SCOTexas... I Just Can't

[ThreePointTakedown]

Double U Tee Eff!

How is this not evidence that cruelty is the point? 

This is everything they could want from such a case. Mother of two, trying, responsibly for a third. Something goes tragically wrong in the development of the fetus. Will most likely lead to, at best, a short and painful life, if at all, for the baby. At worst, threaten the life and/or the ability for further fertility of the mother. 

Supreme Court of Texas, firstly, takes their sweet time to decide on this issue(all republican Judges, BTW, another notch for cruelty being the point). Then after the fact, rules against the lower court. All of this following a barrage of threats from the AG(who is currently being investigated for securities fraud, trial set for April 15) aimed at the mother and any doctor or healthcare professional that might aid her. 

In so doing rules against an obvious exception that should be built into Texas law, but is now not an option. For pregnant people that do not have the means to travel out of the state they are now, by way of judgement of their supreme court, forced to struggle and die or carry a baby to term that more than likely won't live long if at all. 

How can you keep voting for these people? What are you getting from it? Is the suffering of your opponents your point too? 

I don't like to prescribe motive to actions, but these are too obvious to overlook. There is no sympathy or empathy in these laws or in these rulings. They are cold and calculated. With little to no consideration for those that would be effected. They have power and little worry as to what might happen to them as a consequence of this ruling and these laws. I weep for Texas and the pregnant people still living there. 

[Offthemat]

"A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion," the court wrote in its decision, adding: "The law leaves to physicians — not judges — both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient."
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-woman-sought-abortion-court-order-leave-state-rcna129087

[Bigbrog]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

"A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion," the court wrote in its decision, adding: "The law leaves to physicians — not judges — both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient."
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-woman-sought-abortion-court-order-leave-state-rcna129087

After all that over-emotional foot stomping and belly aching in the original post....I weep for people who don't know how to think for themselves and only read and listen to the things they want to hear so they can be the victim or make others out to be victims.

[WrestlingRasta]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I weep for people who don't know how to think for themselves and only read and listen to the things they want to hear so they can be the victim or make others out to be victims.

Couldn’t agree more 

Edited December 12, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[VakAttack]

25 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

After all that over-emotional foot stomping and belly aching in the original post....I weep for people who don't know how to think for themselves and only read and listen to the things they want to hear so they can be the victim or make others out to be victims.

Lololol.  What is it you think this says?

[jross]

REFRAME

• A lady is unable to find a Texas physician willing to legally abort her unborn child, where the unborn child has a severe fetal abnormality known as Trisomy 18.

How can you keep voting for these people? 

• ~90% of abortions are elective choices based on want rather than need.  (see attributions)
  • For me, every unborn life is valuable, and it is difficult to separate my views on life from the issue of elective abortion.  If you believe the unborn life is valuable, it makes you wonder how anyone can vote for people who support elective abortion.
• Abortion due to the mother's health (12% of attributions) and fetus health (14% of attributions) 
  • It seems the news is sensationalizing a story with a bias or misinformation on the actual state law.
  • THERE SHOULD BE EXCEPTIONS AND THERE IS IN TEXAS FOR THIS CASE.

 

--------------------------------------LEGAL-------------------------------------------

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

TITLE 2. HEALTH

SUBTITLE H. PUBLIC HEALTH PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 171. ABORTION

• Sec. 171.003. PHYSICIAN TO PERFORM. An abortion may be performed only by a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state.
• Sec. 171.004. ABORTION OF FETUS AGE 16 WEEKS OR MORE. An abortion of a fetus aged 16 weeks or more may be performed only at an ambulatory surgical center or a hospital licensed to perform the abortion.
• Sec. 171.008. REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION. (a) If an abortion is performed or induced on a pregnant woman because of a medical emergency, the physician who performs or induces the abortion shall execute a written document that certifies the abortion is necessary due to a medical emergency and specifies the woman's medical condition requiring the abortion.
• Sec. 171.018. OFFENSE. A physician who intentionally performs an abortion on a woman in violation of this subchapter commits an offense. An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000.
• Sec. 171.043. DETERMINATION OF POST-FERTILIZATION AGE REQUIRED. Except as otherwise provided by Section 171.046, a physician may not perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion without, prior to the procedure:
  • (1) making a determination of the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child; or
  • (2) possessing and relying on a determination of the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child made by another physician.
• Sec. 171.044. ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD OF 20 OR MORE WEEKS POST-FERTILIZATION AGE PROHIBITED. Except as otherwise provided by Section 171.046, a person may not perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a woman if it has been determined, by the physician performing, inducing, or attempting to perform or induce the abortion or by another physician on whose determination that physician relies, that the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 or more weeks.
• Sec. 171.045. METHOD OF ABORTION...
• Sec. 171.046. EXCEPTIONS.
  • (a) The prohibitions and requirements under Sections 171.043, 171.044, and 171.045(b) do not apply to an abortion performed if there exists a condition that, in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the woman that, to avert the woman's death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition, it necessitates, as applicable:
    • (1) the immediate abortion of her pregnancy without the delay necessary to determine the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child;
    • (2) the abortion of her pregnancy even though the post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 or more weeks; or
    • (3) the use of a method of abortion other than a method described by Section 171.045(b).
  • (b) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (a) if the risk of death or a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function arises from a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct that may result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.
  • (c) The prohibitions and requirements under Sections 171.043, 171.044, and 171.045(b) do not apply to an abortion performed on an unborn child who has a severe fetal abnormality.

