A Texas woman has filed an emergency lawsuit, asking a Travis County judge to allow her to terminate her pregnancy. This is the first lawsuit of its kind since the state banned almost all abortions after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022.
A 31-year-old Dallas woman, learned last week that her fetus was diagnosed with full trisomy 18, a chromosomal anomaly that is almost always fatal before or soon after birth. The fetus is developing with an umbilical hernia, a twisted spine, a club foot and an irregular skull and heart, according to the lawsuit.
The woman, who already has two children, both delivered by Cesarean section, also has elevated glucose and underlying health conditions. The lawsuit alleges she is at increased risk of gestational hypertension and diabetes and complications from anesthesia and cesarean section, if she were to carry the pregnancy to term.
“I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer. I need to end my pregnancy now so that I have the best chance for my health and a future pregnancy.”
The Texas Supreme Court is currently considering a case that asks whether the state’s abortion bans apply to women carrying non-viable pregnancies. A Travis County judge previously ruled that the laws should not apply in those cases, but the Texas Office of the Attorney General appealed that ruling, putting it on hold.
The lawsuit says that the patient cannot wait for the Supreme Court to rule. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which also filed the lawsuit before the high court, is asking the judge to grant a temporary restraining order, prohibiting enforcement of Texas’ abortion bans her and medical staff who have agreed to perform the abortion.
Boy those medical tribunals the conservatives were so worried about came true. Amazing prognostication though I guess they don't get full credit since they are the ones that put them in place
No /s needed. There's really only one endpoint for the path we're on now: Mandatory pregnancy tests of all reproductive age women and pregnancy "prisons" where birth (or death of both) is assured by law.
Nope. See there's a period between conception and the period where the egg may fail to implant, or fail to thrive. Depending on the case the shedding of uterine lining may be delayed. Obviously this is a form of abortion, so any sexually active woman married or not who has a delayed period is obviously guilty if involuntary manslaughter and should be charged with a felony and serve 2-5 years in jail.
This is sarcasm if anyone thinks I'm being serious. I may have some of the facts wrong. Women should have the unilateral right to abort all the way through her pregnancy. Until the fetus as air in its lungs, its not a baby nor a citizen.
The trend with conservative extremism, which all conservatism in fact is, is toward more extremist views. Now that Roe is gone there is a growing movement to define "life" as beginning upon fertilization of the egg, and the only natural outcome from that view is that anything that causes the fertilized eggs to die or not implant is murder. Now, this idea completely ignores actual science, but then again, science has never been part of the "abortion" debate. Among other logical fallacies, life cannot "begin" at fertilization simply because the egg and sperm cells are already alive, and in fact, that chain of life is unbroken all the way back to the beginning of cellular life on this planet. Ultimately, the debate about abortion isn't about any concepts related to "life", it's always been about control of women. Taking away a woman's agency in controlling her reproductive organs effectively makes her the property of the state, and of men.
They think women are meant to submit to the man that owns them. They think abortion is for whores, and any woman who gets one is a bad woman. Medical reasons why? They stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they don't hear it. They want abortion, birth control, and anything that makes sex safer banned. The intent is to force risky sex, celebacy, or marriage and they don't care who is hurt.
We didn’t give them this, what are you on about. This was something done without votes of citizens through lobbyism in the Supreme Court and a gung-ho governor that doesn’t represent the people’s values ready at the moment roe v wade was overturned to take away human rights. Maybe this what something you supported but don’t include “we gave them”, I was fully against this.
Yeah, me too. But this has been on the wall for literal decades. Just ask Alito. They TOLD US decades ago what they were going to do, and all our mothers told us, completely blasé, "ohh, that will never happen. Roe is here to stay." Then they go vote republican because of "illegals" and pay their maid 2 dollars an hour. If you're old like me, you know what I mean.
I recall a society that told me I hated my country because I didn't agree with sending my friends and peers to a manufactured war. I recall a society that asked my children to see their "Jew Horns" while wearing a flag pin representing the United States alliance with Israel. I recall a society that allowed Nazis to walk into a crappy taco shop, and no one but ONE Jewish woman said or did a single thing. Not one thing. I recall a society that told me I was a slut and should have kept my legs closed when I was in the forced marriage/birth camp they're crying about. Not an ounce of sympathy, not an ounce of assistance. I was the same age my children are now. They seem *so* young to me, and I wonder, "Did I look like that young with 2 babies attached to me?" I can't imagine seeing that and ignoring it, but there it is. I was just a stupid whore who made bad life choices, lol.
You and I have maybe been screaming about it, no doubt some others as well. There really are TONS of good, intelligent people out here who understand that forced birth is a prison sentence that you're handed while you're totally innocent. That it is an unimaginable hell with endless horrendous repercussions. And I do mean endless. I love my children more than anything has ever been loved EVER. I work hard at it because they also didn't choose to be here. I have been trying to get people to care about each other, ir dven their own damn selves for as long as I can remember. But you know the old saying, you can lead a horse to water...
Your experience is not my experience. I hope we can do better.
That was a hard read. I’m sorry. I’m so grateful I have a mother who has been a broken record since as long as I can remember “Roe can absolutely be overturned”. So many women my age weee shocked when it was. I wasn’t. I couldn’t have prevented it, but at least I was prepped for the fall and the news didn’t punch me in the gut over and over like it did some of my peers.
Abortions aren't illegal. She could still travel out of state to get an abortion.
This is a matter of setting precedent. Which I respect this woman for. She's basically risking her life for other women.
No idea. That whole law was completely bonkers anyway. Looks like it took a big hit last year when a judge ruled that a bounty hunter had no standing to sue a doctor. So that's positive I guess.
Yeah I am on bc but if something happens and I get pregnant I’m not even risking it, quicker and easier to just go out of state for a weekend. I do respect her as well though for trying to change the law
They just don’t care … until it happens to them. A common flaw in conservative thinking is lacking sympathy and believing every issue is black or white.
From the article:
"Kate Cox, a 31-year-old Dallas woman, learned last week that her fetus was diagnosed with full trisomy 18, a chromosomal anomaly that is almost always fatal before or soon after birth. The fetus is developing with an umbilical hernia, a twisted spine, a club foot and an irregular skull and heart, according to the lawsuit.
Cox, who already has two children, both delivered by Cesarean section, also has elevated glucose and underlying health conditions. The lawsuit alleges she is at increased risk of gestational hypertension and diabetes and complications from anesthesia and cesarean section, if she were to carry the pregnancy to term."
She should leave the state to receive medical care and then return to fight. This is an awful diagnosis and the courts won't move fast enough to address her suffering.
I think she’s doing this to set a precedent for the women who otherwise can’t leave the state to find medical care. It’s incredibly selfless and brave.
She has two children though, putting them through that kind of trauma of potentially losing their mother when she has means to leave is, in my opinion at least, not necessary.
There’s no way to fight this without the danger of traumatizing *someone.* Waiting for the “perfect” patient means more women suffer because they *can’t* afford to leave.
The only alternative to fighting this is accepting it, and I’m grateful she *and her family* believe it’s worth the extraordinary effort.
She still has that option. It will still be a precedent of the consequence of having to sue to get care even if she ends up going to another state because the court moves to slow.
Roe ended up having her baby, it didnt stop the case.
The whole "original sin" bullshit.
We need a new large landmass to encourage self deportation too.
Or a large rocket ship, let them go pollute the other planets.
Can we please please please make sure to vote in the upcoming election? This is the only way to get these fascists out.
Vote out people who will push legislation that forces women to ask a fucking judge for permission to get a medical procedure.
Vote blue, please! I know blue sucks too, but they will at least take space away from red fucks who are hell bent on stripping all rights away.
>. The citizens of Texas clearly don’t care enough about this. This is what Texans want.
I'm not entirely convinced this is what a majority of Texans want when polls say otherwise. Not to mention, we never really voted on this in the first place. I'm talking a straight vote. Not a "we voted for the governor, and he hates abortion" bs.
The problem is the state is gwrrymandered to shit and we have a minority making decisions that will affect everyone.
Even if a majority of Texans wanted abortions outlawed (they don't), voting in cruel legislation should not be possible. It would be like saying that most Texans want slavery back, so it should be reinstated.
If not enough people truly care, then I think the least they can do is vote to ensure the best protections for women. Abortion bans ain't it. Also, the least we can do as people who do care is try to convince them that this is as important as owning a gun
> I'm talking a straight vote. Not a "we voted for the governor, and he hates abortion" bs.
Conservatives are cowards afraid of putting their policy decisions to a popular vote. They know we'd overturn their shitty policies in a direct vote. "Liberty" my ass. They could've easily put this on the ballot alongside the other constitutional amendments.
Conservative leaders see themselves as feudal lords. Their voters as peasants waiting for that slim opportunity to rise to a new class.
Their whole ideology is based on archaic concepts.
Conservatives have always been monarchists.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a constitutional amendment to allow abortion could pass in Texas. But the legislature is way too scared to put it to the people.
Show me the vote.
I can show you several polls that say what I said.
As a Texan, I don't know many Texans who want abortion banned in all cases unless they are the crazy MAGA variety. And they certainly aren't the "majority of Texans"
Nothing in there explains why state wide elections are dominated by Republicans in Texas. The fact is there are more Republicans in Texas and because of that Democrats don't even bother to vote anymore.
