Texas towns make it illegal to use roads to travel out of state for an abortion.

Can't Florida residents leave the state for an abortion?

Can't they get an abortion if the mother's life is threatened?

Can't they get an abortion within 6 weeks?

 

Fly in the ointment: the woman can’t seem to get her doctor to agree that her baby’s going to kill her.

 

Genuinely curious: How is this pregnancy *allegedly* threatening her then?

 

I usually ignore you for obvious reasons, but I'll field this one. The doctor specifically said in a court filing that it was her "good faith belief and medical recommendation that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed." As per usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

If they're healthy enough to leave the South, for now they can. Of course, that assumes they can afford it.

As Kayla Cox just proved, it's an iffy proposition at best.

On average, women find out they're pregnant around 5.5 weeks. So no, 6 weeks isn't a realistic time, particularly when you consider what average means. This also doesn't help women who have pregnancy complications or health issues after 6 weeks.

 

The ignore function seems to have some bugs in it

The statute requires that judgment be a 'reasonable medical' judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her 'good faith belief' about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard," the Texas opinion reads.

 

Texas is in court being sued by a corrections officer who lost her baby because they wouldn't allow her to go on break at work to deal with pregnancy complications. In court, Texas is saying the fetus has no rights.

In this Cox case, Texas is in court saying she would be violating the fetus' rights by having a medically necessary abortion.

It's never been about the fetuses.

 

Yeah, we agree that there are benefits to being an attractive girl/younger woman and that those benefits diminish with age.

Even for girls and younger women, though, those advantages have to be weighed against the disadvantages. With that in mind, I think I disagree with your point about the victimhood hierarchy or their being the most privileged. Starting at puberty (unfortunately sooner in many cases), girls and women have to put up with older guys and men leering at them and flirting with them. They have to be on guard every time they go out alone or are left alone with a man, and they are physically less able on average to defend themselves if it comes to that. They put up with massive harassment online (in gaming, for example). Many deal with not being taken seriously in the workplace. Women are more likely than men to be victims of actual sexual abuse. They also have to deal with menstruation and the ability to get pregnant, as a couple other examples.

Weighing all those negatives against being able to get into a party, for example, (because dudes will be nice to them as part of trying to get in their pants), I still think men have it easier overall. This is true IMO even if I were guaranteed to be at least moderately attractive - much less average or below-average looking.

 

Thank you.

Texas has its own laws that make it even more difficult than your typical Republican strongholds including Florida. But I'm interested in reading more about her case.

I generally agree which is why I didn't find the 6-week cutoff as being sensible. To me, both an outright ban (with medical exceptions) and 15 weeks make more sense than 6 weeks. An outright ban is logically consistent while a 15 week ban is a realistic middle ground. 6 weeks just sounds like a quasi-abortion ban without technically being one.

 

It comes down to how you value the looks factor for women. It certainly comes with its baggage, but from the point of view of a man, I think the benefits far outweigh the baggage for women particularly in their 20s.

Women are also more likely to be complimented, be granted professional opportunities (not just sex work, think sales and jobs dealing in relationships with people) due to looks, have friend(s) volunteer to accompany them home, and just have friends who think highly of them simply because they're attractive. It's all a matter of perspective. For women who can't leverage any of this to their advantage or refuse to, I would say it's a worse deal but not necessarily a bad deal... just like I don't think it's a bad deal being a man in his 20s, just not as nice as "attractive woman."

Also, to be fair to dudes managing who comes into parties, a lot of times they're not personally trying to get in womens' pants, they're trying to have an appropriate ratio to make for a good party... and not a single person complains about having too many pretty girls at a college party.

 

From another Trisomy 18 mom …

https://www.texasallianceforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/Deirdre-Cooper-11_27_2023Testimony.pdf

 

Maybe it's a bit of the grass being greener on the other side, but I think about it like this. If you were told that you will be re-born tomorrow, would be above average looking, would only live until age 30 or 35, and would have to choose whether to be re-born as a boy or girl, which do you think you'd choose? I'm confident I'd choose boy for the reasons I mentioned. I would not be surprised though if there are woman, perhaps mothers in particular, who would come back again as a girl.

 

The James Brown estate suing to having the title of his song changed on the account of its being a lie.

 

He's a sick, disgusting person. But MAGA likes sick, disgusting people.

 

Google “sick + disgusting” and pulled up abortion.

 

While I respect the decision of Deirdre Cooper to carry her baby to term that doesn't mean the she has the right to impose the same decision on every woman carrying a child with Trisomy 18. Secondly, carrying a fetus with Trisomy 18 affects every woman differently. Although it was apparent from her testimony that her baby had little chance of survival following birth it didn't appear from her testimony that there was a high likelihood that he would die in utero nor did it appear that the pregnancy was having a strong negative impact on her own health unlike that of Kate Cox. Ms. Cox had to visit hospital emergency rooms multiple times prior to the termination her pregnancy in the 21st week. Ms. Cooper apparently didn't visit the hospital once until she was admitted when she gave birth around the 36th week.

 

I'm no medical expert, but there are two types of Trisomy 18. About 90% to 95%, every cell in the body has an extra chromosome. About 5% to 10%, it's only in a small set of cells. Nobody knows what causes the condition or the difference.

Every woman carrying a child with this condition will react differently too. Some can tolerate it. Others, who are older, will likely have more complications. Older women who already had children, especially by C-section, are at the highest risk from what I can remember. It's been a while, but we had our 2nd child when my wife was older, and Trisomy 18 was a risk, and there was an early, possible indicator, so we talked about it with the OBGYN. Turned out to be nothing.

The decision to carry or abort in these cases should be between the doctor(s), the woman, and anyone she wants to include in the decision. Not you. Not me. Not any government agent or body that has zero medical education or expertise.

 

You’re right about that. Fetuses don’t stand much of a chance in abortion-happy America.

 

It is not unusual for woman carrying babies without genetic defects to require hospital care for various reasons. Nobody ever said pregnancy was without its challenges.

 

And who should decide when it is best for the woman to decide to carry to term or terminate when there are major complications? The woman, anyone she wants to help her decide, and her doctor(s)? Or you, and the state?