I read the decision! The Texas Supreme Court denied her request because her life wasn't in danger at the time of the petition. But her doctors testified it was highly likely going to be in the very near future. What would you do in this situation? Wait and pray you don't go into sepsis? Because if/when you do, your life is very much in danger. And if you survive, you will likely have long-term health problems, including infertility. What a great choice the Texas Supreme Court gave Cox. Do nothing and hope you don't go into sepsis was her only choice in Texas. And go into sepsis, you may end up like Zarkowski, or worse, Glick. As for me, I'm for a decision like Roe. It's not my place to force any women to say how they can live or not. And abortion for convenience may be evil, but it's a necessary evil. Especially when you consider the unintended consequences of anti-abortion laws. In the end, you not only end up saving nobody, you end up causing more death and less births. I've already posted that the number of abortions since Roe was overturned in this country is not down. In fact, it's up. Women with means simply go to a state where they can get an abortion. Even if the laws were like Texas nation-wide, women would simply go to Canada, Mexico, Caribbean countries, or the UK for an abortion if they could afford it. For those without the means to travel, they often attempt to self abort. And for women like Cox, Glick, et. al. with complicated pregnancies, they are forced to wait until their lives are in danger before they can do anything. The result? Higher infant and mother mortality rates because they can't get preventative health care. In the end, you are left with saving no children, and causing more mothers to either become infertile or dead. What I advocate are things that actually work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which are effective in reducing the demand for abortion. Comprehensive sex education, for one. Better coverage for women's reproductive health as well as better prenatal care programs. About 1 in 12 pregnancies have complications, with some of them avoidable with better care at the start. And abortion? Go back to Roe. Even if that means abortions for convenience. They are going to happen anyway. Better for them to be safe and legal, and work to make them more and more rare.
Read the Texas Law and the Texas Decision. The one this thread is about. You are a lawyer. And you support legally killing a child via abortion clearly. Yet you cannot cite one thing from the Texas Law or Texas Decision that prevents a Mother from getting an abortion if her long term health or life is in danger. Why. Because there is nothing stopping a mother from getting the Healthcare she needs for herself. Read the Law! Read the Decision! Cite for all of us how a Mother cannot get an abortion if her long term health or life is in jeopardy. You cannot!!!!
I support abortion being safe and legal for any reason. Because laws don't stop someone from filling a supply if demand is great enough. Just like Prohibition didn't stop anyone from drinking, our war on illicit drugs hasn't stopped people either, outlawing abortion doesn't stop people from getting one. All it does is cause women like Glick and Zurakowski, in horrible positions, to suffer preventable tragedies like infertility or worse, death.
This answers a lot. You know the Cox case has nothing to do with the Mother's health. It was brought to a lower court to push your position. The lower court decided to give in when they should have done exactly what the Supreme Court did. Go to the doctors office and take care of yourself. But you are not concerned about the life of the Child. You want the Mother to be able to legally kill that Child regardless of whether her life or long term health is in jeopardy. We clearly disagree on Life and how precious it is. I can respect your position as much as I disagree with it as you own it. Reality is you just do not want any exceptions. Period. Something we disagree on. But Texas has done nothing to keep a Mother from obtaining an abortion if her long term health or life is in jeopardy. You have to understand this. You cannot cite anything that says otherwise. It is fine if you want to argue to legally kill the Child for any reason. But do not blame this law for being harmful to the Health of Mothers. That is a lie! Or cite for us why it is not. But you cannot!
Cox was heading down the exact same path as Glick. What stopped Cox from experiencing the same fate? She went out of state and got preventative, reproductive healthcare before her life was in danger, and she ended up dead. Why she couldn't get this care in Texas? The law stopped her! If you are heading straight for a cliff, would you want someone to stop you before you fell? Or, would you want the only option being handed a parachute moments before you fall? The Texas law prevents women from falling off the cliff, and only offers the parachute. Thing is, if the parachute is the only option, it will lead to more women dying or having serious health complications like infertility. So please, tell me again, how would the lives of the 20+ women suing the state of Texas be any different had they read the law and the ruling? If you're convinced that's all they needed to do, then please, tell me why Glick would be alive and Zarkowski be fertile had they simply read the law. And how would have it prevented Cox from needing to out of state for care?
