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

The cool thing about a certain mindset is that even when you have the facts wrong, you can still recite your talking points and ignore anything that suggests you may be incorrect. His response to your well-researched post, while disappointing, wasn't unexpected.

 

Correct.

They cling to the sympathetic cases to justify the typical cases, which happen to account for about 97% of cases with respect to abortion.

 

Assuming this is Qgator you are responding to, I'm certain that he got a rise out of your post. Dude just begs for neg attention. Very block-worthy.

 

Read the Law! Read the Decision!

Cite where the Law and Decision prohibit a mother from having an abortion if her life is in jeopardy OR her health may be harmed in the long term.

You can’t. So you fire away with an ad hominem. It is what you do when you do not have an argument. But sadly support the legal killing of the most innocent for convenience.

Read it and Cite it!

You can’t!!!

 

When you cannot argue and make a point. You sadly rely on pathetic ad hominem gifs.

Pathetic. But par for the course…

Read the Law! Read the Decision!

 

Not a single supporter of killing the most innocent for convenience has been capable of citing one thing from the Law or the Decision in Texas that shows a Mother cannot obtain an abortion if her Life is in jeopardy OR she would face long term harm to her health without the abortion.

The reason…

None of you can!!!!

 

Cite from the Law and from the Decision how a Mother cannot get an abortion if her life is threatened OR she could be harmed in the long term without the abortion.

You can’t!

 

When you can’t make a point…

Read the Law! Read the Decision!

You will understand how ignorant you are!

 

I guess we know you weren't breastfed.

 

When you cannot debate and have to resort to an ad hominem…

Cite where in the Law or Decision a Mother cannot get an abortion if her life or future health is in jeopardy.

You can’t!!!

 

In all seriousness though, several posters have tried to engage you in a debate but you keep responding with the same "read the law!" No one is debating the text of the law and we're asking about your view on the exception in the law not being permitted by Texas officials.

Lacuna even tried engaging you in a related question that wasn't directly linked to abortion, but instead of engaging with her, you attacked her, refused to answer her valid question, and tried to flip it around to make her answer her own question. She played along and answered anyway yet you still refused to engage in debate.

You claimed the original story in question was being sensationalized for political reasons yet AzCatFan and others have numerous other examples. Again you refuse to engage in a debate.

Let me try a football since we are on a sports message board after all. Have you ever complained to a buddy after a game about a missed penalty?

"I can't believe the refs missed that blatant holding call. That really cost us the game."

"Holding is in the rulebook so if there actually was holding then the refs would have called it."

"Yeah I know holding is in the rulebook but I watched it with my own eyes and the guard pulled our lineman down by his jersey."

"READ THE RULEBOOK!"

That's what it feels like trying to have a discussion with you on this topic.

 

Read the Decision! Seriously!

Texas 100% permits the exemption. Did you read the decision (or the rulebook if we want to do football)?

And lacuna attacked me trying to imply I don’t care about kids unless I would support a law outlawing formula because she believes breastfeeding is better “safer”. It was a weak red herring. She is a far better poster than that. And she knows it.

So here is the decision again by the Texas Supreme Court again. I have read it. Please show me where at any point they engage themselves (the court) to not permit the exception in the Law.

https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf

 

The decision creates the Catch-22 situation. In order for the doctors to be able to act, someone like Cox must be facing heightened risks to her life. Once facing heightened risks (usually sepsis), there is a good chance someone like Cox will die, and if she survives, face long-term health issues such as infertility. And there is nothing legally the doctors can do until Cox is in heightened risk, even if there is a 99% chance that one day, the woman will be facing heightened risks.

The 20+ women suing Texas were all in similar circumstances. There were indications that their lives would be facing heightened risks, the fetus couldn't be saved, and if nothing preventative was done, these women would die. But even though there were indications these women were all but guaranteed to be in heightened risk (sepsis), until the women were actually in danger, the doctors couldn't act.

This is why we see these 20+ women suing. There could have easily been no complications had the doctors been able to act earlier, before they went into sepsis. And acting early would also save lives. But the law does not permit this, regardless of what it says. If it did permit this, these 20+ women wouldn't be suing.

 

No it does not! You are making crap up. There is a l reason you cannot cite one thing from the decision that comes close to the BS hyperbole you continue to spew.

This one small part of the decision really nails the crux of the situation. It is the doctors job not the courts job…

“A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion. Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function. The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.”

 

If it's the doctor's job, please explain why over 20 women are suing the state of Texas? And there's a similar suit in Tennessee! Did they all just forget, including the doctors, to read the law and the decision?!?

Forget the Cox case for a moment, and let's focus on Zurowski. Her amniotic sac broke at 18 weeks, which unfortunately is a death sentence for the fetus. In these cases, the fetus doesn't have long to survive. And at only 18 weeks, the fetus wasn't developed enough to survive outside of the uterus. 20 weeks is the absolute minimum, and even then, that's low survival rate.

But because the fetus still had a heartbeat, doctors couldn't do anything unless Zurowski's life was in danger. Even though there was an extremely high probability her life was going to be in danger, doctors couldn't act until they could say it was, or until the fetus' heartbeat stopped. Of course, the most likely reason Zurowski's life would be in danger is the heartbeat would stop, and the body try and expel the fetus prematurely, which often leads to sepsis. Which would also put Zurowski's life in enough danger to act. Again, a Catch-22.

Which is exactly what happened. And as a result of going into sepsis, Zurowski is now infertile. Really think this would have played out any different had she, or her doctors only read the law and the decision? Please explain how?

 

“Mother’s life could be in danger” is an article of faith for pro-aborts.

 

Fine you win - I'm done. I can't figure out how to dumb this down any further.

 

Because they are pushing an agenda.

Cite one thing in the decision that supports your ridiculous hyperbolic claims. Just one thing.