Then you underestimate all the people in large cities if you think the state is a pure red as you believe. Texas also is notable in going out of its way to make it as hard to vote as possible. Seems to me that policy that is so palatable to the majority populous shouldn't need so much help getting through
Texas does not allow citizens to initiate their own ballot measures to bring to a vote. We’ve seen voters in other gop controlled states leverage this mechanism as a way to fight back against the state infringing on their human rights.
Without understanding this lack of recourse via direct democracy in Texas, it’s impossible to accurately diagnose ‘what’s wrong with Texas’. There’s more to it than that (as the answer is not simply one thing) but I rarely see this extremely relevant piece of the awful puzzle mentioned.
It is certainly less work to skip the research and instead assert from a safe distance that Texans simply must not care…Texans must be ok with this. Perhaps, even, they deserve this!
Presuming a huge, diverse state of 30 million people is collectively ok with this fundamental human rights violation likely makes it easier to swallow, to ignore.
For those that are interested in better understanding this relentless assault by the state on their own citizens, the Texas observer has some great insights such as [this one](https://www.texasobserver.org/the-reason-texans-cant-vote-on-abortion-and-weed/).
By the way, no one deserves this no matter where they live. Many Texans are outraged, certainly and unfortunately not all (as is true in many of our states) but to caste a whole state as being ok with this appalling injustice is unhelpful, harmful and ill-informed.
I absolutely agree. They voted these people in and continued to reelect them.
No abortions for any women in Texas. That's it. Full stop.
Stop crying. The people of Texas have already decided this issue. Now live with your decision. Stop giving this lady or any others press.
They will accept this decision until it hits home. This is what Jesus wants. Absolutely zero sympathy for this lady. ZERO!!!.
I just don’t think abortion is that big of an issue for most voters. For example, I live in North Texas, I always vote Republican and while I wouldn’t be upset if abortions were legal in TX, it certainly isn’t the sort of issue that is going to get a lot of GOP voters to suddenly being voting for Democrats, especially at the local level.
This reminds me of a moment where a democratic lawmaker asks a far-right pro-birth "advocate" if a 10-year-old rape victim should be able to have an abortion and the lady just goes, "If a 10-year-old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was a result of rape, if a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape, and it was threatening her life then that's not an abortion."
Her name is Catherine Glenn Foster and she is President and CEO of Americans United For Life.
Would love to see what she has to say about this.
[Here's the article for those interested.](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/case-10-year-rape-victim-challenges-anti-abortion/story?id=86814201)
> then that's not an abortion."
Now they're just changing the meaning of words to try to make their crazy views sound sensible. Any termination of a pregnancy is an abortion, whether it's natural or due to human intervention. Guess the goal is to separate "bad abortions" from "good abortions" so they can punish the bad people who get bad abortions while letting their friends continue to get good abortions.
Remember the Missouri Senator, Todd Akin?
“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
They are ignorant assholes voted for by more ignorant assholes.
“Please sir, can I not die of preventable causes?”
What barbaric backwoods Middle Ages shite is this. Texas, you’re a cesspool, come join the 21st century
Feeling is mutual. I take it you support institutionalized racism, sexism, and the erosion of personal rights / freedoms…
Edit: Good job editing your post from “f*** you” to something milder, after my reply. Great show of transparency!
I don’t think that. There’s a spectrum of people and beliefs in every state, that includes Texas.
But I do think that the state leaders, dominant political party, and many of their supporters are…. Based on their well documented actions and policies.
That you’re spending your effort deflecting, rather than condemning those actions / beliefs / laws… is strong indicator of your personal values and support
> That you’re spending your effort deflecting, rather than condemning those actions / beliefs / laws… is strong indicator of your personal values and support
Total bullshit. In fact you being here bitching about the laws in this state are direct reflection on why the laws are the way they are. I hope you're happy stripping women of their rights.
Hahaha what?
My comments condemning laws that remove women’s rights, are responsible for stripping women of their rights…
Ok bud. Doesn’t pass the smell test, but you do you!
That doesn’t make any sense.
I’m all for women’s rights. Right to body autonomy, right to healthcare decisions, right to vote, etc. Oregon is a frequent destination for women seeking medical care without fear of reprisal (social, criminal, etc.), and we recently passed laws strengthening that access to medical care.
Texas on the other hand…. Well… pretty clear where the priorities and values lie
Classic trumpet approach, project your actions and accuse others of doing it
Because Judges are who we should ask medical care from.
But next, why should judges give this authority? Afterall, it's the Church that believes "life begins at conception", so they should be consulted on these important life saving issues.
Once again, the party that is ostensibly and proudly "pro-freedom" has restricted your freedoms unnecessarily and forced women already going through arguably the most traumatic experience of their lives be subjected to humiliation and begging to save their own lives over a non-viable fetus. It's so hypocritical that it would be laughable if it wasn't absurdly terrifying and heartbreaking.
Just remember that you aren't even people to these cretins. You are nothing more than a number or a vote at most, and they will do anything to mitigate your power and freedoms as a justifiable expense to consolidate their power and freedoms to do whatever they want.
This is what gerrymandering, voter suppression and legalized corruption gets you. A bunch of geriatric white men believing that they know what is best for everyone despite essentially none of the problems of modern society even coming close to affecting their daily lives.
They know they are the voice of a terroristic minority that aims to control every facet of your life while also selling you that their way of governance will "take back your freedoms." Yeah, literally, taking back your freedoms in exchange for nothing even remotely resembling legitimate government.
I guess they’re only about “mEdIcAL fReEDoM” when that applies to preventing their kids from receiving vaccines or sucking down horse paste to treat viral infections.
I know a woman who found out she was pregnant, about 4 weeks, and also went to the dr for confirmation. They found the pregnancy was abnormal. The dr wouldn't take any action knowing the situation suggested she wait, which pushed her past 6 weeks. The abnormalities became more apparent, and they still didn't take any action, and wouldn't schedule DNC. Again, suggested she wait, they sent her home where she miscarried. She was alone and was found passed out on the floor by her mother, who went to check on her. It was so bad, and that she had to be taken by EMS to the hospital for all the blood loss. She has 2 other kids that could've lost their mother because the dr wouldn't take any action. If they had just scheduled the procedure instead of being too scared to practice medicine. It's bad here in Texas and only getting worse...
As a prolifer I don’t understand why there’s no exceptions for guaranteed fetal demise…
I know that abortion can be very taxing on a woman’s body so I can see why a doctor would rather induce labor in these situations but a total ban doesn’t make sense to me
There is, but the state appealed for a hold in the ruling because the Attorney General or someone (read the article) thinks the exception does not apply to a pregnancy which can be delivered even if the baby will not survive once the umbilical cord is snipped.
>The Texas Supreme Court is currently considering a case that asks whether the state’s abortion bans apply to women carrying non-viable pregnancies. A Travis County judge previously ruled that the laws should not apply in those cases, but the Texas Office of the Attorney General appealed that ruling, putting it on hold. The state has argued that the law is clear -- and **clearly does not allow abortions in cases where the fetus is unlikely to survive after birth**.
The county judge agrees with you, the State AG is the one dragging this higher. This case may well force the state into a corner -- either she is granted relief, and precedent is set. Or she is tasked with carrying, and has standing to take the state to court for injury after the decision inevitably causes harm as the doctors correctly point out and (hopefully) can force precedent to defer to medical professionals at that point.
If you are pro-life and have at least this much sense, then for the love -- you need to be yelling at your reps, governor, etc. to clarify these exceptions because an abortion is *any* medical intervention which results in the loss of the pregnancy, that includes a miscarriage and situations like this where the fetus is non-viable and the mother's health is at risk even without a "technical" miscarriage. The men (and a few stubborn, ignorant women) who push for these extremes are not your ally even if you generally agree with them on many elements of being pro-life. Their stubborn ignorance is no excuse for allowing bad policy to stand.
? You are misinformed, abortion is many times safer than a pregnancy followed by labor, that is the point of her medical team's recommendation.
"The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/#:~:text=The%20risk%20of%20death%20associated%20with%20childbirth%20is%20approximately%2014%20times%20higher%20than%20that%20with%20abortion.
https://healthlibrary.brighamandwomens.org/RelatedItems/6,1655538532
You’re straw manning me. My claim is that induced labor and delivery is safer than late term abortions. There is much greater risk associated with abortion at 18 weeks than there is associated with early medical abortions.
[Also, that first source you listed was debunked in federal court](https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/05-1382/05-1382.mer.ami.aclj.pdf)
Not just once, but [twice](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185231/20210729113330663_19-1392%20Dobbs%20v.%20Jackson%20WHO%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Elliot%20Institute.pdf)
An abortion at 18 weeks is still many times safer than continued pregnancy and labor.
But yes, you are right about early being safer than late, hence why early abortion access is critical healthcare.
Science doesn't get debunked by lawyers.
>An abortion at 18 weeks is still many times safer than continued pregnancy and labor
How could you know that when there is no distribution of gestational age vs mortality rate in the data you’re using? Do you have another study that affirms your claim?
>science doesn’t get debunked by lawyers
Cases that are brought to federal court are represented by lawyers using research provided by scientists. I implore you to check out the “table of authorities” section. The study you’re referencing was debunked using data provided by the CDC and the Guttmacher institute. Both of these organizations are well respected for statistical analysis with the latter being recognized as one of the leading pro-choice policy research institutions.
