PrO-LiFe
- Thread starter ClintonDavidScott
- Start date
I asked two basic questions regarding the elements of the law. You answered neither of them.
This is lefty bullshit. Doctors are allowed to treat women in Texas who have had a miscarriage.
There could be a number of reasons why there was a delay. I doubt it had anything to do with abortion law.
There could be a number of reasons why there was a delay. I doubt it had anything to do with abortion law.
Yes, it’s an existentially major bodily function, especially for a woman.
Yes…permanently so.
Do you have any issue with a law that does not specifically enumerate risk and de facto politicizes the Hippocratic Oath? Again, your interpretation of the law doesn’t matter. It created a tragic - in @Ponca Dan ’s words - chilling effect on medical professionals to not provide care for fear or prosecution until…sepsis.
carry on
Where would you recommend the state of Texas draw the line on abortion? Or do you think there should be no line at all?
I’ve said 20 weeks on this board before…that is 14 more than the current 6-week ban. Do you understand how fvcking batsh!t up in arms righties would be over that number? That’s where the PrO-LiFe mantra has taken us…to the point where a woman commonly doesn’t yet even know she’s pregnant.
Notwithstanding the simple fact this wasn’t an abortion…or a miscarriage. This ideology has led to Republicans going extreme to extreme. That reeks of totalitarianism and it’s hurting people.
carry on
Methinks you paint with too broad a brush. Just as most Democrats don’t agree in abortion at the time of birth, as extremist Democrats do, so most Republicans don’t believe this woman should have had to endure what she endured. I wonder if this issue could be resolved if the clear thinkers of both parties would sit together and find a solution. Either both parties are terrified to anger their extremists or they are happy to keep things exactly as they are, where they can vilify the other side by insisting the whole party is being extremist, as you are doing in this thread, and watch the donations roll in and assured votes in the next election.
Then we agree that this law allows for this lady to have had a legal abortion in this case. That doesn’t happen every day! Ha!
I find the wording of this law very typical in that it’s impossible to enumerate every possible scenario in which an abortion would be illegal. The legislature set out the criteria and now it’s up to the doctor to decide if the circumstances will allow a legal abortion or not.
Politics has nothing to do with this analysis.
1) We don’t agree at all here, Gary. If she goes to a doctor with an incompetent cervix and early dilation and is told she will eventually either have to miscarry on her own or become life-threateningly ill before she’s allowed…we’re not on the same page and you know it. @SquatchinPoke was actually laughing about that…a woman who ran a 103 fever and infection and internal scarring…and a uterus removed. “Hahahahaha”? Is that seriously funny???
2) If a doctor has to weigh their sworn duty against their ability to defend themselves from this dumba$$ law in court….yeah, it’s pretty political.
carry on
This woman was told her pregnancy was nonviable. She should’ve had the immediate right to abortion. Agree/disagree?
There isn’t a “right“ involved here, so I would have to disagree.
Now if I had the ability to change the wording of that law, I certainly would. And I would include exceptions for non-viability, rape and such. But that’s just me.
I was simply asking if we agreed in this case. And it still appears to me that we do.
How ambitious do you believe Texas Republicans et al are to remedy these circumstances? Be honest.
Grumet: 'It's barbaric,' says Austin woman denied care as pregnancy unraveled
Amanda and Josh Zurawski blame the politicians, not the doctors. "They know they don't want to be the person that Ken Paxton makes an example of."
www.statesman.com
“In July, the Biden administration told hospitals that regardless of state laws, they must provide an emergency abortion when it is “the stabilizing treatment necessary” to resolve a medical emergency. Many Texas doctors saw hope in that moment for much-needed clarity.
Then Paxton sued, saying the federal government couldn’t interfere with the state’s “sovereign interest” in making its own abortion laws. A federal judge sided with Paxton.
“It took away that last hope,” Dr. John Thoppil, the immediate past president of Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told me.
The judge’s ruling was Aug. 24.
Texas’ trigger ban, creating criminal penalties for abortions, went into effect Aug. 25.
Amanda Zurawski was rushed to the hospital on Aug. 26.”
