Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[*Nately120*]

(12-12-2023, 01:43 PM)basballguy Wrote: How about we just have the doctor back up their claim about the health issues and submit it in their paperwork?

Any medical claim a doctor can make and any evidence a doctor can submit can be argued and appealed and declared fake and purchased by big abortion until the time for a humane abortion has lapsed.  Not everyone is going to accept medical evidence nor the word of a doctor.


The plan is to make no exceptions because exceptions open the door to misuse and lies.  The next step is to prevent women from leaving the state to get an abortion elsewhere.  This isn't fear-mongering, it's the gameplan for people who consider life at conception, no abortion is moral/reasonable.  If that's what enough people believe, Texas of all places is going to get just that.

It can be argued that anything other than a zero tolerance, no exceptions abortion law is going to lead to the unwarranted and amoral murder of children.  These things will be exploited, and if you think people in Texas are going to accept someone going over a border to commit what they see as murder and then returning to get back to their daily lives, I've got a bridge over the River of Jordan to sell ya.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-12-2023, 12:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

(12-12-2023, 01:24 PM)basballguy Wrote: 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.

Pointing out that a medical doctor can serve up a requested diagnosis is not disgusting.  It can, and does, happen.  Additionally, assuming a medical doctor's diagnosis is an unassailable fact would also be incorrect.  I've been misdiagnosed several times. All laws are written to deal with the minority who will abuse the law, hence the wording of the Texas law.  Note I am not advocating for the law, I think it's far too strict and punitive in several areas.  But suggesting that basballguy is making a "disgusting" argument by pointing out a clear intent of the Texas law is hyperbolic at best.

[GMDino]

(12-12-2023, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pointing out that a medical doctor can serve up a requested diagnosis is not disgusting.  It can, and does, happen.  Additionally, assuming a medical doctor's diagnosis is an unassailable fact would also be incorrect.  I've been misdiagnosed several times. All laws are written to deal with the minority who will abuse the law, hence the wording of the Texas law.  Note I am not advocating for the law, I think it's far too strict and punitive in several areas.  But suggesting that basballguy is making a "disgusting" argument by pointing out a clear intent of the Texas law is hyperbolic at best.

Color me stunned that you had a personal experience with being misdiagnosed.

Your defending your boy from something I didn't say.

What was disgusting was this:

Quote: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.  

I even said the bolded.

Not that I'd expect you or him to understand why.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-12-2023, 02:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Color me stunned that you had a personal experience with being misdiagnosed.

I'd be surprised if a person did not.  I don't think it's that uncommon.

Quote:Your defending your boy from something I didn't say.

What was disgusting was this:


I even said the bolded.  

Not that I'd expect you or him to understand why.

My point stands.  Laws are written to address the most bad faith actors.  You're utterly delusional if you think there aren't people who will lie to circumvent the law and get what they want.  That's the point Basballguy is making, and that the law addresses.  You can dislike the law, I dislike the law.  But getting the vapors over his statement is, again, hyperbolic.  Your sanctimony is noted though, us troglodytes will never be able to comprehend this issue on your exalted level.

[GMDino]

(12-12-2023, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd be surprised if a person did not.  I don't think it's that uncommon.


My point stands.  Laws are written to address the most bad faith actors.  You're utterly delusional if you think there aren't people who will lie to circumvent the law and get what they want.  That's the point Basballguy is making, and that the law addresses.  You can dislike the law, I dislike the law.  But getting the vapors over his statement is, again, hyperbolic.  Your sanctimony is noted though, us troglodytes will never be able to comprehend this issue on your exalted level.

The point he was making was that "most" parents don't "want" to raise a child with "defects".  that they will "make shit up" to "escape" a pregnancy.

You wanna defend that? Go ahead.

It's not "sanctimony" to have compassion for people making incredibly hard choices.  It's being human.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-12-2023, 02:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: The point he was making was that "most" parents don't "want" to raise a child with "defects".  that they will "make shit up" to "escape" a pregnancy.

You wanna defend that? Go ahead.

It's not "sanctimony" to have compassion for people making incredibly hard choices.  It's being human.