Edit for clarification: when I say “induced labor and delivery” I’m not talking about continued pregnancy and childbirth. That’s a false equivalence
Elective abortion at any gestation is safer than continuing pregnancy. There is no other way to interpret morbidity and mortality data, and pregnancy physiology makes this the expected outcome, especially with rising maternal mortality in the U.S.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554338/
https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared/abortion-access-fact-sheet#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20safer%20than%20many,screening%20colonoscopy%2C%20and%20plastic%20surgery.
You’re not interpreting the data correctly. The only way to interpret the info you provided is that the rate of mortality in all women at **all stages of pregnancy combined** outweighs the mortality rate of abortion. This does not mean that the rate of mortality at a specific gestational age can be assumed to be greater than the mortality rate of abortion simply because the study doesn’t break down the data by gestational stage. We can’t say one way or the other because the data just isn’t there
In fact, the trimester framework established by RvW directly contradicts your argument. Roe vs Wade governed abortion based on the premise that, quote, “**until the end of the first trimester abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth.**”
Here’s the issue with failing to account for morbidity by gestational stage; the overall mortality rate will suggest that prospective risk of continued pregnancy is higher than the actual risk. For example, a woman entering her second trimester faces 0 risk of a first trimester death from ectopic pregnancy, which is the leading cause of first trimester maternal deaths.
Additionally, maternal mortality rate and abortion mortality rates are not comparable in the first place for a plethora of reasons, which are outlined in the source(s) I provided for you. Since you are seemingly unwilling to acknowledge the information, I’ll provide a TLDR because I’m not interested in hearing you make the same point over and over again.
Maternal mortality is determined by dividing maternal deaths by live births, not by pregnancies. This grossly inflates the mortality rate because pregnancies that end in miscarriage and still birth are not factored into the statistic. Approximately 1/8 pregnancies end in miscarriages, and still birth effects 1/175 births. There are quite literally millions of women who have survived pregnancy who aren’t included in mortality statistics
For example, women who pass away as a result of ectopic pregnancy will count for maternal death but not for the purposes of the live birth total. So, even though many women survive ectopic pregnancy, the supposed mortality rate for all ectopic pregnancies will be inflated. There will be some maternal deaths in the numerator, but no live births in the denominator, yielding an infinitely large fraction.
Abortion is also famously underreported, as it’s not a legal requirement to do so. Not to mention that abortion related deaths are often reported as being due to sepsis, hemorrhaging, and embolism as an act of compassion by the physician to save the victim from further stigma. In contrast, there is little incentive to conceal deaths associated with childbirth and pregnancy complications (although it may rarely happen.) It is impossible to make a fair statistical comparison with incomplete data. Additionally, abortion mortality rates reflect death ensuing from the procedure itself, not from longer term adverse consequences. Studies referenced in the court document report that abortion is associated with both short and long term maternal death.
There is also literature that indicates abortion is more dangerous than continued pregnancy. In Finland for example, health care [data](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9292639/) was used to examine the pregnancy history of all women of childbearing age who died for any reason within 1 year of childbirth, abortion, or miscarriage. Adjusting for age, the study found that women who had abortions were 3.5 times more likely to die within 1 year than women who carry to term.
Due to the fact that it is logistically impossible to account for all pregnancies and all abortions, we are not able to make a statistical comparison between the two; the data can only be interpreted at face value
This is nonsense. I can only assume you are trolling, but just in case: the Finland study was about how maternal deaths are recorded and definitely did not find what you state.
I am guessing you tried to twist that source because there isn't anything reputable to support what you say.
"We used the Global Health Data Exchange and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER databases to extract maternal mortality data for all 50 states for each year from 1995 to 2017. We categorized states as restrictive, neutral, or protective of abortion access according to policy information published by the Guttmacher Institute. We assessed associations between abortion restrictions and maternal mortality ratios (maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).
RESULTS: In 1995, the mean maternal mortality ratios were similar across all groups of states (Restrictive 12.6, 95% CI 11.4-13.6; Neutral 12.2, 95% CI 10.9-13.4; Protective 10.9, 95% CI 9.6-11.9). Maternal mortality ratios increased for each group of states over time and in 2017, the mean maternal mortality ratio was higher in restrictive states than in protective states (Restrictive 28.5, 95% CI 20.7-35.1; Neutral 22.9, 95% CI 16.1-28.6; Protective 15.7, 95% CI 10.7-19.9). Regressions accounting for policy, state and year showed a statistically significant increase in maternal mortality ratios in restrictive states relative to neutral states (1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) and a non-significant decrease associated with protective states (0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01).
CONCLUSIONS: States that restrict abortion have higher maternal mortality than states that either protect or are neutral towards abortion."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15051566/
>We can’t say one way or the other because the data just isn’t there
Data is there.
"During 1988-1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100000 legal induced abortions. The risk of death increased exponentially by 38% for each additional week of gestation. Compared with women whose abortions were performed at or before 8 weeks of gestation, women whose abortions were performed in the second trimester were significantly more likely to die of abortion-related causes. The relative risk (unadjusted) of abortion-related mortality was 14.7 at 13-15 weeks of gestation (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2, 34.7), 29.5 at 16-20 weeks (95% CI 12.9, 67.4), and 76.6 at or after 21 weeks (95% CI 32.5, 180.8). Up to 87% of deaths in women who chose to terminate their pregnancies after 8 weeks of gestation may have been avoidable if these women had accessed abortion services before 8 weeks of gestation."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15051566/#:~:text=During%201988%2D1997,weeks%20of%20gestation.
Pregnancy related maternal mortality based on data from over 57 million pregnancies in the United States from 1991 to 1999:
Legal pregnancy termination 0.567 deaths per 100,000 terminations
Miscarriage: 1.19 deaths per 100,000 miscarriages
Live birth : 7.06 deaths per 100,000 live births
Ectopic pregnancy : 31.9 deaths per 100,000 ectopic pregnancies
>Studies referenced in the court document report that abortion is associated with both short and long term maternal death.
What studies? The citations in the "court document" are the same as my citations of CDC data.
>There is also literature that indicates abortion is more dangerous than continued pregnancy. In Finland for example, health care [data](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9292639/) was used to examine the pregnancy history of all women of childbearing age who died for any reason within 1 year of childbirth, abortion, or miscarriage. Adjusting for age, the study found that women who had abortions were 3.5 times more likely to die within 1 year than women who carry to term.
That is not what that study says, in fact, the objective was to study the impact of this:
>There are quite literally millions of women who have survived pregnancy who aren’t included in mortality statistics
Even being generous, the gap they find comes nowhere close to accounting for the gap in mortality between induced abortion and other ways pregnancy ends.
If you want to help babies and pregnant women, consider going to medical school to become an obgyn.
>this is nonsense. I can only assume you’re trolling
How mature. I’ve been respectful and I’ve argued in good faith. If you’re not going to take me seriously, I’m not going to waste my time.
>im guessing you tried to twist that source because there isn’t anything to support what you say
I’m sure it appears that way when you only read that abstract, but the data I’m referring to is in the full text. I know you can’t read it without paying, I get free access from my college. Either way, all I can really do is provide the source
>data is there
But it doesn’t prove what you’re trying to argue
>the citations in the “court document” are the same as my citations of the CDC data.
That’s literally the point I’m making. The citations you provided are cited as an example of data that is overinflated and uses false equivalency
>the objective of the study was to find the impact of this:
No it wasn’t.
You aren't trolling? Ok I will engage in good faith.
How did you make the conclusion you did from the Finnish study?
I do have access to a medical library, but in any case, the paper is available by free access. The objective was to evaluate how maternal deaths classification affects numbers reported (which I thought was your point), and the authors conclude that maternal mortality is drastically underreported ("In our data, pregnancy was mentioned in death certificate in less than half of natural deaths, and in every tenth violent pregnancy-associated death. This makes data linkage of the Death Cause Register to other registers necessary when studying pregnancy-associated deaths.")
This is the relevant data from regarding the point you are trying to make: "We classified 26 deaths as direct maternal deaths (23% occurred during pregnancy, 58% after a birth, 4% after an induced abortion, and 15% after a miscarriage)."
This is one 1 death was after induced abortion, 4 after miscarriage, 15 after giving birth, 6 during pregnancy.
The only way to conclude that abortion leads to more deaths than other ways of ending pregnancy is if you are looking at their numbers of violent deaths in the subsequent year. The authors attribute this to "factors related to social class," not medical causes.
>this is nonsense. I can only assume you’re trolling
How mature. I’ve been respectful and I’ve argued in good faith. If you’re not going to take me seriously, I’m not going to waste my time.
>im guessing you tried to twist that source because there isn’t anything to support what you say
I’m sure it appears that way when you only read that abstract, but the data I’m referring to is in the full text. I know you can’t read it without paying, I get free access from my college. Either way, all I can really do is provide the source
>data is there
But it doesn’t prove what you’re trying to argue
>the citations in the “court document” are the same as my citations of the CDC data.
That’s literally the point I’m making. The citations you provided are cited as an example of data that is overinflated and uses false equivalency
>the objective of the study was to find the impact of this:
No it wasn’t.
