Texas: Where healthcare just means more (if you’re a man)

Fetus is going to die regardless. There is no helping it. Abort now and avoid any and all complications with the mother. Wait, and the chances the mother has complications, including serious ones that could end up with her death increase exponentially. So I ask again, why wait? What's the point in waiting until the mother is on death's door to act if that can be avoided?

 

You're arguing with someone who can't grasp the medical distinctions between a zygote, fetus and baby.

 

Baby when you want it. Fetus when you don’t want it. Trisomy 18 not necessarily a death sentence. But if you can’t count on the baby dying, say it’s probably going to kill the mother.

 

90% of Trisomy 18 kids don't live more than 1 week. Given Cox's complications, the chances of the fetus' survival was even lower. So I ask again, for what purpose is making Cox wait until she's on death's door serve? I've gotten no answers, and a funny rating for asking.

 

Beyond the talking points …

Kate Cox and the Texas Abortion Law: We Need to Look Beyond the Talking Points

 

Because the mothers life is not in danger based on the doctors testimony. And any medical procedure brings danger?

 

So you can feel good about killing a child? Your argument so far appears to only be about killing the child.

 

Her life was in danger. Read the Texas Supreme Court ruling. It just wasn't in enough danger at the time to allow a legal abortion. Aborting before Cox's life was in enough danger would've prevented her from ever getting to that state. Making her v wait until she was in enough danger exponentially increases her risks, including death.

Think of it this way. The fetus was metaphorically holding a gun to Cox's reproductive system, and slowly squeezing the trigger day by day. There was also one bullet missing in the chamber. There was a chance the gun would never go off. Another chance the gun would fire the blank. But highest probability was the gun would fire and Cox would get shot.

In this scenario, would you consider Cox's life in danger? If you could remove the gun long before it ever went off, would you? Or, do you only treat if the gun fires, and Cox is filled with hot lead and starts to bleed? The Texas SCOTUS ruled the only legal treatment was wait until the gun went off and Cox was bleeding.

 

Not based on the law. I get you want to use the law to legally kill for convenience.

Did Kate Cox receive substandard care? Possibly. But it was not the Law that is the problem.

 

It seems that the only substandard care that she received was the denial of a therapeutic abortion when she experiencing serious adverse consequences from a pregnancy which had virtually no chance of a positive outcome and that substandard care wasn't attributable to the incompetence of her medical providers but rather politicians and a judicial system who usurped the responsibility for medical decisions regarding her care from her doctors.

 

Cox couldn't receive the care she needed. The courts, interpreting the law, told her she had only one option. Remain pregnant until she was on death's door or face imprisonment.

 

Cite in the law where a medical provider could not perform an abortion if they felt there was chance her life was in danger. The law was written broadly to give discretion. Which you have to do. It would be ridiculous for politicians to explicitly state when a procedure can or cannot happen. Every patient is different.

 

Yes she could based on the law. Did she? Maybe not.

 

What a perfect case study in how to get away with a total abortion ban while allowing your religious supporters to sleep with a clear conscience.

1. Write a law with vague exceptions
2. Threaten anyone who attempts to use the exception
3. If someone still tries, make them jump through countless hoops
4. Drag out the process until it's too late

Now it doesn't matter if it's a scenario where even Hellen Keller can see an exception applies, the yahoos will still defend it based on "an exception exists in the law so that must mean it didn't qualify since it was denied" while closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears, and yelling "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to avoid having to cope with items 2-4 above.

 

You know what's really sick and twisted about all of this? What do many of the women who need this exception likely have in common?

They aren't "killing their baby out of convenience."

They tried for years to conceive and start a family. They're unable to get pregnant so they go see fertility specialists, try IVF, etc until one day it finally happens. They're ecstatic. They wait the appropriate amount of time to start telling friends and family. Post sonogram pictures on Facebook. Read baby books. Start picking out baby names. Start getting the nursery ready.

Then the unthinkable - your baby has almost no chance to survive and with near certainty your life will be in danger soon. Absolutely devastating news. They talk it over with their doctor and make a heartbreaking decision to have an abortion. Can they just quietly go get an abortion so they can start the grieving process? No, they have to go to court and prove that this is the only option. Have the court drag out the process so they have to continue to live with the worst thing that's ever happened to them. Then the most traumatic moment of their life is made public for a bunch of idiots with no relevant knowledge or experience to debate their situation.

If you're ok with the above scenario then you're just plain cruel.

 

No sure could not, based on the highest court in Texas' ruling! What kind of idiot believes the text of the law is more important than the highest court in the state's interpretation and ruling based on said law?

Had Cox stayed in Texas, and didn't want to get arrested, had only two scenarios available to her. One, remain pregnant and pray for no complications until birth. Something highly unlikely to happen given the condition of the fetus and multiple hospital trips already. Or two, wait until her life was sufficiently in danger in order to get the abortion. This scenario was much more likely to occur.

And if and when the second scenario did occur, it would've put Cox at serious risk of complications, including death. Cox's doctor, knowing the fate of the fetus wouldn't change, argued before the court to allow the abortion to reduce the risk for Cox to near zero. The court denied this!

The question is, and always has been, why must Cox be on death's door before a doctor can legally act?

 

Already said it. The law is so vague that medical providers risk criminal prosecution and/or the loss of their licenses if a patient literally on death's door. The law really doesn't give discretion because the decision of whether or not to discipline or prosecute a medical provider is made after the fact prosecutors who decide whether a patient's life is at risk not by the doctors themselves. In simple terms a really doctor has no discretion if an elected DA can in effect override his/her medical decision.

 

Or die.
Did an Abortion Ban Cost a Young Texas Woman Her Life?

 

You cannot make explicit parameters for something like this. Both sides will abuse this because of the issue and how hot it is. But a doctor has full discretion to explain why an abortion is justifiable based on the law. That is the way it needs to be.

 

That sounds good in theory. In practice, those charged with interpreting and upholding the law overruled the doctor.