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.

But she’s so reasonable!!

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.

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.

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.”

Anonymous wrote:I'm interested in what will happen when this happens to a Jewish woman..... Because it is their freedom of religion to get an abortion. It is literally part of their religion to save the mother.

They won't care. The goal is a Christo-Fascist country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So where are the conservatives on this one? They've been awfully quiet minus one or two peeps earlier.

.

The talking point seems to be that they searched around to find her to bring the suit as if there is something wrong with that. Of course they did and now the stupidity and cruelty of these laws is more exposed.

The talking point (and court ruling) was that "she wasn't sick enough".... yet.

They prefer to have her go all the way down the road to sepsis, nevermind that it hadn't happened yet, she wasn't septic YET. She only MIGHT die, but the baby MIGHT live a whole hour, so it's worth it!

+1. A death from T18 is really horrific. If my fetus had this diagnosis, I had reached 20 weeks, I risk my health and fertility to have the chance to hold, name and baptize my baby before it died. To get that hour or two to meet my child. But I would hope that I would be strong enough to not bring a child into this world so they can have a short, incredibly painful life and suffocate to death. Because that’s what parenting is. It’s putting your wants and needs behind those of your children. And I would hope I was strong enough not to make my child to suffer that way for my wants and needs.

I bet Ken Paxton and many of the R gouls have living wills that specify life sustaining care be withdrawn in homeless cases because they would not want to live and die the way the are forcing this baby to live and die. I bet none of them are volunteering to have pain meds withdrawn and medically induced comas reversed so that they can be woken up and be full conscious for the sole purpose of fully experiencing an agonizing death. Why would we do this to a newborn?

If Kate Cox proceeded with her pregnancy, once her child was born, we allow parents to refuse life sustaining care in hopeless situations. And we would condemn her if she put a child on life support just to delay their inevitable death. Because it’s futile and cruel.

We allow adults to draw up documents and sign DNRs and respect that they do not want to live in pain with terminal conditions. So why are we requiring women to serve as life support machines for fetuses with terminal diagnoses? Not healthy babies temporarily dependent on their mom. Babies that are unlikely to reach or survive childbirth and, if the do, will died shortly thereafter. I mean, we have the “parental rights” to demand we not say gay in schools and ban library books, but not to decide that we love our unborn children enough to spare them a painful death they cannot understand.

We don’t preserve life at all costs for terminally ill children or adults. We recognize this as a personal (and legally protected) decision that adults make for themselves. And tragically, some parents must make for their kids.. Why is the standard different for a terminally ill fetus? And why is the “pro life” brigade so insistent that the child must remain on mommy life support and be born at term just to suffer a swift and agonizing death? Ken Paxton and the State of TX is saying that if this baby makes it to term, mom can then withhold care and watch her child suffocate. But not until then.

It’s unbelievably cruel— for the baby and the parents.

I'm 100% certain this was a spellcheck typo but just in case someone misread it. . . .

Anonymous wrote:I'm interested in what will happen when this happens to a Jewish woman..... Because it is their freedom of religion to get an abortion. It is literally part of their religion to save the mother.

There’s already a lawsuit in Florida about that https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109607681/fl-lawsuit-argues-supreme-court-abortion-decision-violates-jewish-beliefs

This debacle is just another reason why Republicans should never, ever hold power. They have zero ability and or interest to govern, only to destroy.

They have had 50 - FIFTY - years to have a plan in place for when Roe was struck down. They had nothing! Just like gutting ACA with no replacement.

Now, JD Vance, who is rumored to be Trump‘s VP pick, is all over the Sunday shows saying, “Republicans need to have Pro Family policies.“. I’m surprised JD can even talk with so much bumper in his mouth. Name, one, ONE pro family policy that Republicans have put forward since the gutting of Roe.

The GOP is a party of chaos and destruction, witnessed by this example. Why would ANYONE vote to give them in power again?

For those who scream “The Economy!” The GOP is systematically and purposefully destroying one of the biggest industries- healthcare. For the “Lower taxes for corporations to spur innovation” folks, companies are not going to last in red states with these draconian policies. Companies will not be able to attract good talent. They will eventually leave your states, making them more like Alabama than California. For the Parents Rights folks, nothings says talking away a parents right than what anti-choice Republicans did to Kate Cox. Where are her rights? She’s a parent.

Im going to keep repeating this: The GOP is the party of chaos and destruction. And for them, the cruelty is a bonus.