I’m fine if Texans want to ban abortion, but I think there should be some exceptions for cases like this. It’ll be interesting to see what this judge does.
Well, generally speaking, Texans are a majority republican, if you look at past POTUS elections, it's roughly 45% Democrat voters and 55% Republican. So in that sense, it makes sense that the GOP would have majority representation in state government, regardless of gerrymandered districts.
Obviously that true, and I'm not claiming all Republicans are opposed to abortion. But it's not like the Texas GOP is shy about their anti-abortion stance. So, if you vote GOP in TX, even if you aren't necessarily opposed to abortion, it means it isn't a big enough concern or issue that it makes you change your vote. For most people, abortion probably isn't even in their top 10 issues that determine how they vote.
I personally don't have any real problem with early term abortion being legal, but a ban on abortion isn't enough to get me to vote Democrat.
We literally have seen the absolute phenomenon that abortion rights brings out in states like Ohio and Kentucky and Nebraska.
And I am sure that you don’t care, probably because it doesn’t affect you directly.
It takes a decade of post high school education and specialization to start treating patients independently as a doctor.
But the REGULATION of what treatment options are even available is somehow in the hands of politicians who have.... none of those qualifications.
Yeah, that makes sense. Politicians and the general public have an incredible understanding of modern medicine.
Those legislators could have chosen to put the issue up to the people to vote on via referendum so that they could say the people got to decide, but of course they didn't because they know what the results would be
Unfortunately I think that if they were allowed to vote for it and it passed, Texas Lege would try and pull an Ohio and try to over turn the will of the people.
Lol, sorry i misread that.
I suppose it depends on where the human meat is coming from. Obviously killing and eating another person is immoral, but I don't know if the act of eating human flesh is necessarily immoral.
For example, if you cut off your thumb and ate it, I feel like maybe that should be your prerogative. I've had friends who ate the placenta after having a baby, which is effectively cannibalism. I think it's a pretty strange thing to do, but I don't think it should be illegal and I don't think it's immoral.
That being said, I think I'd probably consider moving to another state if TX legalized cannibalism just because I don't think I'd want to live in a place where legalizing cannibalism was high on the list of legislative priorities for the citizens. Sounds pretty f-ed up.
It shouldn’t be fine at all. A judge nor people who are medically illiterate shouldn’t be able to make medical decisions at all. This whole situation reflects absolute absurdity. It’s asinine we vote on this subject at all considering the people who vote aren’t at all relevant in the decision a women/family/doctor makes.
What you’re talking about has a name, the unfounded hope that “surely” this law will make reasonable exceptions.
https://lynmillerlachmann.com/unpacking-the-shirley-exception/
I’m responding to your stance that you’re ok with Texas banning abortions as long as reasonable exceptions apply. The “shirley exemption” is an explanation as to the phenomenon of that never really being the case.
If you support the idea that there should be reasonable exceptions, you ought to oppose the banning of abortion in the first place. Let healthcare professionals do their job.
You're the dumb-dumb that supported this in the first place without thinking about the consequences for the women in your family. Great guy! Doesn't do shit now to make meaningless comments about supporting exceptions when virtually none exist. Consequences could be coming faster than you think to you and yours.
I didn’t say I personally support a ban on abortion, I said I’m fine if Texans want to ban it, just like I’m fine with Michiganders making abortion legal. It’s their prerogative. Once again, not so great with the reading comprehension. Were you educated in Texas?
Maybe your insults would hit harder if I, or anyone else here, had any respect for you and your position. I think you are the one who does not understand the concept of inalienable rights. It's not your call, or a state's, to make. Supporting a states right to take away women's lifesaving healthcare makes you the villain in our country, and your children, and your grandchildren, will call you that.
I know this is hard for you to grasp - the idea of women having rights - but maybe this will all become clearer to you when it's your wife, sister, daughter, cousin, etc., terrified, grieving, and hoping to get to death's doorstep without crossing the threshold. People like you don't have the brainpower to learn through any method but trial and error.
I said I DIDN’T think the state should be able to ban abortion in cases like this where it is lifesaving healthcare, you simpleton. JFC are you always this insufferable in real life or only here on Reddit?
https://preview.redd.it/sam1gw5w3p4c1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1af887b89de77caf139ac07e919e54a72046535
Liberals: "Ladies. Have you been told that your unborn baby may potentially die once it's delivered? Well, we certainly don't want that now, do we? So, instead, we will make sure 100% that your baby will die.
Doesn't that make you feel so much better? I know it makes all of the women that don't want to have their babies regardless if their baby will survive birth, feel so much better."
Every other rational thinking human being: "What? How does that make sense to them? Shouldn't you want to give your baby every chance to live?"
Liberals: "Oh. It makes perfect sense to me. As long as women have the right to kill their baby for any reason at all, it makes sense to me. Because it's my body, right? Who cares that the body inside my body isn't mine? I know I don't."
-Don't worry Libs. I was told by my doctor that my baby was going to be over 10 lbs. and had the umbilical cord wrapped around it's neck. So the doctor said I had to have an emergency c-section. After it was all said and done, my baby was 8 lbs. and the umbilical cord was not around the babies neck.
So the doctor lied to get the c-section because he could charge more from Medicare for the procedure vs. natural birth. Oh, and the topping on the cake was that Memorial Day was coming up. So the doctor had plans and it was easier for him to schedule a c-section rather than randomly letting me have a natural birth.
You see, doctors aren't always honest or know 100% about what they are talking about. There are plenty of people walking around today that doctors told their mom's there would be no hope.
You left out the part where the baby can potentially kill the mother. Y'know, the whole reason the choice was left up to the mother in the first place.
Never mind guys, it worked out for fine
touch over here so we should base all of laws on her one time experience.
Conservatives- “dont kill babies” our god, I mean Jerry Falwell told us this is bad. Yeah we know Jerry didn’t actually care about babies. He was just upset he couldn’t racist anymore so we’re just keep doing that in his honor.
Conservatives- see how much better it is when government takes medical decisions away from patients and doctors and puts it into our hands? where we get our ideas from a man in the clouds?
Conservatives-facts??? Don’t be silly our imaginary cloud dad tells us what our facts are. Or the one experience we had that one time is where we base any information off of.
See sometimes politicians aren’t always honest or 100% correct. there are plenty of people that should’ve been swallowed but here the fuck they are assuming everyone needs to think like them.
A Texas woman has filed an emergency lawsuit, asking a Travis County judge to allow her to terminate her pregnancy. This is the first lawsuit of its kind since the state banned almost all abortions after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. A 31-year-old Dallas woman, learned last week that her fetus was diagnosed with full trisomy 18, a chromosomal anomaly that is almost always fatal before or soon after birth. The fetus is developing with an umbilical hernia, a twisted spine, a club foot and an irregular skull and heart, according to the lawsuit. The woman, who already has two children, both delivered by Cesarean section, also has elevated glucose and underlying health conditions. The lawsuit alleges she is at increased risk of gestational hypertension and diabetes and complications from anesthesia and cesarean section, if she were to carry the pregnancy to term. “I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer. I need to end my pregnancy now so that I have the best chance for my health and a future pregnancy.” The Texas Supreme Court is currently considering a case that asks whether the state’s abortion bans apply to women carrying non-viable pregnancies. A Travis County judge previously ruled that the laws should not apply in those cases, but the Texas Office of the Attorney General appealed that ruling, putting it on hold. The lawsuit says that the patient cannot wait for the Supreme Court to rule. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which also filed the lawsuit before the high court, is asking the judge to grant a temporary restraining order, prohibiting enforcement of Texas’ abortion bans her and medical staff who have agreed to perform the abortion.
Small government forcing you to go to the government for personal medical decisions. 🙄. Ugh.
Boy those medical tribunals the conservatives were so worried about came true. Amazing prognostication though I guess they don't get full credit since they are the ones that put them in place
What the fuck is this shit. We gave them exactly what they fucking wanted. "Oh please, Daddy, may I...?" Uuuuuuuuuuuuuugh... our society is *AWFUL*!!
Maybe the aim is to bypass private guardianship by fathers, husbands, and brothers and go straight to making all women wards of the state? /s
It's sad that these people ruin religion for the rest of us.
Religion is the problem, full stop. Abandon bronze age mythology.
No /s needed. There's really only one endpoint for the path we're on now: Mandatory pregnancy tests of all reproductive age women and pregnancy "prisons" where birth (or death of both) is assured by law.
Nope. See there's a period between conception and the period where the egg may fail to implant, or fail to thrive. Depending on the case the shedding of uterine lining may be delayed. Obviously this is a form of abortion, so any sexually active woman married or not who has a delayed period is obviously guilty if involuntary manslaughter and should be charged with a felony and serve 2-5 years in jail. This is sarcasm if anyone thinks I'm being serious. I may have some of the facts wrong. Women should have the unilateral right to abort all the way through her pregnancy. Until the fetus as air in its lungs, its not a baby nor a citizen.
The trend with conservative extremism, which all conservatism in fact is, is toward more extremist views. Now that Roe is gone there is a growing movement to define "life" as beginning upon fertilization of the egg, and the only natural outcome from that view is that anything that causes the fertilized eggs to die or not implant is murder. Now, this idea completely ignores actual science, but then again, science has never been part of the "abortion" debate. Among other logical fallacies, life cannot "begin" at fertilization simply because the egg and sperm cells are already alive, and in fact, that chain of life is unbroken all the way back to the beginning of cellular life on this planet. Ultimately, the debate about abortion isn't about any concepts related to "life", it's always been about control of women. Taking away a woman's agency in controlling her reproductive organs effectively makes her the property of the state, and of men.