Are you actually arguing against the statement that people want a healthy baby?  One of my best friends has an older sister with Downs.  His twin sister has flat out stated that if she got an amniocentesis result that showed he child had Downs she would elect o have an abortion.  Does she hate her older sister?  Or is it that she realizes how difficult raising a child with Downs is and the difficult life they will have.  You chose to interpret his statement in as unflattering a way as possible.  I read it as a parent would prefer a healthy baby 100% of the time.  Are you arguing against that?

As for parents "making things up", I already addressed this.  Yes, some people will attempt to circumvent a law they don't like.  The Texas law is written to address that.  Again, I don't agree with the law, but it's written that way for a reason.

[GMDino]

(12-12-2023, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are you actually arguing against the statement that people want a healthy baby?  One of my best friends has an older sister with Downs.  His twin sister has flat out stated that if she got an amniocentesis result that showed he child had Downs she would elect o have an abortion.  Does she hate her older sister?  Or is it that she realizes how difficult raising a child with Downs is and the difficult life they will have.  You chose to interpret his statement in as unflattering a way as possible.  I read it as a parent would prefer a healthy baby 100% of the time.  Are you arguing against that?

As for parents "making things up", I already addressed this.  Yes, some people will attempt to circumvent a law they don't like.  The Texas law is written to address that.  Again, I don't agree with the law, but it's written that way for a reason.

You are either deliberately being obtuse or worse.

When you have had to make that decision let me know.

But I also know you only want an argument so take it elsewhere.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-12-2023, 03:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: You are either deliberately being obtuse or worse.

When you have had to make that decision let me know.

But I also know you only want an argument so take it elsewhere.  

No, you're deliberately misinterpreting his statement.  Likely because it gives you an opportunity to be outraged.  But, no problem, we can call this one. 

[*pally*]

Women wanting to make the right decision for themselves and their families are not "malicious" actors. The Texas laws concerning abortion are so poorly written that doctors don't know when they are allowed to proceed. What the Texas laws demand and the religious fanatics in their government and courts require are absolutes. The fetus has a 99% chance of death in the womb...so no abortion because there is a 1% chance of survival. The woman has more chances of a bad outcome to her health than she is comfortable taking...too bad so sad...the government knows better.

Maybe the state should start being financially responsible for every pregnancy they force to continue, all bills related to prenatal care, delivery, and of course until the child is dead and buried. And if they end up killing the mother with the forced pregnancy they financially support her remaining orphaned children.

These laws are heartless and cruel to the living. It tells women everywhere that they are only valued as broodmares

It is about control of women not about her or the child. They don't give a damn about living breathing children except for use as religious and political pawns.

An interesting stat is that the states with the most restrictive abortion laws also have the highest maternal mortality rates. Coincidence or correlation?

[Belsnickel]

So, apparently, the possibility that Kate Cox could have been left unable to have another child if forced to carry the fetus to term was not adequate under Texas law. Because it was her fertility and not her life that was at risk it was not a valid exception to the law.

Seems like a "cutting off the nose to spite the face" type of situation that Texas has created.

I also have to say that if we see her face civil or criminal consequences for this it will be one of the largest boons to the pro-choice movement we have ever seen.

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-12-2023, 01:43 PM)basballguy Wrote: 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.

Wow .


I didn’t think anybody would be on board with forcing an individual to reveal their private personal medical information to the courts.

Talk about violation of privacy.

Holy smokes. But here we are.

Must be a democrat thing wanting to prevent US citizens from being forced to disclose personal health information to the courts and letting the courts determine what medical decision they want you to make.

Wild wild shit

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-12-2023, 09:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, apparently, the possibility that Kate Cox could have been left unable to have another child if forced to carry the fetus to term was not adequate under Texas law. Because it was her fertility and not her life that was at risk it was not a valid exception to the law.

Seems like a "cutting off the nose to spite the face" type of situation that Texas has created.

I also have to say that if we see her face civil or criminal consequences for this it will be one of the largest boons to the pro-choice movement we have ever seen.

Indeed.  As I've repeatedly said in this thread, the TX law is not a well written or crafted law.

(12-12-2023, 10:41 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Wow .


I didn’t think anybody would be on board with forcing an individual to reveal their private personal medical information to the courts.

Talk about violation of privacy.

Holy smokes. But here we are.

Must be a democrat thing wanting to prevent US citizens from being forced to disclose personal health information to the courts and letting the courts determine what medical decision they want you to make.