STaTe’s RiGhtS
carry on
Then Paxton sued, saying the federal government couldn’t interfere with the state’s “sovereign interest” in making its own abortion laws. A federal judge sided with Paxton.
“It took away that last hope,” Dr. John Thoppil, the immediate past president of Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told me.
The judge’s ruling was Aug. 24.
Texas’ trigger ban, creating criminal penalties for abortions, went into effect Aug. 25.
Amanda Zurawski was rushed to the hospital on Aug. 26.”
STaTe’s RiGhtS
carry on
I don’t know.How ambitious do you believe Texas Republicans et al are to remedy these circumstances? Be honest.
Grumet: 'It's barbaric,' says Austin woman denied care as pregnancy unraveled
Amanda and Josh Zurawski blame the politicians, not the doctors. "They know they don't want to be the person that Ken Paxton makes an example of."www.statesman.com
All I know is the world would be a much better place if you people would just put me in charge.
If you don’t like the laws of Texas please feel free to move to a state where you do agree with their laws. If you already live in another state STFU you have no say nor should you.
As to this story, it’s sounds like utter BS to me. There was nothing stopping this woman from getting a second opinion or traveling to a state that lives to kill innocent unborn babies.
As to this story, it’s sounds like utter BS to me. There was nothing stopping this woman from getting a second opinion or traveling to a state that lives to kill innocent unborn babies.
And yet we have lawyers dictating treatment plans. Big win for liberty in Texas?@davidallen
@ClintonDavidScott
Take a look at this link from the Texas Law Library. I think an abortion would have been legal for this lady. Human reproduction is certainly a “major bodily function”. I have no doubt that the doctors told this lady that an abortion would be illegal. Makes me wonder if these doctors have ever taken the time to actually do a little reading up on such an important topic.
Let me know what you think after reading the pasted excerpt below. I am genuinely interested in your opinion on how the law would apply in this case.
Frequently Asked Legal Questions
Answers to common legal questions we receive at the law library.faq.sll.texas.gov
Abortions Prohibited, With Certain Exceptions
Abortion is banned under Chapter 170A of the Texas Health & Safety Code except in certain narrow circumstances. Chapter 170A also lists both criminal, civil, and professional penalties for performing prohibited abortions.
Section 170A.002 prohibits a person from performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion. There are exceptions for situations in which the life or health of the pregnant patient is at risk. These exceptions are in subsection (b) of Section 170A.002. Three factors are listed:
These exceptions do not apply in certain cases. One example is where the pregnant patient's risk of death or impairment arises from a risk of suicide or self-harm, according to subsection (c) of Section 170A.002.
- A licensed physician must perform the abortion.
- The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function" if the abortion is not performed. "Substantial impairment of a major bodily function" is not defined in this chapter.
- The physician must try to save the life of the fetus unless this would increase the risk of the pregnant patient's death or impairment.
This chapter does not apply in situations where a fetus accidentally dies or is injured due to medical treatment. This statement is found in subsection (d) of Section 170A.002.
You don't think the threat of a lawsuit played a role in the treatment plan?
People without means do not get fertility treatments, try again.
Always wanted to visit Oregon but after seeing the people that have infested the place I no longer have the slightest desire.
Economic circumstances don't change over time? By what right do you claim so much control of this woman and her health?
Lawsuit? Every decision made by a doctor is under the threat of a lawsuit, isn’t it?
Every arrest by a police officer certainly is. It’s the real world, bro.
These stories go tits up at an amazing clip.
How does anybody feel confident to say one way or another?
How does anybody feel confident to say one way or another?
Can you see the difference between a run-of-the-mill medical malpractice lawsuit and one brought by a batsh!t crazy right wing nutjob anti-abortion citizen? Such activity allowed under law now…pretty twisted, yes?
carry on
Oh dude. Anybody can file a lawsuit at any time for anything. Been that way forever.
Yeah, I'm sure when that sepsis case is under review they get the full legal team involved. Uh huh.
Do they? Which ones can you point to as your shining star example?
Personally, I would look at a lawsuit for the doctor failing to perform the abortion in this case. But that’s just me.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Levenson's Takeaways: Star power on display at Rivals Camp Series in Dallas- Latest: Marshall Levenson
-
-
-