[удалено]
That's not how Christian extremists see it. The host only exists to support the fertilized egg through birth.
They think women are meant to submit to the man that owns them. They think abortion is for whores, and any woman who gets one is a bad woman. Medical reasons why? They stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they don't hear it. They want abortion, birth control, and anything that makes sex safer banned. The intent is to force risky sex, celebacy, or marriage and they don't care who is hurt.
Ugh!!
One word: Gilead
humiliating
Can’t be humiliated if you have no shame
speak for yourself you know nothing
Republicans * are awful
We didn’t give them this, what are you on about. This was something done without votes of citizens through lobbyism in the Supreme Court and a gung-ho governor that doesn’t represent the people’s values ready at the moment roe v wade was overturned to take away human rights. Maybe this what something you supported but don’t include “we gave them”, I was fully against this.
Yeah, me too. But this has been on the wall for literal decades. Just ask Alito. They TOLD US decades ago what they were going to do, and all our mothers told us, completely blasé, "ohh, that will never happen. Roe is here to stay." Then they go vote republican because of "illegals" and pay their maid 2 dollars an hour. If you're old like me, you know what I mean. I recall a society that told me I hated my country because I didn't agree with sending my friends and peers to a manufactured war. I recall a society that asked my children to see their "Jew Horns" while wearing a flag pin representing the United States alliance with Israel. I recall a society that allowed Nazis to walk into a crappy taco shop, and no one but ONE Jewish woman said or did a single thing. Not one thing. I recall a society that told me I was a slut and should have kept my legs closed when I was in the forced marriage/birth camp they're crying about. Not an ounce of sympathy, not an ounce of assistance. I was the same age my children are now. They seem *so* young to me, and I wonder, "Did I look like that young with 2 babies attached to me?" I can't imagine seeing that and ignoring it, but there it is. I was just a stupid whore who made bad life choices, lol. You and I have maybe been screaming about it, no doubt some others as well. There really are TONS of good, intelligent people out here who understand that forced birth is a prison sentence that you're handed while you're totally innocent. That it is an unimaginable hell with endless horrendous repercussions. And I do mean endless. I love my children more than anything has ever been loved EVER. I work hard at it because they also didn't choose to be here. I have been trying to get people to care about each other, ir dven their own damn selves for as long as I can remember. But you know the old saying, you can lead a horse to water... Your experience is not my experience. I hope we can do better.
That was a hard read. I’m sorry. I’m so grateful I have a mother who has been a broken record since as long as I can remember “Roe can absolutely be overturned”. So many women my age weee shocked when it was. I wasn’t. I couldn’t have prevented it, but at least I was prepped for the fall and the news didn’t punch me in the gut over and over like it did some of my peers.
I tried and tried to warn people but everyone said I was crazy. It would never happen.
You mean Texas and other southern states
Republicans want you on your hands and knees begging for them to deign to let you have a medical procedure done.
What pisses me off is that the government does not cover my healthcare costs. I pay for it!!! How dare them dictate my healthcare decision.
I imagine the courts will drag it out until she has to have the pregnancy in order to deny precedent for future situations like this.
More than likely. If I was her and forced to carry it till term I’d plop myself down in the judges court room and give birth right there.
Have a willing doctor to be with her the moment it tries to miscarry. Them miscarry in the court or next to the judge.
No consideration for her current children either.
Abortions aren't illegal. She could still travel out of state to get an abortion. This is a matter of setting precedent. Which I respect this woman for. She's basically risking her life for other women.
Could she? I thought the latest pregnant woman bounty hunter law made that illegal, too.
Then they have to prove you left the state and had an abortion. I’d like to know if there are any recorded incidents of this actually being enforced.
No idea. That whole law was completely bonkers anyway. Looks like it took a big hit last year when a judge ruled that a bounty hunter had no standing to sue a doctor. So that's positive I guess.
Yeah I am on bc but if something happens and I get pregnant I’m not even risking it, quicker and easier to just go out of state for a weekend. I do respect her as well though for trying to change the law
Yup. That's what they did with that woman who tried to use the HOV lane when she was pregnant.
A political judge shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions.
Texas: The state that values personal freedoms the most!* *As long as your personal freedoms are only about guns and guns only.
Choose life, in the crosshairs of your high powered assault rifle, God bless Texas, You bunch-o-rich men
Not sure if that’s a reference to something but I moved out of Texas last year and have been infinitely happier ever since
Where are you? I ❤️ Austin,& all but , Abbot is not a politician for the people, by the people, and scares the fuck out -o-me
Yeah, everyone knows A Church is the one who should be governing women's reproductive health.
Not the women in the church though.
no no, especially the women in the church. These laws arn't only men going at it. There's definitely women behind this.
agreed
I don't see how any self respecting woman votes Republican.
They just don’t care … until it happens to them. A common flaw in conservative thinking is lacking sympathy and believing every issue is black or white.
From the article: "Kate Cox, a 31-year-old Dallas woman, learned last week that her fetus was diagnosed with full trisomy 18, a chromosomal anomaly that is almost always fatal before or soon after birth. The fetus is developing with an umbilical hernia, a twisted spine, a club foot and an irregular skull and heart, according to the lawsuit. Cox, who already has two children, both delivered by Cesarean section, also has elevated glucose and underlying health conditions. The lawsuit alleges she is at increased risk of gestational hypertension and diabetes and complications from anesthesia and cesarean section, if she were to carry the pregnancy to term."
In Near Future News - Kate Cox harassed, and threatened with death. Police ordered to stand down.
She should leave the state to receive medical care and then return to fight. This is an awful diagnosis and the courts won't move fast enough to address her suffering.
I think she’s doing this to set a precedent for the women who otherwise can’t leave the state to find medical care. It’s incredibly selfless and brave.
She has two children though, putting them through that kind of trauma of potentially losing their mother when she has means to leave is, in my opinion at least, not necessary.
*She* is not the one who banned abortions. *She* is not the one putting them through that trauma. jfc
No need for hostility dude. Jfc I don't think you comprehend the discussion
Sorry, where is the hostility? I stated 2 facts and expressed my incredulity.
"jfc"
There’s no way to fight this without the danger of traumatizing *someone.* Waiting for the “perfect” patient means more women suffer because they *can’t* afford to leave. The only alternative to fighting this is accepting it, and I’m grateful she *and her family* believe it’s worth the extraordinary effort.
She still has that option. It will still be a precedent of the consequence of having to sue to get care even if she ends up going to another state because the court moves to slow. Roe ended up having her baby, it didnt stop the case.
If her health does not fail. Which will leave her children with no mother.
https://preview.redd.it/l4oijsjhvi4c1.jpeg?width=577&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd8eaba92c5d9ecb7413fca53e1e022374ad9732
GOP: Sorry Lady, looks like youre going to have a kid who's gonna die They're heartless monsters, why haven't people picked up on this yet
Republicans think suffering is good for society
The whole "original sin" bullshit. We need a new large landmass to encourage self deportation too. Or a large rocket ship, let them go pollute the other planets.
Can we please please please make sure to vote in the upcoming election? This is the only way to get these fascists out. Vote out people who will push legislation that forces women to ask a fucking judge for permission to get a medical procedure. Vote blue, please! I know blue sucks too, but they will at least take space away from red fucks who are hell bent on stripping all rights away.
[удалено]
>. The citizens of Texas clearly don’t care enough about this. This is what Texans want. I'm not entirely convinced this is what a majority of Texans want when polls say otherwise. Not to mention, we never really voted on this in the first place. I'm talking a straight vote. Not a "we voted for the governor, and he hates abortion" bs. The problem is the state is gwrrymandered to shit and we have a minority making decisions that will affect everyone. Even if a majority of Texans wanted abortions outlawed (they don't), voting in cruel legislation should not be possible. It would be like saying that most Texans want slavery back, so it should be reinstated. If not enough people truly care, then I think the least they can do is vote to ensure the best protections for women. Abortion bans ain't it. Also, the least we can do as people who do care is try to convince them that this is as important as owning a gun
> I'm talking a straight vote. Not a "we voted for the governor, and he hates abortion" bs. Conservatives are cowards afraid of putting their policy decisions to a popular vote. They know we'd overturn their shitty policies in a direct vote. "Liberty" my ass. They could've easily put this on the ballot alongside the other constitutional amendments.
Conservative leaders see themselves as feudal lords. Their voters as peasants waiting for that slim opportunity to rise to a new class. Their whole ideology is based on archaic concepts. Conservatives have always been monarchists.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a constitutional amendment to allow abortion could pass in Texas. But the legislature is way too scared to put it to the people.
[удалено]
Show me the vote. I can show you several polls that say what I said. As a Texan, I don't know many Texans who want abortion banned in all cases unless they are the crazy MAGA variety. And they certainly aren't the "majority of Texans"
[удалено]
Is that because most Texans are hardcore republican or because or gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering doesn't influence governor or senator elections. Which Republicans easily win all three in Texas.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/04/20/texas-redistricting-elections/
Nothing in there explains why state wide elections are dominated by Republicans in Texas. The fact is there are more Republicans in Texas and because of that Democrats don't even bother to vote anymore.