Wild wild shit

I don't disagree with you.  Interestingly, this is exactly what occurs in the oft touted "superior" socialist health care systems of the UK or Canada.  

[CJD]

(12-12-2023, 09:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, apparently, the possibility that Kate Cox could have been left unable to have another child if forced to carry the fetus to term was not adequate under Texas law. Because it was her fertility and not her life that was at risk it was not a valid exception to the law.

Seems like a "cutting off the nose to spite the face" type of situation that Texas has created.

I also have to say that if we see her face civil or criminal consequences for this it will be one of the largest boons to the pro-choice movement we have ever seen.

I think it would be reasonable to say that, if the Republicans were not attempting to take away abortion rights across every state they have any modicum of control over, the 2024 elections would likely be a legitimate red wave. They still may be, we'll have to see, but they're pushing people, especially women, into the Democrats' arms with these abortion restrictions. Even Ohio, a solid red state for the last 2 elections, thinks Republicans' anti-abortion measures are unsavory.

[Belsnickel]

(12-13-2023, 02:06 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think it would be reasonable to say that, if the Republicans were not attempting to take away abortion rights across every state they have any modicum of control over, the 2024 elections would likely be a legitimate red wave. They still may be, we'll have to see, but they're pushing people, especially women, into the Democrats' arms with these abortion restrictions. Even Ohio, a solid red state for the last 2 elections, thinks Republicans' anti-abortion measures are unsavory.

I think that the abortion issue could prevent a red wave, but it won't prevent a red tide, and I purposely use that imagery for the comparison to the destructive effects the natural phenomenon causes. As important as abortion is the economy is the number one issue. Democratic messaging on that is terrible and the economic wins at the macro level we are seeing as a result of more liberal policies are not being felt by the general public.

I was listening to a recent interview of Shawn Fain and some of what he talked about will be what I think is key in the 2024 election cycle. There needs to be a discussion of economic wins from the Democrats and highlighting the ways the GOP has been abandoning the middle and working class. There needs to be a return to the pre-Reagan policies of the Democratic party where instead of accepting the neo-liberal farce of "trickle down economics" we focus on ensuring our citizens are taken care of. To fight against the fake populism of the MAGA movement we need folks like John Fetterman (though hopefully a little more healthy) at the forefront.

Just my two cents.

[CJD]

(12-13-2023, 08:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that the abortion issue could prevent a red wave, but it won't prevent a red tide, and I purposely use that imagery for the comparison to the destructive effects the natural phenomenon causes. As important as abortion is the economy is the number one issue. Democratic messaging on that is terrible and the economic wins at the macro level we are seeing as a result of more liberal policies are not being felt by the general public.

I was listening to a recent interview of Shawn Fain and some of what he talked about will be what I think is key in the 2024 election cycle. There needs to be a discussion of economic wins from the Democrats and highlighting the ways the GOP has been abandoning the middle and working class. There needs to be a return to the pre-Reagan policies of the Democratic party where instead of accepting the neo-liberal farce of "trickle down economics" we focus on ensuring our citizens are taken care of. To fight against the fake populism of the MAGA movement we need folks like John Fetterman (though hopefully a little more healthy) at the forefront.

Just my two cents.

Yea, Democrats are painfully bad when it comes to talking about the economy and it doesn't help that Biden took over right as the Pandemic was "ending" and all the consequences of trying to start a country back up. It's been tumultuous, but I question how much of that is based on policies and how much is simply based on...restarting a country's economy haha.

I still think abortion has the chance of holding off the Republicans for one more election cycle, and hopefully by then the consequences of the pandemic will have lessened and the Democrats can get through some real wins in terms of economic policy. I have a hard time believing this country would re-elect Trump after rejecting him so soundly in 2020.

But then, I'm also never surprised at how my country and its voters can disappoint me. It could be 2016 all over again.

[*pally*]

Texas 2 famously outspoken anti choice Senators, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, who both loudly praised Texas’s highly restrictive abortion laws, had play to say about the Kate Cox situation. Showing the courage, empathy, compassion, and pro-life stances Republicans are famous for, when asked about Ms Cox

Cornyn: That’s a state issue, I’m a federal official.