What I'm interested in is what if these children are actually brought to term? Is a state prepared to pay for 24-hour medical care? What? He's infants to die a couple of weeks later.... Because it is cruel and unusual to force me a lease to go into medical debt to basically pay for millions of dollars worth of care for a fetus and baby that they know is going to pass. My parents went into medical debt due to my sister's medical needs at birth..... Not like threatening but they never recovered and we were very poor until the time we all graduated high school. They finally filed bankruptcy a few years ago

I'm interested in what will happen when this happens to a Jewish woman..... Because it is their freedom of religion to get an abortion. It is literally part of their religion to save the mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So where are the conservatives on this one? They've been awfully quiet minus one or two peeps earlier.

.

The talking point seems to be that they searched around to find her to bring the suit as if there is something wrong with that. Of course they did and now the stupidity and cruelty of these laws is more exposed.

The talking point (and court ruling) was that "she wasn't sick enough".... yet.

They prefer to have her go all the way down the road to sepsis, nevermind that it hadn't happened yet, she wasn't septic YET. She only MIGHT die, but the baby MIGHT live a whole hour, so it's worth it!

+1. A death from T18 is really horrific. If my fetus had this diagnosis, I had reached 20 weeks, I risk my health and fertility to have the chance to hold, name and baptize my baby before it died. To get that hour or two to meet my child. But I would hope that I would be strong enough to not bring a child into this world so they can have a short, incredibly painful life and suffocate to death. Because that’s what parenting is. It’s putting your wants and needs behind those of your children. And I would hope I was strong enough not to make my child to suffer that way for my wants and needs.

I bet Ken Paxton and many of the R gouls have living wills that specify life sustaining care be withdrawn in homeless cases because they would not want to live and die the way the are forcing this baby to live and die. I bet none of them are volunteering to have pain meds withdrawn and medically induced comas reversed so that they can be woken up and be full conscious for the sole purpose of fully experiencing an agonizing death. Why would we do this to a newborn?

If Kate Cox proceeded with her pregnancy, once her child was born, we allow parents to refuse life sustaining care in hopeless situations. And we would condemn her if she put a child on life support just to delay their inevitable death. Because it’s futile and cruel.

We allow adults to draw up documents and sign DNRs and respect that they do not want to live in pain with terminal conditions. So why are we requiring women to serve as life support machines for fetuses with terminal diagnoses? Not healthy babies temporarily dependent on their mom. Babies that are unlikely to reach or survive childbirth and, if the do, will died shortly thereafter. I mean, we have the “parental rights” to demand we not say gay in schools and ban library books, but not to decide that we love our unborn children enough to spare them a painful death they cannot understand.

We don’t preserve life at all costs for terminally ill children or adults. We recognize this as a personal (and legally protected) decision that adults make for themselves. And tragically, some parents must make for their kids.. Why is the standard different for a terminally ill fetus? And why is the “pro life” brigade so insistent that the child must remain on mommy life support and be born at term just to suffer a swift and agonizing death? Ken Paxton and the State of TX is saying that if this baby makes it to term, mom can then withhold care and watch her child suffocate. But not until then.

It’s unbelievably cruel— for the baby and the parents.

Anonymous wrote:Reminds me of when Irish women had to travel to England for abortions. Abortion became legal in Ireland, a stronghold of the Catholic Church, in 2019. But here in America, a so-called bastion of democracy, we're going backwards in time!

.

It was legalized in Ireland after the uproar over the death of a woman who ended up with sepsis after being denied an abortion while miscarrying her first pregnancy. I wonder if it will take the same situation here to wake people up.
But the evangelicals will just talk about “God’s will” or “God has a plan” or something of the sort. As a Christian myself, I find those people abhorrent.

And here in Canada, we haven't had any abortion law at all in over 30 years. Every attempt they tried was struck down by the Supreme Court so they decided to JUST NOT HAVE ANY. I think we're the only country in the world like this. But seriously, why need a law at all? Works fine without one.

The sky hasn't fallen. Nobody is getting late term abortions for reasons of convenience. It's considered NOYB and between a woman and her doctor, certainly not your neighbor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So where are the conservatives on this one? They've been awfully quiet minus one or two peeps earlier.

.

The talking point seems to be that they searched around to find her to bring the suit as if there is something wrong with that. Of course they did and now the stupidity and cruelty of these laws is more exposed.

The talking point (and court ruling) was that "she wasn't sick enough".... yet.

They prefer to have her go all the way down the road to sepsis, nevermind that it hadn't happened yet, she wasn't septic YET. She only MIGHT die, but the baby MIGHT live a whole hour, so it's worth it!

Anonymous wrote:So where are the conservatives on this one? They've been awfully quiet minus one or two peeps earlier.

.

The talking point seems to be that they searched around to find her to bring the suit as if there is something wrong with that. Of course they did and now the stupidity and cruelty of these laws is more exposed.