Sec. 245.002. DEFINITIONS. 

• "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:
  • (A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;
  • (B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or
  • (C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.  The implantation of a fertilized egg or embryo outside of the uterus.
• "Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.
• "Severe fetal abnormality" means a life threatening physical condition that, in reasonable medical judgment, regardless of the provision of life saving medical treatment, is incompatible with life outside the womb.

Edited December 12, 2023 by jross

[bnwtwg]

“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti-Choice Choose” by Joyce Arthur

[mspart]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kate-cox-did-not-qualify-for-an-abortion-in-texas-state-supreme-court-says/ar-AA1lo683

Kate Cox did not qualify for an abortion in Texas, state Supreme Court says

Story by Bayliss Wagner, Austin American-Statesman 

 

The Texas Supreme Court in a highly anticipated decision ruled on Monday evening that Kate Cox, a Dallas area mother carrying a fetus with a fatal condition, did not qualify for an abortion under state laws based on her doctor's "good faith belief" that she needs the procedure.

"The statute requires that judgment be a 'reasonable medical' judgment, and Dr. (Damla) Karsan has not asserted that her 'good faith belief' about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard," the opinion reads.

In a near-total abortion ban, Texas prohibits abortions beginning at fertilization, with exceptions only for cases in which a pregnant patient risks death or “substantial impairment of major bodily function."

The opinion is the last twist in a six-day legal saga and comes just hours after Cox's attorneys said she had left the state to terminate her pregnancy.

So she had the means to go to another state, but tried to fight TX over their law.   In addition, her Dr did not assert that Ms Cox's life was in danger, at least to the threshold necessary to get the deed done.    Now she is in another state and has probably already gotten the abortion or is about to.  

So in other words, Ms Cox did not convince her life was threatened by this pregnancy.  Therefore, the TXSC followed the law as written and stated so.   Now if she had shown that her life was in jeopardy, then I believe the TXSC would have allowed the abortion to take place per the law.  

mspart

 

 

[jross]

36 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti-Choice Choose” by Joyce Arthur

The reason we talk about the exception cases for abortion is because we all know someone who has had an elective abortion. #EthicsInDisguise

[VakAttack]

49 minutes ago, mspart said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kate-cox-did-not-qualify-for-an-abortion-in-texas-state-supreme-court-says/ar-AA1lo683

Kate Cox did not qualify for an abortion in Texas, state Supreme Court says

Story by Bayliss Wagner, Austin American-Statesman 

 

The Texas Supreme Court in a highly anticipated decision ruled on Monday evening that Kate Cox, a Dallas area mother carrying a fetus with a fatal condition, did not qualify for an abortion under state laws based on her doctor's "good faith belief" that she needs the procedure.

"The statute requires that judgment be a 'reasonable medical' judgment, and Dr. (Damla) Karsan has not asserted that her 'good faith belief' about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard," the opinion reads.

In a near-total abortion ban, Texas prohibits abortions beginning at fertilization, with exceptions only for cases in which a pregnant patient risks death or “substantial impairment of major bodily function."

The opinion is the last twist in a six-day legal saga and comes just hours after Cox's attorneys said she had left the state to terminate her pregnancy.

So she had the means to go to another state, but tried to fight TX over their law.   In addition, her Dr did not assert that Ms Cox's life was in danger, at least to the threshold necessary to get the deed done.    Now she is in another state and has probably already gotten the abortion or is about to.  

So in other words, Ms Cox did not convince her life was threatened by this pregnancy.  Therefore, the TXSC followed the law as written and stated so.   Now if she had shown that her life was in jeopardy, then I believe the TXSC would have allowed the abortion to take place per the law.  

mspart

 

 

The argument the Texas SC is making is a tautology of nonsense.  "A person who meets the criteria to have an abortion need not seek out a court order.  However, the criteria they have to meet, is set by the legislature and the courts."

[jross]

59 minutes ago, mspart said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kate-cox-did-not-qualify-for-an-abortion-in-texas-state-supreme-court-says/ar-AA1lo683

Kate Cox did not qualify for an abortion in Texas, state Supreme Court says

While there are valid points in the case about whether the mother's life is at risk but

...WTF is Texas doing questioning this lady with the doctor's recommendation?  

...WTF is Texas doing by implying trisomy 18 is not a severe fetal abnormality?

I guess it's ambiguous here because the child can sometimes live up to a year but revert back to the doctor's recommendation, and it should be the end of the story.  This is bad from Texas where I stand currently.

Quote

A. First, Texas law does not permit abortions solely because the unborn child is unlikely to have sustained life outside the womb. There is no textual argument that fatal fetal conditions or fetal conditions incompatible with life are included within the medical-emergency exceptions, which focus only on the woman’s life. E.g., Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(b) (concerning life of the mother). The Legislature knows how to draft such exemptions. See, e.g., id. §§ 171.0122(d)(3) (referring to unborn children who have an “irreversible medical condition or abnormality”), 171.046(c) (referring to unborn children who have a “severe fetal abnormality”). It did not do so here.

Edited December 12, 2023 by jross

[Offthemat]

Apparently the doctor didn’t see it as impending as some non-medical practitioners.   

 

 

"The statute requires that judgment be a 'reasonable medical' judgment, and Dr. (Damla) Karsan has not asserted that her 'good faith belief' about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard," the opinion reads.