inconceivable to me.”

Susan’s mad that the leopards ate her face.


No they didn't - she knew what she was doing. It's not even plausible deniability. It is totally implausible deniability.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is it not cruel and unusual to force families to go into millions of dollars of medical debt for an unviable fetus that could easily be handled via women's health care for under a few hundred dollars?.


Can you baby safe haven the baby at birth and let Texas pay for the millions to keep it alive for a few hours?


So after a woman survived a very difficult physical and mental pregnancy to give birth to an unviable feed as she is supposed to surrender it to the state for a few hours and not even claim to be its mother or be its mother on the birth certificate.... I don't think they would have the rights to the remains then after the baby died.... And we just be cremated along with homeless people and other individuals. They don't know who the family is.... That is an entirely different type of cruelty

The level of dancing we’re doing around the fact that Republican voters are irredeemably cruel ghouls is unbelievable. Not the PP who suggested sticking the state with the bill, because I think she was just trying to figure out a way to not further destroy this family, but in general Republican voters are irredeemable. There’s nothing inherent to them that makes them this way except a bizarre resistance to taking in new facts. No, Paul and Brenda, making abortion illegal is not about celebrating “life,” it’s about controlling women. If it were about “life,” presumably you would care to make “life” better for people, but you look for ways to punish people throughout their lives, too. I mean your stupid state can’t even figure out how to keep your power grid up and running.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The conservative “small government “, where people with zero medical qualifications tell doctors what qualifies as “life saving”. Dumb as rocks.


Government small enough to fit into your uterus.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:So where are the conservatives on this one? They've been awfully quiet minus one or two peeps earlier.


Last I heard "It's Obama's fault because he didn't codify abortion rights into law while he had the majority and chance to do so".

Obviously that forced Trump to appoint two extremely conservative justices who voted to overturn Dobbs.

Stare Decisis my @ss
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: