Why are we only talking about it being ok if the mother's life is in danger? To make a mother carry to term a fetus that has no chance of survival is unnecessary. Really the decision should be between the provider and the one who is pregnant
As the law in Texas was interpreted by the highest court in the state, if a woman is in sepsis, doctors can act and perform an abortion. But if the woman is only extremely high risk for sepsis, and an abortion can prevent it, doctors still can't act because the mother's life isn't in enough danger. This is exactly what the courts ruled in Texas. Thing is, wait until sepsis, and some women will die. And those that live may have other issues, like infertility for example. The 13 women interviewed by ABC were all women with either complications because they had to wait until treatment, or, like Cox, went out of state for preventative care. So, if you think the law is fine as written, then you must be OK with causing women long term complications or death by making them wait until they qualify for treatment. There's no other way around this.
They all have a poor attempt at being deceptive when they call themselves pro-life when in reality they are only pro birth
It has been proven babies benefit from breast milk in ways formula fed babies do not. A few are listed in the link below Breast Milk Is Best. Healthy nutrients Compared with formula, the nutrients in breastmilk are better absorbed and used by your baby. These include sugar (carbohydrate) and protein. Breastmilk has the nutrients that are best for your baby’s brain growth and nervous system development. Studies of breastfed babies have found that they do better on intelligence tests when they grow older. A breastfed baby's eyes also work better. This is mostly because of certain types of fat in breastmilk. ______________ As someone who "cares(s) immensely about protecting the most innocent among us," would you support a law requiring mothers of infants to breast feed their babies? If not - why not?
She loves to try to play gotcha games and yes, this my knee jerk reaction to your question You're getting better.
Having flushed an 8 week miscarriage down the toilet with my wife I can assure you I wasn’t guilty of mishandling a corpse, nor did I lose a child. There are 23 million miscarriages per year and almost none of them result in the death of a person. But who knows maybe Heaven has Billions and Billions of ameba looking undeveloped souls floating around as angels with tiny tiny wings? Same goes for an abortion.
That is not what the court ruled or the law says. Stop making stuff up. Seriously. Your hyperbole is not only wrong. It is a lie. Read what the Texas Supreme Court said…which is basically what I have been saying this entire time. That a doctor does not need the court and the law is designed to keep the courts out of it. They spell it out… Nothing to do with sepsis determines anything for the court. Nothing to do with a high chance of sepsis determines anything for the court. The doctor through good faith using reasonable standard of care can make that call and the law provides them plenty of latitude. https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf
In the western world it is rare, but it does happen. Spoiled formula; formula infected with bacteria; formula prepared incorrectly has been known to harm or kill infants. Cronobacter Infection and Infants Getting sick from Cronobacter does not happen often, but infections in infants can be deadly. Cronobacter infections in infants less than 12 months old are often linked to powdered infant formula. If you feed your baby powdered infant formula, you can take steps to protect your baby from sickness. Where Cronobacter Comes From Understanding Your Baby’s Risk Protect Your Baby From Cronobacter Powdered formula is not sterile and might have germs in it. Powdered infant formula can get contaminated in homes or in processing facilities that make it. In the section headed "Understanding your baby's risk" it informs the reader Cronobacter germs can cause sepsis and meningitis . Babies do better when fed milk produced by their own mothers. If mothers were required by law to breast feed their babies, those harmful incidents would not happen. The seemingly ridiculous question is asked of someone who posted he "cares(s) immensely about protecting the most innocent among us." It's a simple question - would you or would you not support a law requiring caregivers of infants to provide breast milk to the babies to protect them from possible harm while increasing their chances for optimum health and maximizing their intellectual potential? If not, why not?
Texas will likely pass a law soon making women who can't produce breast milk or bear children subject to execution. Same for those who give a baby tainted formula.
The law in Texas, as interpreted by the state Supreme Court creates a Catch-22 situation. The law doesn't specifically mention sepsis, but it's the most common, and dangerous reason why a doctor could perform an abortion in Texas to save a mother's life. And once in sepsis, the risk of severe, long term complications, or death, is high. But what the Texas Law prevents is actions to prevent a woman from going into sepsis. No matter how close a woman is from going into sepsis, until she's actually there, the law, again as interpreted, says her life isn't in enough danger to act. The 13 women, Cox, and Glick were all in a position where an abortion would prevent sepsis. All were denied in their home state. Some went out of state. Others stayed and either have long term health complications, or in the case of Glick, died. There's nothing in the law to prevent this from happening again and again.
It was not posed as an analogy. It's a question asked of you to determine if you think personal decisions like the one posed about breast feeding, should be decided by the mothers of infants, or by a legislative body of lawmakers who think such laws are needed to protect "the most innocent among us." By what authority would they have the right to make such a personal decision? Or is it more a case of you not wanting to answer?
No. You are in support of killing the most innocent for convenience and decided to ask a dumb question. Read the Texas Supreme Court Decision. The law as they said…takes lawyers out of it. It is for doctors and patients. It is broadly written to give doctors full discretion. There was no reason for the Kate Cox case to go to court. It was done not for Kate. But to push for the legal killing of the most innocent for any reason. Do you think mothers who do formula are harming their kids?
You can admit you don't care what happens after the babies after they are born, so long as they do get born. Pretty strange contradictory stance but you're entitled to your opinion.
No, I am not. You made up that accusation. Don't recall who said it, but I once read or heard the only "dumb question" is the one that wasn't asked. I think mothers who feed their babies formula do so because their employment situations or other factors make it necessary. But I am acquainted with young mothers who pump their breast milk into bottles then refrigerate that supply to be fed to their baby by the child's caretaker. I don't think a mother who feeds formula to her baby is necessarily 'harming' her baby, but human breast milk is best for human babies, and has benefits not found in formula. Knowing breast milk is more beneficial to human babies than formula, would you support legislation requiring human breast milk be fed to "protect the most innocent among us?
The situation with healthcare in Texas, as highlighted in your post, raises important concerns about accessibility and priorities in healthcare services. It seems there's a need for a more inclusive approach that ensures all individuals, regardless of gender, have equal access to necessary healthcare. Discussions like these are crucial for shedding light on disparities and advocating for changes that benefit everyone in the community.
