Next time, try English. And try to answer the question. Or, I'll try to ask another question (that you will refuse to answer in favor of poor assumptions that you would prefer to be true): what percentage of pregnancies have a mother's life in danger? Surely, you can back your point with an actual demonstration of that, and, then, maybe we can back it out to what percentage of risk is considered "in danger" from there.
You are listening to the media to define what happened. Read the law and let me know where it hinders a doctor from documenting the mothers life is in jeopardy to preform an abortion. It does not. It gives the doctors the discretion to make me the decisions necessary to provide care. Did the doctors/hospital fail here? Very possible. But it is not the law. You just want it make it legal to kill for any reason. Which is why you are stuck on an outlier case. If the doctors/hospital failed Kate Cox. I hope she is made as close to whole as possible with her options in court. But it was not the law.
Pregnancy brings all sorts of added medical needs. But the vast majority are normal. Like most of our mothers who are posting here on too hot. Nothing to provide a reason to have a doctor kill the separate life inside the mother.
I notice that you didn't answer either of the questions. I will continue to ask the two questions until they are answered: What percentage of pregnancies have a mother's life in danger? How likely does death have to be for the mother to consider her life in danger
For many years I was anti-abortion. While I still think it is an awful procedure, I do believe it is the individual’s choice to make. What I have difficulty understanding and accepting as remotely reasonable ….. are the situations where a female has multiple abortions. Which Abortion Patients Have Had a Prior Abortion? Findings from the 2014 U.S. Abortion Patient Survey 45% of patients reported having one or more prior abortions. I wonder how many more had a prior abortion but were unwilling to admit such.
All media are reporting the exact same thing. Maybe because they read the actual ruling from the Texas Supreme Court? Maybe you should read it too? Here's the important passage: In this case, the pleadings state that Ms. Cox’s doctor—Dr. Damla Karsan—believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court’s pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires. No one disputes that Ms. Cox’s pregnancy has been extremely complicated. Any parents would be devastated to learn of their unborn child’s trisomy 18 diagnosis. Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses. The exception requires a doctor to decide whether Ms. Cox’s difficulties pose such risks. Dr. Karsan 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. The Texas Supreme Court denied Cox and her doctor's request for an abortion because at the time of the petition, Cox didn't have a "life threatening physical condition." She was heading in that direction, and if she had not gotten the abortion, Cox would have highly likely ended up with a life threatening condition. But until her life was in actual danger, the Texas Court said she could not get a legal abortion in Texas, even if it was 99% certain she would one day have a life threatening condition had she remained pregnant. Blaming the media for reporting the truth, that the court blocked Cox from getting an abortion in Texas, is utter bull. Claiming the law didn't stop Cox from getting a legal abortion in Texas is equally bull. I linked the Texas Supreme Court decision that proves it! Like the woman in Tennessee, women have to wait until they are on death's door before they can get a legal abortion. So I ask again, how does this help the women in those states?
Hardly any pregnancy puts the mothers life in danger where killing the child makes is less dangerous. And the second question is not for me or you to answer...but the doctors and the patient.
If Dr. Karsan had tests and scans showing the mothers life was in danger or going to be in danger she had every right to use the abortion procedure. It appears they were trying to jump the gun in using the procedure? I don't know. But nothing in the Texas Law says that a Mother cannot receive an abortion if a doctor feels the Mothers Life is in jeopardy. And Dr. Karsan testified that she did not believe her life was in jeopardy. Again...Thankfully this is a very rare case. And maybe Dr. Karsan and those at the hospital did not provide quality care. I do not know. But you are allowing the media that supports your view to kill legally for convenience to drive your belief that it is the Law that is the problem. That is not the case.
Ken Paxton said that he would would pursue the health care providers in court if an abortion was given and the TX Supreme Ct affirmed his ability to do so. The problem with these laws (or a feature if one is ardently pro life) is that they are worded in such a way that it isn’t clear. You can make a reasonable assertion that Katie Cox should have qualified. You can make a reasonable assertion that she didn’t. Where you come down on it will depend on how militant of a pro life person you are. My understanding in Europe is that abortion bans after the first trimester generally have much more flexibility for exceptions.
The story is the story. Dr. Karsan sued to be able to abort because she thought Cox's life was going to be in imminent danger, sooner rather than later, without an abortion. But the law states that until the mother's life is in imminent danger, you cannot abort. Which is why Texas ruled as it did. Similar law in Tennessee forced a woman to wait until she was in imminent danger, and as a result, because she was forced to wait, she is now infertile. These are facts not in question.
Here are some other things not in question: Anti-choice people believe that clumps of embryonic cells are more important than the woman in which they are grown. They also believe that women's bodies should be controlled by the state and that they are not deserving of the same rights as men since they are inherently inferior.
You didn't answer either question. I will ask them again: What percentage of pregnancies have a mother's life in danger? How likely does death have to be for the mother to consider her life in danger "Hardly any" is not a percentage. And you need to answer the second question because you want the law to be involved. As such, you can't wash your hands of the implications. If you actually want to leave it to the doctor and patient, that is fine. But you don't. You want there to be the government involved as well.
Go read the law! It is posted on page 1 of this thread. It does not state “that until the mother's life is in imminent danger”. That is a lie!!!! You are flat ignorant of what the “LAW” says! Go read it before you keep posting. The “LAW” provides real discretion for the physician. I have tried to be middle of road on this very rare case we keep discussing. But the more you push the more it appears there is an agenda. Read the “LAW”!
That sounds good until we see it in practice. In practice, the Attorney General for the state of Texas got involved and overruled the doctor.
GO AND READ THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISION BASED ON THE LAW! I already posted it. Their interpretation of the law matters. Your opinion of the law does not. You have the agenda. You are the one who wants to make the choice for all women. You think you know best in all cases, and think you know more about Texas law than the Texas Supreme Court?!? I'm not surprised. After all, you're also the be all end all on infectious diseases and vaccines! Bottom line, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Cox wasn't eligible for a legal abortion at the time she petitioned. Even though her doctor was also listed as a plaintiff in the suit. Spin it all you want. But READ THE DAMN RESULT, which carries actual weight.
Although clearly not your intention, your statement "medicine is not exact and doctors need discretion" makes a very strong case for providing doctors who perform abortions based on medical necessity with qualified immunity. If a doctor performs an abortion and the state wished to prosecute the burden would be on the state to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the abortion was entirely elective and that there was no valid medical reason to perform the procedure.
The doctor said the Mother based on tests scans at the time had the Mother at no risk. So did the doctor violate her duty? We don’t know. But the law clearly gives a doctor broad discretion when reading it!
Go read the law. There is no reason a doctor should ever consider not providing life saving measures. Unless of course you want to create an issue and make an issue in the courts. Sad. But likely scenario…
I think that is 100% fair. I know some doctors would abuse it. But we need to protect life the best we can and I think most doctors will abide by the Oath they take.