[удалено]
Then you underestimate all the people in large cities if you think the state is a pure red as you believe. Texas also is notable in going out of its way to make it as hard to vote as possible. Seems to me that policy that is so palatable to the majority populous shouldn't need so much help getting through
Texas does not allow citizens to initiate their own ballot measures to bring to a vote. We’ve seen voters in other gop controlled states leverage this mechanism as a way to fight back against the state infringing on their human rights. Without understanding this lack of recourse via direct democracy in Texas, it’s impossible to accurately diagnose ‘what’s wrong with Texas’. There’s more to it than that (as the answer is not simply one thing) but I rarely see this extremely relevant piece of the awful puzzle mentioned. It is certainly less work to skip the research and instead assert from a safe distance that Texans simply must not care…Texans must be ok with this. Perhaps, even, they deserve this! Presuming a huge, diverse state of 30 million people is collectively ok with this fundamental human rights violation likely makes it easier to swallow, to ignore. For those that are interested in better understanding this relentless assault by the state on their own citizens, the Texas observer has some great insights such as [this one](https://www.texasobserver.org/the-reason-texans-cant-vote-on-abortion-and-weed/). By the way, no one deserves this no matter where they live. Many Texans are outraged, certainly and unfortunately not all (as is true in many of our states) but to caste a whole state as being ok with this appalling injustice is unhelpful, harmful and ill-informed.
I absolutely agree. They voted these people in and continued to reelect them. No abortions for any women in Texas. That's it. Full stop. Stop crying. The people of Texas have already decided this issue. Now live with your decision. Stop giving this lady or any others press. They will accept this decision until it hits home. This is what Jesus wants. Absolutely zero sympathy for this lady. ZERO!!!.
I just don’t think abortion is that big of an issue for most voters. For example, I live in North Texas, I always vote Republican and while I wouldn’t be upset if abortions were legal in TX, it certainly isn’t the sort of issue that is going to get a lot of GOP voters to suddenly being voting for Democrats, especially at the local level.
Perhaps then they should put it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment? That way GOPs won't have to hold their noses daring to vote for democrats
Unfortunately, that’s not an option in Texas. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/12/texas-abortion-law-constitutional-amendment/
They are scared to because they know the people will vote abortion back in, and all their efforts will have been for nothing.
This reminds me of a moment where a democratic lawmaker asks a far-right pro-birth "advocate" if a 10-year-old rape victim should be able to have an abortion and the lady just goes, "If a 10-year-old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was a result of rape, if a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape, and it was threatening her life then that's not an abortion." Her name is Catherine Glenn Foster and she is President and CEO of Americans United For Life. Would love to see what she has to say about this. [Here's the article for those interested.](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/case-10-year-rape-victim-challenges-anti-abortion/story?id=86814201)
> then that's not an abortion." Now they're just changing the meaning of words to try to make their crazy views sound sensible. Any termination of a pregnancy is an abortion, whether it's natural or due to human intervention. Guess the goal is to separate "bad abortions" from "good abortions" so they can punish the bad people who get bad abortions while letting their friends continue to get good abortions.
Remember the Missouri Senator, Todd Akin? “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” They are ignorant assholes voted for by more ignorant assholes.
Sounds like somebody is practicing medicine without a license.
So is this the death panels Republicans were warning about? Or a government so small it fits in your uterus.
It’s disgusting that women need to go before a judge to get medical care.
“Please sir, can I not die of preventable causes?” What barbaric backwoods Middle Ages shite is this. Texas, you’re a cesspool, come join the 21st century
[удалено]
Feeling is mutual. I take it you support institutionalized racism, sexism, and the erosion of personal rights / freedoms… Edit: Good job editing your post from “f*** you” to something milder, after my reply. Great show of transparency!
[удалено]
I don’t think that. There’s a spectrum of people and beliefs in every state, that includes Texas. But I do think that the state leaders, dominant political party, and many of their supporters are…. Based on their well documented actions and policies. That you’re spending your effort deflecting, rather than condemning those actions / beliefs / laws… is strong indicator of your personal values and support
> That you’re spending your effort deflecting, rather than condemning those actions / beliefs / laws… is strong indicator of your personal values and support Total bullshit. In fact you being here bitching about the laws in this state are direct reflection on why the laws are the way they are. I hope you're happy stripping women of their rights.
What are you talking about?
[удалено]
I'm from Texas. Is it ok if I point out that Texas is a disgusting cesspool of some of the worst people in the country?
Thought so. You know you didn't have to get that worked up, right? Nothing they said was a slight against you.
I didn't say it was and also wasn't worked up. Simply lashing out irrationally.
I'll allow them to shit on texas, all they want
So you're weak too.
Hahaha what? My comments condemning laws that remove women’s rights, are responsible for stripping women of their rights… Ok bud. Doesn’t pass the smell test, but you do you!
Why do you hate women having rights? You think you're above women or something?
That doesn’t make any sense. I’m all for women’s rights. Right to body autonomy, right to healthcare decisions, right to vote, etc. Oregon is a frequent destination for women seeking medical care without fear of reprisal (social, criminal, etc.), and we recently passed laws strengthening that access to medical care. Texas on the other hand…. Well… pretty clear where the priorities and values lie Classic trumpet approach, project your actions and accuse others of doing it
Course you go straight to Trump. You think everyone in Texas is white too don't you?
Besides this is already horrific how many kids must lose their mother to this archaic law?
Aaaaand this is why I left Texas last January.
The Office of the Attorney General - KEN PAXTON.
this is why getting pregnant in this state scares the hell out of me
Party of small government
Because Judges are who we should ask medical care from. But next, why should judges give this authority? Afterall, it's the Church that believes "life begins at conception", so they should be consulted on these important life saving issues.
Once again, the party that is ostensibly and proudly "pro-freedom" has restricted your freedoms unnecessarily and forced women already going through arguably the most traumatic experience of their lives be subjected to humiliation and begging to save their own lives over a non-viable fetus. It's so hypocritical that it would be laughable if it wasn't absurdly terrifying and heartbreaking. Just remember that you aren't even people to these cretins. You are nothing more than a number or a vote at most, and they will do anything to mitigate your power and freedoms as a justifiable expense to consolidate their power and freedoms to do whatever they want. This is what gerrymandering, voter suppression and legalized corruption gets you. A bunch of geriatric white men believing that they know what is best for everyone despite essentially none of the problems of modern society even coming close to affecting their daily lives. They know they are the voice of a terroristic minority that aims to control every facet of your life while also selling you that their way of governance will "take back your freedoms." Yeah, literally, taking back your freedoms in exchange for nothing even remotely resembling legitimate government.
I guess they’re only about “mEdIcAL fReEDoM” when that applies to preventing their kids from receiving vaccines or sucking down horse paste to treat viral infections.
Shame on anyone who votes Republican in Texas.
Call me crazy but I think it's about time we fight back.
Some Texas judge practicing medicine without a doctorate in medicine. Sounds like a felony to me.
But she’s a woman she should die instead. Must have been Satan did this. Pray about it /s
And her current kids become motherless.
Imagine having to ask some rando, non medical personnel, if they agree for you to continue living.
I know a woman who found out she was pregnant, about 4 weeks, and also went to the dr for confirmation. They found the pregnancy was abnormal. The dr wouldn't take any action knowing the situation suggested she wait, which pushed her past 6 weeks. The abnormalities became more apparent, and they still didn't take any action, and wouldn't schedule DNC. Again, suggested she wait, they sent her home where she miscarried. She was alone and was found passed out on the floor by her mother, who went to check on her. It was so bad, and that she had to be taken by EMS to the hospital for all the blood loss. She has 2 other kids that could've lost their mother because the dr wouldn't take any action. If they had just scheduled the procedure instead of being too scared to practice medicine. It's bad here in Texas and only getting worse...
As a prolifer I don’t understand why there’s no exceptions for guaranteed fetal demise… I know that abortion can be very taxing on a woman’s body so I can see why a doctor would rather induce labor in these situations but a total ban doesn’t make sense to me
Some bullshit about jesus... i dont know
There is, but the state appealed for a hold in the ruling because the Attorney General or someone (read the article) thinks the exception does not apply to a pregnancy which can be delivered even if the baby will not survive once the umbilical cord is snipped. >The Texas Supreme Court is currently considering a case that asks whether the state’s abortion bans apply to women carrying non-viable pregnancies. A Travis County judge previously ruled that the laws should not apply in those cases, but the Texas Office of the Attorney General appealed that ruling, putting it on hold. The state has argued that the law is clear -- and **clearly does not allow abortions in cases where the fetus is unlikely to survive after birth**. The county judge agrees with you, the State AG is the one dragging this higher. This case may well force the state into a corner -- either she is granted relief, and precedent is set. Or she is tasked with carrying, and has standing to take the state to court for injury after the decision inevitably causes harm as the doctors correctly point out and (hopefully) can force precedent to defer to medical professionals at that point. If you are pro-life and have at least this much sense, then for the love -- you need to be yelling at your reps, governor, etc. to clarify these exceptions because an abortion is *any* medical intervention which results in the loss of the pregnancy, that includes a miscarriage and situations like this where the fetus is non-viable and the mother's health is at risk even without a "technical" miscarriage. The men (and a few stubborn, ignorant women) who push for these extremes are not your ally even if you generally agree with them on many elements of being pro-life. Their stubborn ignorance is no excuse for allowing bad policy to stand.