Cruz: Talk to my press office

The level of leadership shown by these men is astounding

[GMDino]

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/colorado-anti-abortion-gop-lawmaker-praises-impact-abortion-he-paid-for/73-589d9901-228f-4940-970a-56f710f82e53

Quote:Anti-abortion GOP lawmaker praises the impact of the abortion he paid for
Republican congressional candidate Richard Holtorf, a staunch opponent of abortion, described the benefits of the abortion he financed.

[color=var(--global-color-text-dark)]Credit: AP
[/color]FILE - Jan. 9, 2020, file photo, Republican state Rep. Richard Holtorf. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski,File)
Author: Kyle Clark
Published: 1:42 PM MST January 19, 2024
Updated: 11:48 AM MST January 20, 2024

DENVER — Republican State Rep. Richard Holtorf, a candidate for Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, disclosed Friday that he financed an abortion for one of two girlfriends he impregnated, saying it helped her “live her best life.”


Holtorf, who represents the Eastern Plains, made the comment while discussing a resolution by Democrats marking the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that established the right to an abortion. 

“I respected her rights and actually gave her money to help her through her important, critical time so she could live her best life,” Holtorf said.


Holtorf was a sponsor of a failed 2020 measure to ban abortion in Colorado after 22 weeks. In 2022, Holtorf made headlines when he dropped his handgun in the state Capitol while rushing to the floor to cast a vote against abortion rights.


Holtorf did not appear to recognize the disconnect between his statement lauding the benefits of abortion access for his pregnant girlfriend and his staunch opposition to abortion rights, which led him to call abortion rights supporters “godless heathens” last year.


He went on to tell House colleagues Friday that he “had another beautiful woman” and got her pregnant, as well. That woman, Holtorf said, chose not to have an abortion but rather give up the child for adoption, a choice he praised.


“I have so much lived experience, you have no idea,” Holtorf said.


Holtorf later issued a series of statements walking back and ultimately disavowing his words on the House floor.


Holtorf initially declined to tell 9NEWS when and where he paid for his girlfriend’s abortion.


“You will have to come see me here to discuss this is a personal matter and a personal life story,” Holtorf said via text message.


Democratic Rep. Lorena Garcia, who brought the resolution in the state House, tweeted, "I want to thank Rep. Holtorf for the courage to share how reproductive freedom has helped the women in his life. Thank you for sharing your story of supporting a girlfriend when she chose abortion and even paying for it."


Later Friday afternoon, Holtorf provided 9NEWS with a statement declining to discuss the circumstances of his girlfriend's abortion.


"To clarify, I was referring to respecting her as a woman and supporting her," Holtorf wrote. "I ask she should be left out of the conversation as to respect her right to privacy. I felt the need to tell my personal story as a plea to choose life as I highlighted later in my personal story. I am not comfortable sharing any more personal information out of respect to those involved. Thank you for your consideration."

Around 11 p.m. Friday night, Holtorf issued a lengthy statement via Facebook blaming the "liberal news media" and defending his anti-abortion bonafides:


"My comments today in the House chamber have been gathering a lot of attention in the liberal news media as they spin this story. I want to set the record straight. I also have a deep respect for women and my lived experience in the attached video illustrates this fact. I voted “NO” on this Senate Joint Resolution today. This is a deeply personal issue for not only women but also me. As a Pro Life Catholic, after hearing from some of my fellow Democrat legislators supporting abortion disguised as reproductive health, I was spurred by raw emotions and I felt obligated to tell my story and how my personal experience surrounding this issue has deeply and personally touched me in my life. I have lived with all aspects of this complex issue including; my mother’s choice as she faced cervical cancer to choose life for me in 1965. As a young Army lieutenant, choosing life by putting our beautiful baby girl up for open adoption. And living with the saddest moment of my life, while respecting a girlfriend’s decision against life, in my early 20s while attending college. Living through all of this, I encourage both women and men to choose life. I have always tried to lead by example and share not only my triumphs in life, but also my mistakes. I share my deepest regrets to ensure that others can hear my story and make the best choice, which is life for those who can not speak for themselves, the unborn. I would ask that those with questions watch my remarks in the attached video in their entirety. I believe you will gain much needed context. My message today is to respect women and choose life!"


