Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[*pally*]

(12-09-2023, 10:01 AM)basballguy Wrote: You’re mixing facts with opinion dude.  The only opinion I provided is one that was FOR her getting the abortion.

I didn’t say she anyone was lying.  I said she has not provided evidence supporting her claim.  She’s hasn’t.  That’s a fact.  It’s also a fact the child may survive.  

Whether you like it or not, laws are in place to prevent malicious abortions.  They need to be followed.

'She proved it enough that a JUDGE granted her the TRO.  

It is the Texas laws that are malicious.

This woman, who wants this child, received devastating news about her unborn child.  She talked with her doctors and listened to what they told her about the abnormality, and the risks to the child and herself if the pregnancy continued.  She made the heartbreaking decision that the best choice for herself and her family was to terminate the pregnancy. 

WHO IN THE HELL IS KEN PAXTON TO DECIDE OTHERWISE???!!!! He is not a doctor.  He isn't the one risking death to carry this pregnancy.  He isn't the one who could potentially leave 2 living children motherless.  He isn't the one who has to bear the mental and financial burden of carrying a non-viable pregnancy

You people act like she woke up one morning and decided to have an abortion.  It is heartless and cruel and frankly NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

[basballguy]

(12-09-2023, 12:41 PM)pally Wrote: 'She proved it enough that a JUDGE granted her the TRO.  

It is the Texas laws that are malicious.

This woman, who wants this child, received devastating news about her unborn child.  She talked with her doctors and listened to what they told her about the abnormality, and the risks to the child and herself if the pregnancy continued.  She made the heartbreaking decision that the best choice for herself and her family was to terminate the pregnancy. 

WHO IN THE HELL IS KEN PAXTON TO DECIDE OTHERWISE???!!!! He is not a doctor.  He isn't the one risking death to carry this pregnancy.  He isn't the one who could potentially leave 2 living children motherless.  He isn't the one who has to bear the mental and financial burden of carrying a non-viable pregnancy

You people act like she woke up one morning and decided to have an abortion.  It is heartless and cruel and frankly NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

Ken Paxton also proved enough to a judge she didn’t provide sufficient evidence. There hasn’t been sufficient evidence the baby won’t survive and she hasn’t proved her health is at risk. One judge agrees, another doesn’t.

You are putting way too much emotion into this and quite frankly it’s insulting to say “it’s none of your business” simply because I don’t have the same biological sex. You don’t know my history or experiences with abortion.

Lastly, I said she should be granted the abortion so you’re getting worked up for no reason.

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2023, 05:45 PM)basballguy Wrote: Ken Paxton also proved enough to a judge she didn’t provide sufficient evidence. There hasn’t been sufficient evidence the baby won’t survive and she hasn’t proved her health is at risk. One judge agrees, another doesn’t.

Actually, that is not what happened. The Texas supreme court ruling states that it is staying Thursday's order "without regard to the merits" of the case. Essentially, the court has said that they don't want anything to happen until they make their ruling.

I am curious, though, what would be "sufficient evidence" for the risk to the fetus and the mother beyond the medical diagnostics and the typical course of the condition?

[*pally*]

(12-09-2023, 05:45 PM)basballguy Wrote: Ken Paxton also proved enough to a judge she didn’t provide sufficient evidence.  There hasn’t been sufficient evidence the baby won’t survive and she hasn’t proved her health is at risk.  One judge agrees, another doesn’t.  

You are putting way too much emotion into this and quite frankly it’s insulting to say “it’s none of your business” simply because I don’t have the same biological sex.  You don’t know my history or experiences with abortion.    

Lastly, I said she should be granted the abortion so you’re getting worked up for no reason.

It is none of your business BECAUSE IT ISN'T YOUR BODY!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't matter what your personal experience with abortion is or not.  And yes I am putting emotion into this subject because to a woman it isn't abstract.  It is governmental control over our bodies and our health.  Not understanding why women get emotional over this subject is exactly why Republicans and conservatives have lost every vote on this subject since Roe-v Wade was overturned.

No woman should have to go to court to protect her health.  And I shudder to think what other steps to control a woman's choices Texas will take if they get away with this.

[NATI BENGALS]

Without a doubt I agree with the GOP. This man should have final say over all women's personal health decisions.  

   

Luckily this evil doer lady is in Texas and the GOP has the true power they deserve there, to get this lady's difficult personal health decision into the courts where it belongs.  

[basballguy]

(12-09-2023, 06:46 PM)pally Wrote: It is none of your business BECAUSE IT ISN'T YOUR BODY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh, it’s not your body either. I guess we just shouldn’t even discuss it

[HarleyDog]

(12-09-2023, 10:25 PM)basballguy Wrote: Uh, it’s not your body either.  I guess we just shouldn’t even discuss it

Damn. You know, I guess the argument comes down to when the baby has rights? When the baby feels pain should be sufficient. Either way, I've not heard that angle before and it's a good one because it's true.