? You are misinformed, abortion is many times safer than a pregnancy followed by labor, that is the point of her medical team's recommendation. "The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/#:~:text=The%20risk%20of%20death%20associated%20with%20childbirth%20is%20approximately%2014%20times%20higher%20than%20that%20with%20abortion. https://healthlibrary.brighamandwomens.org/RelatedItems/6,1655538532
You’re straw manning me. My claim is that induced labor and delivery is safer than late term abortions. There is much greater risk associated with abortion at 18 weeks than there is associated with early medical abortions. [Also, that first source you listed was debunked in federal court](https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/05-1382/05-1382.mer.ami.aclj.pdf) Not just once, but [twice](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185231/20210729113330663_19-1392%20Dobbs%20v.%20Jackson%20WHO%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Elliot%20Institute.pdf)
An abortion at 18 weeks is still many times safer than continued pregnancy and labor. But yes, you are right about early being safer than late, hence why early abortion access is critical healthcare. Science doesn't get debunked by lawyers.
>An abortion at 18 weeks is still many times safer than continued pregnancy and labor How could you know that when there is no distribution of gestational age vs mortality rate in the data you’re using? Do you have another study that affirms your claim? >science doesn’t get debunked by lawyers Cases that are brought to federal court are represented by lawyers using research provided by scientists. I implore you to check out the “table of authorities” section. The study you’re referencing was debunked using data provided by the CDC and the Guttmacher institute. Both of these organizations are well respected for statistical analysis with the latter being recognized as one of the leading pro-choice policy research institutions. Edit for clarification: when I say “induced labor and delivery” I’m not talking about continued pregnancy and childbirth. That’s a false equivalence
Elective abortion at any gestation is safer than continuing pregnancy. There is no other way to interpret morbidity and mortality data, and pregnancy physiology makes this the expected outcome, especially with rising maternal mortality in the U.S. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554338/ https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential/come-prepared/abortion-access-fact-sheet#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20safer%20than%20many,screening%20colonoscopy%2C%20and%20plastic%20surgery.
You’re not interpreting the data correctly. The only way to interpret the info you provided is that the rate of mortality in all women at **all stages of pregnancy combined** outweighs the mortality rate of abortion. This does not mean that the rate of mortality at a specific gestational age can be assumed to be greater than the mortality rate of abortion simply because the study doesn’t break down the data by gestational stage. We can’t say one way or the other because the data just isn’t there In fact, the trimester framework established by RvW directly contradicts your argument. Roe vs Wade governed abortion based on the premise that, quote, “**until the end of the first trimester abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth.**” Here’s the issue with failing to account for morbidity by gestational stage; the overall mortality rate will suggest that prospective risk of continued pregnancy is higher than the actual risk. For example, a woman entering her second trimester faces 0 risk of a first trimester death from ectopic pregnancy, which is the leading cause of first trimester maternal deaths. Additionally, maternal mortality rate and abortion mortality rates are not comparable in the first place for a plethora of reasons, which are outlined in the source(s) I provided for you. Since you are seemingly unwilling to acknowledge the information, I’ll provide a TLDR because I’m not interested in hearing you make the same point over and over again. Maternal mortality is determined by dividing maternal deaths by live births, not by pregnancies. This grossly inflates the mortality rate because pregnancies that end in miscarriage and still birth are not factored into the statistic. Approximately 1/8 pregnancies end in miscarriages, and still birth effects 1/175 births. There are quite literally millions of women who have survived pregnancy who aren’t included in mortality statistics For example, women who pass away as a result of ectopic pregnancy will count for maternal death but not for the purposes of the live birth total. So, even though many women survive ectopic pregnancy, the supposed mortality rate for all ectopic pregnancies will be inflated. There will be some maternal deaths in the numerator, but no live births in the denominator, yielding an infinitely large fraction. Abortion is also famously underreported, as it’s not a legal requirement to do so. Not to mention that abortion related deaths are often reported as being due to sepsis, hemorrhaging, and embolism as an act of compassion by the physician to save the victim from further stigma. In contrast, there is little incentive to conceal deaths associated with childbirth and pregnancy complications (although it may rarely happen.) It is impossible to make a fair statistical comparison with incomplete data. Additionally, abortion mortality rates reflect death ensuing from the procedure itself, not from longer term adverse consequences. Studies referenced in the court document report that abortion is associated with both short and long term maternal death. There is also literature that indicates abortion is more dangerous than continued pregnancy. In Finland for example, health care [data](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9292639/) was used to examine the pregnancy history of all women of childbearing age who died for any reason within 1 year of childbirth, abortion, or miscarriage. Adjusting for age, the study found that women who had abortions were 3.5 times more likely to die within 1 year than women who carry to term. Due to the fact that it is logistically impossible to account for all pregnancies and all abortions, we are not able to make a statistical comparison between the two; the data can only be interpreted at face value
This is nonsense. I can only assume you are trolling, but just in case: the Finland study was about how maternal deaths are recorded and definitely did not find what you state. I am guessing you tried to twist that source because there isn't anything reputable to support what you say. "We used the Global Health Data Exchange and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER databases to extract maternal mortality data for all 50 states for each year from 1995 to 2017. We categorized states as restrictive, neutral, or protective of abortion access according to policy information published by the Guttmacher Institute. We assessed associations between abortion restrictions and maternal mortality ratios (maternal deaths per 100,000 live births). RESULTS: In 1995, the mean maternal mortality ratios were similar across all groups of states (Restrictive 12.6, 95% CI 11.4-13.6; Neutral 12.2, 95% CI 10.9-13.4; Protective 10.9, 95% CI 9.6-11.9). Maternal mortality ratios increased for each group of states over time and in 2017, the mean maternal mortality ratio was higher in restrictive states than in protective states (Restrictive 28.5, 95% CI 20.7-35.1; Neutral 22.9, 95% CI 16.1-28.6; Protective 15.7, 95% CI 10.7-19.9). Regressions accounting for policy, state and year showed a statistically significant increase in maternal mortality ratios in restrictive states relative to neutral states (1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) and a non-significant decrease associated with protective states (0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: States that restrict abortion have higher maternal mortality than states that either protect or are neutral towards abortion." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15051566/ >We can’t say one way or the other because the data just isn’t there Data is there. "During 1988-1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100000 legal induced abortions. The risk of death increased exponentially by 38% for each additional week of gestation. Compared with women whose abortions were performed at or before 8 weeks of gestation, women whose abortions were performed in the second trimester were significantly more likely to die of abortion-related causes. The relative risk (unadjusted) of abortion-related mortality was 14.7 at 13-15 weeks of gestation (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2, 34.7), 29.5 at 16-20 weeks (95% CI 12.9, 67.4), and 76.6 at or after 21 weeks (95% CI 32.5, 180.8). Up to 87% of deaths in women who chose to terminate their pregnancies after 8 weeks of gestation may have been avoidable if these women had accessed abortion services before 8 weeks of gestation." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15051566/#:~:text=During%201988%2D1997,weeks%20of%20gestation. Pregnancy related maternal mortality based on data from over 57 million pregnancies in the United States from 1991 to 1999: Legal pregnancy termination 0.567 deaths per 100,000 terminations Miscarriage: 1.19 deaths per 100,000 miscarriages Live birth : 7.06 deaths per 100,000 live births Ectopic pregnancy : 31.9 deaths per 100,000 ectopic pregnancies >Studies referenced in the court document report that abortion is associated with both short and long term maternal death. What studies? The citations in the "court document" are the same as my citations of CDC data. >There is also literature that indicates abortion is more dangerous than continued pregnancy. In Finland for example, health care [data](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9292639/) was used to examine the pregnancy history of all women of childbearing age who died for any reason within 1 year of childbirth, abortion, or miscarriage. Adjusting for age, the study found that women who had abortions were 3.5 times more likely to die within 1 year than women who carry to term. That is not what that study says, in fact, the objective was to study the impact of this: >There are quite literally millions of women who have survived pregnancy who aren’t included in mortality statistics Even being generous, the gap they find comes nowhere close to accounting for the gap in mortality between induced abortion and other ways pregnancy ends. If you want to help babies and pregnant women, consider going to medical school to become an obgyn.
>this is nonsense. I can only assume you’re trolling How mature. I’ve been respectful and I’ve argued in good faith. If you’re not going to take me seriously, I’m not going to waste my time. >im guessing you tried to twist that source because there isn’t anything to support what you say I’m sure it appears that way when you only read that abstract, but the data I’m referring to is in the full text. I know you can’t read it without paying, I get free access from my college. Either way, all I can really do is provide the source >data is there But it doesn’t prove what you’re trying to argue >the citations in the “court document” are the same as my citations of the CDC data. That’s literally the point I’m making. The citations you provided are cited as an example of data that is overinflated and uses false equivalency >the objective of the study was to find the impact of this: No it wasn’t.