Holtorf issued another lengthy statement Saturday morning, fully reversing his remarks on the House floor that he backed his girlfriend's right to an abortion. Holtorf said he opposed her decision and that the money he gave his girlfriend was not for the abortion itself:

"9 News' Kyle Clark leads the troupe of disgusting liberal media outlets in making false statements and spinning my deeply personal story. In my remarks on the house floor today,


I was advocating to choose life as I railed against the Democrat's Roe v. Wade Anniversary Day resolution. To clear up the liberal media spin, we must review the historical truth which the media novices failed to even take the time to inquire about in their reporting. When I was young man in college, my girlfriend became pregnant. I headed off to Fort Lewis, Washington to do my ROTC Advanced Camp training for the summer and upon my return was greeted with terrible news. My girlfriend had made the unfortunate choice to have an abortion despite my objections as a pro-life Catholic. The liberal media took my comments completely out of context claiming I paid for an abortion. These comments are reprehensible and this shoddy reporting is amateur at best and grossly inaccurate. The truth is my girlfriend asked for financial help when I returned from military training later that summer. I did what any honorable man who respects women would do and I supported her. Later in life, as a young Army Lieutenant, my girlfriend at the time, who was not ready for marriage, chose life by putting our beautiful baby girl up for an open adoption. I live every day thanking God that we made this choice for life because I got to watch my daughter grow up from a far [sic] and am grateful my daughter always knew her biological father. This amazing woman, who I love with all my heart, is now a mother with a beautiful 3-year-old grandson of mine. They are living their best life because her mother and I made a choice for life decades before. The liberal media has shown their novice bias by deceitfully diving headfirst into the dark depths of lies. These snake oil peddlers will not shake my resolve as they stoop to attack my character and pro- life stance. I will always stand strong and advocate for the pro-life movement. The lesson here is to respect life and encourage women to choose life."

Holtorf is one of several Republicans running for Colorado’s 4th Congressional District to replace Republican U.S. Rep. Ken Buck, who is not seeking re-election.

[GMDino]

It was never about a life.  It was about controlling women.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-medical-emergencies-idaho-8ca89d7de0c1fa9256dcd27d1847e144

Quote:The Supreme Court is allowing Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies


[color=var(--color-primary-text)]1 of 2 | 
The U.S Supreme Court is photographed on Friday, Jan. 5, 2024, in Washington. The Supreme Court is allowing Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies, while a legal fight continues. The justices on Jan. 5, said they would hear arguments in the case in April and put on hold a lower court ruling that had blocked the Idaho law in hospital emergencies, based on a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

[/color]

Read More

[color=var(--color-primary-text)]2 of 2 | 
The U.S Supreme Court is photographed on Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)





[color=var(--color-byline-authors)]BY MARK SHERMAN[/color]
Updated 9:40 PM EST, January 5, 2024
Share
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies, while a legal fight continues.[/color]


The justices said they would hear arguments in April and put on hold a lower court ruling that had blocked the Idaho law in hospital emergencies, based on a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration.

The Idaho case gives the court its second major abortion dispute since the justices in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to severely restrict or ban abortion. The court also in the coming months is hearing a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s rules for obtaining mifepristone, one of two medications used in the most common method of abortion in the United States.

In the case over hospital emergencies, the Biden administration has argued that hospitals that receive Medicare funds are required by federal law to provide emergency care, potentially including abortion, no matter if there’s a state law banning abortion.


The administration issued guidance about the federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, two weeks after the high court ruling in 2022. The Democratic administration sued Idaho a month later.


U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Idaho agreed with the administration. But in a separate case in Texas, a judge sided with the state.

In a statement Friday night, President Joe Biden objected to the high court’s decision and said his administration “will continue to defend a woman’s ability to access emergency care under federal law.”


Idaho makes it a crime with a prison term of up to five years for anyone who performs or assists in an abortion.
The administration argues that EMTALA requires health care providers to perform abortions for emergency room patients when needed to treat an emergency medical condition, even if doing so might conflict with a state’s abortion restrictions.
Those conditions include severe bleeding, preeclampsia and certain pregnancy-related infections.

“For certain medical emergencies, abortion care is the necessary stabilizing treatment,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in an administration filing at the Supreme Court.

The state argued that the administration was misusing a law intended to prevent hospitals from dumping patients and imposing “a federal abortion mandate” on states. “EMTALA says nothing about abortion,” Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador told the court in a brief.