[*pally*]

(12-09-2023, 10:25 PM)basballguy Wrote: Uh, it’s not your body either. I guess we just shouldn’t even discuss it

Precisely, it is a private decision to be made by the woman, her family, and her physician. No one else should be involved.

[basballguy]

(12-09-2023, 11:56 PM)pally Wrote: Precisely, it is a private decision to be made by the woman, her family, and her physician. No one else should be involved.

I’m not involved in those conversations….

[*Nately120*]

(12-09-2023, 10:34 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Damn. You know, I guess the argument comes down to when the baby has rights? When the baby feels pain should be sufficient. Either way, I've not heard that angle before and it's a good one because it's true.

Political arguments where you ask a voter to consider the suffering of other people don't get much traction in the "what's in it for me" culture we have going.  I mean sure it's nice to think about the rights and pain a baby might feel but what's next?  Caring about that baby's education?  Or the state of the world in which he or she will grow?  Caring about the baby having clean air and clean water?  Caring about free school lunches?  It's a slippery-slope of caring if you ask people to care.

Also, I'm not going to bat for making babies suffer, but I don't recall anything until I was at least 2 years old and unless I experienced no physical pain until then I feel like I didn't feel it.  

[GMDino]

(12-09-2023, 10:34 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Damn. You know, I guess the argument comes down to when the baby has rights? When the baby feels pain should be sufficient. Either way, I've not heard that angle before and it's a good one because it's true.

Don't worry...Texas is also arguing that a fetus has no rights.

https://apnews.com/article/texas-fetus-rights-prison-lawsuit-6c4fa19793cd56e5edade436d1392d90

Quote:[color=var(--color-byline-authors)]BY JAKE BLEIBERG
Updated 12:37 AM EST, August 12, 2023
Share
DALLAS (AP) — The state of Texas is questioning the legal rights of an “unborn child” in arguing against a lawsuit brought by a prison guard who says she had a stillborn baby because prison officials refused to let her leave work for more than two hours after she began feeling intense pains similar to contractions.[/color]

The argument from the Texas attorney general’s office appears to be in tension with positions it has previously taken in defending abortion restrictions, contending all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court that “unborn children” should be recognized as people with legal rights.

It also contrasts with statements by Texas’ Republican leaders, including Gov. Greg Abbott, who has touted the state’s abortion ban as protecting “every unborn child with a heartbeat.”


The state attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to questions about its argument in a court filing that an “unborn child” may not have rights under the U.S. Constitution. In March, lawyers for the state argued that the guard’s suit “conflates” how a fetus is treated under state law and the Constitution.

“Just because several statutes define an individual to include an unborn child does not mean that the Fourteenth Amendment does the same,” they wrote in legal filing that noted that the guard lost her baby before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion established under its landmark Roe v. Wade decision.


That claim came in response to a federal lawsuit brought last year by Salia Issa, who alleges that hospital staff told her they could have saved her baby had she arrived sooner. Issa was seven months’ pregnant in 2021, when she reported for work at a state prison in the West Texas city of Abilene and began having a pregnancy emergency.

Her attorney, Ross Brennan, did not immediately offer any comment. He wrote in a court filing that the state’s argument is “nothing more than an attempt to say — without explicitly saying — that an unborn child at seven months gestation is not a person.”

While working at the prison, Issa began feeling pains “similar to a contraction” but when she asked to be relived from her post to go to the hospital her supervisors refused and accused her of lying, according to the complaint she filed along with her husband. It says the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s policy states that a corrections officer can be fired for leaving their post before being relived by another guard.

Issa was eventually relieved and drove herself to the hospital, where she underwent emergency surgery, the suit says.

Issa, whose suit was first reported by The Texas Tribune, is seeking monetary damages to cover her medical bills, pain and suffering, and other things, including the funeral expenses of the unborn child. The state attorney general’s office and prison system have asked a judge to dismiss the case.

Laura Hermer, a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, described Texas’ legal posture as “seeking to have their cake and eat it too.”

“This would not be the first time that the state has sought to claim to support the right to life of all fetuses, yet to act quite differently when it comes to protecting the health and safety of such fetuses other than in the very narrow area of prohibiting abortions,” Hermer said.

Last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower recommended that the case be allowed to proceed, in part, without addressing the arguments over the rights of the fetus.

JAKE BLEIBERG
Jake Bleiberg is a law enforcement reporter based in Dallas.

[basballguy]

(12-09-2023, 06:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, that is not what happened. The Texas supreme court ruling states that it is staying Thursday's order "without regard to the merits" of the case. Essentially, the court has said that they don't want anything to happen until they make their ruling.

I am curious, though, what would be "sufficient evidence" for the risk to the fetus and the mother beyond the medical diagnostics and the typical course of the condition?

We now know the answer

Quote: “The exception requires a doctor to decide whether Ms. Cox’s difficulties pose such risks,” the ruling continues. “(A doctor) asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.”

Seems like people should be upset with the doctor and not Ken Paxton.