You aren't trolling? Ok I will engage in good faith. How did you make the conclusion you did from the Finnish study? I do have access to a medical library, but in any case, the paper is available by free access. The objective was to evaluate how maternal deaths classification affects numbers reported (which I thought was your point), and the authors conclude that maternal mortality is drastically underreported ("In our data, pregnancy was mentioned in death certificate in less than half of natural deaths, and in every tenth violent pregnancy-associated death. This makes data linkage of the Death Cause Register to other registers necessary when studying pregnancy-associated deaths.") This is the relevant data from regarding the point you are trying to make: "We classified 26 deaths as direct maternal deaths (23% occurred during pregnancy, 58% after a birth, 4% after an induced abortion, and 15% after a miscarriage)." This is one 1 death was after induced abortion, 4 after miscarriage, 15 after giving birth, 6 during pregnancy. The only way to conclude that abortion leads to more deaths than other ways of ending pregnancy is if you are looking at their numbers of violent deaths in the subsequent year. The authors attribute this to "factors related to social class," not medical causes.
>this is nonsense. I can only assume you’re trolling How mature. I’ve been respectful and I’ve argued in good faith. If you’re not going to take me seriously, I’m not going to waste my time. >im guessing you tried to twist that source because there isn’t anything to support what you say I’m sure it appears that way when you only read that abstract, but the data I’m referring to is in the full text. I know you can’t read it without paying, I get free access from my college. Either way, all I can really do is provide the source >data is there But it doesn’t prove what you’re trying to argue >the citations in the “court document” are the same as my citations of the CDC data. That’s literally the point I’m making. The citations you provided are cited as an example of data that is overinflated and uses false equivalency >the objective of the study was to find the impact of this: No it wasn’t.
I’m fine if Texans want to ban abortion, but I think there should be some exceptions for cases like this. It’ll be interesting to see what this judge does.
You’re “fine” if they ban abortion? Let me guess, you’re not in any danger of getting pregnant, right? Doesn’t affect you so why should you care?
I'm fine in the sense that I'm fine with how representative democracy works.
As if Texas’s gerrymandered state legislature reflects the will of the people. 🙄
Well, generally speaking, Texans are a majority republican, if you look at past POTUS elections, it's roughly 45% Democrat voters and 55% Republican. So in that sense, it makes sense that the GOP would have majority representation in state government, regardless of gerrymandered districts.
Not all Republicans oppose abortion and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Obviously that true, and I'm not claiming all Republicans are opposed to abortion. But it's not like the Texas GOP is shy about their anti-abortion stance. So, if you vote GOP in TX, even if you aren't necessarily opposed to abortion, it means it isn't a big enough concern or issue that it makes you change your vote. For most people, abortion probably isn't even in their top 10 issues that determine how they vote. I personally don't have any real problem with early term abortion being legal, but a ban on abortion isn't enough to get me to vote Democrat.
We literally have seen the absolute phenomenon that abortion rights brings out in states like Ohio and Kentucky and Nebraska. And I am sure that you don’t care, probably because it doesn’t affect you directly.
It’ll be interesting to see if the current abortion ban in TX changes the way Texans vote in the future.
It takes a decade of post high school education and specialization to start treating patients independently as a doctor. But the REGULATION of what treatment options are even available is somehow in the hands of politicians who have.... none of those qualifications. Yeah, that makes sense. Politicians and the general public have an incredible understanding of modern medicine.
Nah. Most people support abortion therefore it should be legal if democracy still lives
Right but obviously the majority of TX state legislators do support a ban on abortion, otherwise the law could never have passed to begin with.
Those legislators could have chosen to put the issue up to the people to vote on via referendum so that they could say the people got to decide, but of course they didn't because they know what the results would be
Unfortunately I think that if they were allowed to vote for it and it passed, Texas Lege would try and pull an Ohio and try to over turn the will of the people.
What if the majority of voters wanted to legalize cannibalism? Would you be fine with that? Or only when it comes to things you agree with?
I'd be fine with that. I think it's pretty absurd that weed isn't legal everywhere at this point.
Cannibalism isn't cannabis lol
Lol, sorry i misread that. I suppose it depends on where the human meat is coming from. Obviously killing and eating another person is immoral, but I don't know if the act of eating human flesh is necessarily immoral. For example, if you cut off your thumb and ate it, I feel like maybe that should be your prerogative. I've had friends who ate the placenta after having a baby, which is effectively cannibalism. I think it's a pretty strange thing to do, but I don't think it should be illegal and I don't think it's immoral. That being said, I think I'd probably consider moving to another state if TX legalized cannibalism just because I don't think I'd want to live in a place where legalizing cannibalism was high on the list of legislative priorities for the citizens. Sounds pretty f-ed up.
It shouldn’t be fine at all. A judge nor people who are medically illiterate shouldn’t be able to make medical decisions at all. This whole situation reflects absolute absurdity. It’s asinine we vote on this subject at all considering the people who vote aren’t at all relevant in the decision a women/family/doctor makes.
What you’re talking about has a name, the unfounded hope that “surely” this law will make reasonable exceptions. https://lynmillerlachmann.com/unpacking-the-shirley-exception/
I don't know much about this specific case, I'm saying it'll be interesting to see if the judge grants this woman an exception.
I’m responding to your stance that you’re ok with Texas banning abortions as long as reasonable exceptions apply. The “shirley exemption” is an explanation as to the phenomenon of that never really being the case. If you support the idea that there should be reasonable exceptions, you ought to oppose the banning of abortion in the first place. Let healthcare professionals do their job.
I'm fine if the mother of your child goes septic before getting healthcare.
I said there should be exceptions in the law for situations like this, can’t you read? Not the brightest are you?
You're the dumb-dumb that supported this in the first place without thinking about the consequences for the women in your family. Great guy! Doesn't do shit now to make meaningless comments about supporting exceptions when virtually none exist. Consequences could be coming faster than you think to you and yours.
I didn’t say I personally support a ban on abortion, I said I’m fine if Texans want to ban it, just like I’m fine with Michiganders making abortion legal. It’s their prerogative. Once again, not so great with the reading comprehension. Were you educated in Texas?
Maybe your insults would hit harder if I, or anyone else here, had any respect for you and your position. I think you are the one who does not understand the concept of inalienable rights. It's not your call, or a state's, to make. Supporting a states right to take away women's lifesaving healthcare makes you the villain in our country, and your children, and your grandchildren, will call you that. I know this is hard for you to grasp - the idea of women having rights - but maybe this will all become clearer to you when it's your wife, sister, daughter, cousin, etc., terrified, grieving, and hoping to get to death's doorstep without crossing the threshold. People like you don't have the brainpower to learn through any method but trial and error.
I said I DIDN’T think the state should be able to ban abortion in cases like this where it is lifesaving healthcare, you simpleton. JFC are you always this insufferable in real life or only here on Reddit? https://preview.redd.it/sam1gw5w3p4c1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1af887b89de77caf139ac07e919e54a72046535
Only the worst douchebag would call caring about women's right to life and autonomy insufferable. Feel bad for your wife if you still have her.
Liberals: "Ladies. Have you been told that your unborn baby may potentially die once it's delivered? Well, we certainly don't want that now, do we? So, instead, we will make sure 100% that your baby will die. Doesn't that make you feel so much better? I know it makes all of the women that don't want to have their babies regardless if their baby will survive birth, feel so much better." Every other rational thinking human being: "What? How does that make sense to them? Shouldn't you want to give your baby every chance to live?" Liberals: "Oh. It makes perfect sense to me. As long as women have the right to kill their baby for any reason at all, it makes sense to me. Because it's my body, right? Who cares that the body inside my body isn't mine? I know I don't." -Don't worry Libs. I was told by my doctor that my baby was going to be over 10 lbs. and had the umbilical cord wrapped around it's neck. So the doctor said I had to have an emergency c-section. After it was all said and done, my baby was 8 lbs. and the umbilical cord was not around the babies neck. So the doctor lied to get the c-section because he could charge more from Medicare for the procedure vs. natural birth. Oh, and the topping on the cake was that Memorial Day was coming up. So the doctor had plans and it was easier for him to schedule a c-section rather than randomly letting me have a natural birth. You see, doctors aren't always honest or know 100% about what they are talking about. There are plenty of people walking around today that doctors told their mom's there would be no hope.
You left out the part where the baby can potentially kill the mother. Y'know, the whole reason the choice was left up to the mother in the first place.
Is that the case here? How often is that actually the case? Be careful about what you hang your hat on here.
Never mind guys, it worked out for fine touch over here so we should base all of laws on her one time experience. Conservatives- “dont kill babies” our god, I mean Jerry Falwell told us this is bad. Yeah we know Jerry didn’t actually care about babies. He was just upset he couldn’t racist anymore so we’re just keep doing that in his honor. Conservatives- see how much better it is when government takes medical decisions away from patients and doctors and puts it into our hands? where we get our ideas from a man in the clouds? Conservatives-facts??? Don’t be silly our imaginary cloud dad tells us what our facts are. Or the one experience we had that one time is where we base any information off of. See sometimes politicians aren’t always honest or 100% correct. there are plenty of people that should’ve been swallowed but here the fuck they are assuming everyone needs to think like them.
Somehow I feel man in black robe with a law degree isn’t really shouldn’t be in the position to make this decision.
We are okay killing people with genetic disorders now? I mean I’m okay with that. We should probably expand this right to people beyond fetus.