Just Tuesday, the federal appeals court in New Orleans came to the same conclusion as Labrador. A three-judge panel ruled that the administration cannot use EMTALA to require hospitals in Texas to provide abortions for women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy. Two of the three judges are appointees of President Donald Trump, and the other was appointed by another Republican president, George W. Bush.

The appeals court affirmed a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, also a Trump appointee. Hendrix wrote that adopting the Biden administration’s view would force physicians to place the health of the pregnant person over that of the fetus or embryo even though EMTALA “is silent as to abortion.”

After Winmill, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, issued his ruling, Idaho lawmakers won an order allowing the law to be fully enforced from an all-Republican, Trump-appointed panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But a larger contingent of 9th Circuit judges threw out the panel’s ruling and had set arguments in the case for late January.

The justices’ order Friday takes the case away from the appeals court. A decision is expected by early summer.
Friday’s development is just one of several legal battles currently making their way through the courts in Idaho.


Separately, four women and several physicians have filed a lawsuit asking an Idaho court to clarify the circumstances that qualify patients to legally receive an abortion. That lawsuit was recently granted the greenlight to move forward despite attempts by the Attorney General’s office to dismiss the case.


Meanwhile, a federal judge in November temporarily blocked Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law from being enforced while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality is underway. That law, which Idaho lawmakers passed last year, was designed to prevent minors from getting abortions in states where the procedure is legal if they don’t have their parents’ permission.

[GMDino]

But I repeat myself:  It was never about a life.  It was about controlling women.



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-attorney-poisoned-pregnant-wife-abortion-medication-sentenced-18-rcna138065

Quote:A Texas attorney who pleaded guilty to slipping abortion medication into his pregnant wife's drinks was sentenced to 180 days in jail.


Catherine Herring, the estranged wife of Mason Herring, told a Harris County court Wednesday that the sentence was not strict enough. Their now 1-year-old daughter has developmental delays and attends therapy eight times a week, she said.



"I do not believe that 180 days is justice for attempting to kill your child seven separate times," she said, according to The Associated Press.



Mason Herring, 39, is accused of drugging drinks he gave to his wife of 11 years after learning in 2022 that she was pregnant with their third child. A complaint states that at the time, the pair was separated but had agreed to attend couples counseling.



Catherine Herring told police that during a counseling session in March 2022, she told her husband about the pregnancy and he "had a negative reaction and after that evening, he sent her text messages expressing that he was not happy about the pregnancy and did not know what to do," the complaint says.



[color=var(--caption--color)]Mason Herring.[color=var(--caption--source--color)]Houston Police via AP[/color]
[/color]
He allegedly told her that the pregnancy "would ruin his plans and make him look like a jerk." Their counselor suggested that the two spend spring break together, according to the complaint.



Catherine Herring told authorities that her husband began to talk to her about her hydration and how she needed to drink more water, the complaint says. On March 17, 2022, he brought her breakfast and water and said he would not leave until she drank the whole cup, according to the complaint.



Catherine Herring said that she noticed the water looked cloudy but her husband said it was because the cup or pipes were dirty, the complaint states.



After drinking the beverage, she became severely ill and experienced cramping. When she began to bleed, Catherine Herring said she went to the emergency room, according to the complaint.



Suspecting that her husband was trying to poison her, Catherine Herring said she set up cameras around her home. She told police that on six other occasions, he gave her beverages mixed with abortion medication but she did not drink them.



She also gave authorities video that showed Mason Herring mixing a substance into her drink and throwing away trash from his car, according to the complaint. She told authorities that she went through the discarded trash and found packaging for a medication that contained misoprostol, which is used to induce abortion.



Mason Herring, who was a Houston attorney according to the AP, was initially charged with felony assault to induce abortion. He accepted a plea agreement on charges of injury to a child and assault of a pregnant person. In addition to 180 days in jail, a judge ordered him to 10 years of probation and barred him from having contact with his estranged wife and 1-year-old daughter.



His attorney, Dan Cogdell, said the sentence was reasonable.



"It's a sad situation and Mason has accepted his responsibility," Cogdell told the court, the AP reported.

[*Nately120*]

(02-11-2024, 12:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: But I repeat myself:  It was never about a life.  It was about controlling women.



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-attorney-poisoned-pregnant-wife-abortion-medication-sentenced-18-rcna138065

That's funny, I thought you had to live in California to get 3 months with good behavior for attempted murder.