[NATI BENGALS]

Had a hard time understanding why I kept seeing headlines that said the Texas supreme court ruled against the lady, but said it's up to the doctor.  And that makes some sense as to why I'm seeing those headlines. But I think it just sets it up to end up back in court. Doctor performs an abortion and Paxton presses charges on the doctor and it's back in court.

It's still pretty easy to go after the GOP on this. Without them. This doctor doesn't fear being thrown in jail and doesn't have to worry about spending time in court instead of caring for patients.

[*pally*]

(12-12-2023, 01:58 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Had a hard time understanding why I kept seeing headlines that said the Texas supreme court ruled against the lady, but said it's up to the doctor.  And that makes some sense as to why I'm seeing those headlines. But I think it just sets it up to end up back in court. Doctor performs an abortion and Paxton presses charges on the doctor and it's back in court.

It's still pretty easy to go after the GOP on this. Without them. This doctor doesn't fear being thrown in jail and doesn't have to worry about spending time in court instead of caring for patients.

On Monday, the Texas Supreme Court ruled she could not have the abortion. Which knowing the make up of that court was not a real surprise. The plaintiff, however, by the time the ruling came down had already left the state to obtain the medical she needed. It remains to be seen if this case is further appealed in order to continue the challenge to the vagueness of the law or if Paxton will go after any of her family, friends, or medical team who may have known about her plans to leave the state. Helping someone is also illegal in Texas.

[basballguy]

(12-12-2023, 05:33 AM)pally Wrote: On Monday, the Texas Supreme Court ruled she could not have the abortion. Which knowing the make up of that court was not a real surprise. The plaintiff, however, by the time the ruling came down had already left the state to obtain the medical she needed. It remains to be seen if this case is further appealed in order to continue the challenge to the vagueness of the law or if Paxton will go after any of her family, friends, or medical team who may have known about her plans to leave the state. Helping someone is also illegal in Texas.

That’s a misrepresentation. Best case, the lady’s doctor didn’t do the due diligence required by the new law. Worst case, everyone was exaggerating the risks in an effort to get the abortion.

I get it, most parents don’t want to raise a child with defects (assuming it makes it that far)…that’s why we always pray for a healthy baby during pregnancy. But the law is the law and it’s to protect unborn children from malicious parents that make shit up just so they can escape pregnancy.

If you don’t like the law go to another state…which is what this lady did. I got no problem with that.

[GMDino]

(12-12-2023, 11:38 AM)basballguy Wrote: That’s a misrepresentation.  Best case, the lady’s doctor didn’t do the due diligence required by the new law.  Worst case, everyone was exaggerating the risks in an effort to get the abortion.  

I get it, most parents don’t want to raise a child with defects (assuming it makes it that far)…that’s why we always pray for a healthy baby during pregnancy.  But the law is the law and it’s to protect unborn children from malicious parents that make shit up just so they can escape pregnancy.  

If you don’t like the law go to another state…which is what this lady did.  I got no problem with that.

All cases the court decided that even though there are exceptions...this one didn't reach a level that would allow them to get involved.  

Now everyone who helped her leave the state will be at risk of being charged because Texas doesn't even want to allow people to leave the state for medical care.

As to the bold: That is one of the most disgusting takes I've seen on this board and that says a lot.  I'd suggest you feel ashamed for saying it but I know better around here.

[basballguy]

(12-12-2023, 12:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: As to the bold: That is one of the most disgusting takes I've seen on this board and that says a lot.  I'd suggest you feel ashamed for saying it but I know better around here.

I wouldn’t expect anything less from someone that has made it a hobby to be offended on behalf of other people. ?‍♂️

Your virtue signaling is at an all time high here.

[*Nately120*]

Can we just compromise and have all abortions in Texas be performed via assault rifle so the politicians will ignore them and declare them to be inevitable?

Hell, put Alex Jones (I almost put Alex Smith) on the abortion clinic payroll and when a woman walks out post-abortion he can convince the protestors that there was no kid in the first place to even be killed.

[basballguy]

(12-12-2023, 01:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Can we just compromise and have all abortions in Texas be performed via assault rifle so the politicians will ignore them and declare them to be inevitable?

Hell, put Alex Jones (I almost put Alex Smith) on the abortion clinic payroll and when a woman walks out post-abortion he can convince the protestors that there was no kid in the first place to even be killed.

How about we just have the doctor back up their claim about the health issues and submit it in their paperwork?

There was a path to a successful abortion in Texas and for whatever reason it wasn’t followed.

We don’t get to pick and chose what laws are enforced.

[Luvnit2]

I think in ANY case when the risk of the woman is greater than 50% to survive, there should be no law stopping the abortion. I disagree with the Texas Supreme Court decision, but the issue is not the Supreme Court, it is the way the Texas abortion law is written. I don't think anyone can appeal the Texas Supreme Court decision, they have final say.

The answer is to revisit the Texas abortion law and attempt to get the law changed. I feel bad for this woman and her family and pray she had a successful abortion. The good news is the US is a big place with different thoughts and different laws on abortion. At least she was able to get it done in another state legally.