Here's a good report on all the complications that have resulted in the new laws post-Roe. If only all these women and doctors would have read the law and the ruling. All this would have been avoided!
I guess one wouldn't expect those who fix the results to make excuses. It's usually the victims who complain about the cheating.
Yes. If there's one thing that incapsulates liberal identity, it's "victimhood." At least that's how they like to think of themselves for some reason.
Cite One Law or One Decision that has caused a Mother to not receive the necessary care to protect her. You cannot. You can cite stories all day long of situations where the mother wanted an abortion. But you cannot cite one time a doctor could not protect their health. And if you can. I will support you in making sure that never happens again…
I've cited actual, real world cases again and again. You call these women liars, despite dozens of these stories, and these women having no reason to lie. The issue is the laws are vague. Many women who are on the precipice of needing life saving care, and would've received care as a standard before Roe was overturned, are being denied care until they fall off the proverbial cliff. Issue is, once they fall, the risks of complications or death rises. It's why women like Cox went out of state. They were on the precipice but wanted care before they fell and the risks skyrocketed. It's also why the law will end up with more women with complications or worse, dead. The law forces the women until they fall, and can't administer care before. This is the ugly truth. You yelling to read the law and ruling won't change it. Unless you can explain how reading the law and ruling would and could change the real world experiences of the women. If you can't, then please stop the stupid read the law crap. It's meaningless compared to the real experiences of these women, whom you call liars!
Using an analogy I do not recall any FSU supporters complaining following the "S Nobody claims victimhood like the defeated former president.
Let's play the victimhood olympics for a second. Which is more undemocratic? *Allegedly* gerrymandering districts in Texas or openly attempting to keep the Republican front-runner off of the ballot?
Trick question! One actually has been and currently is occurring and the second is a figment of your imagination.
You have yet to cite one situation (story or law) where the law prevented a Mother from getting an abortion if her long term health or life was in jeopardy. Not ONE! Now…we know you like many are okay with killing the child even if the mothers health is not in jeopardy. Which is why you continue to argue without being able to show a Law or Decision that does not protect the Mother. Because this is not about the Mother. It is about the ability to kill the Child for convenience to you. Now while I completely disagree with your position. I respect you own it.
Nobody is trying to keep Trump off the ballot? If that's what you're saying, your posts are getting more ridiculous by the day. Your attempts at criticism have been reduced to gaslighting.
I cited over 20 women suing Texas. More are suing Tennessee. Because they had to wait until until their lives were in danger before doctors could legally act. And because of that, many are left with long term consequences like infertility, which could've easily been prevented has the law allowed for intervention before the woman was in serious danger. Or in the case of Glick, her death could've been prevented. Now please explain how reading the law and decision would've saved Glick's life. Or prevent Zurokowski from now being infertile. If you can't, you can shut up and take the loss.
Look, I don't lecture you about dental bibs, don't lecture me on laws. Laws you can't find without help, laws you don't understand when you read them and court decisions, the legal ramifications of which shoot right over your head like an Atlas rocket, you can't grasp. The brighter posters on this board clearly understand what Texas has done to suppress abortions in these circumstances. Don't blame me if you don't...that's a genetic or educational issue and I had NOTHING to do with either.
The US has a Constitution, you may have heard of it. Failing to apply it is what would be undemocratic. Your orange god has made himself ineligible to run. He has exactly ONE person to blame for his disqualification from office. There is nothing undemocratic about the situation. Your boy is a criminal. He instigated and encouraged an insurrection against the United States. He is responsible for the consequences.
They sued not because of their Health… Cite how the Law or Decision prevents anyone from getting an abortion if their long term health or life is in jeopardy. It is getting repetitive for sure. But it is because you have yet to provide anything to show a Mother cannot get an abortion if her long term health or life is at risk. I get it. You are good with killing a child for convenience with no consequences. I am for protecting the child unless the mothers health is at risk (which you would also agree with).
