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

What are you trying to dumb down?

I have provided you everything to show you were wrong in the assertion that “Texas” is not allowing exceptions when the mothers life is in jeopardy or she may have long term harm to her health.

But you are right. You can’t dumb it down anymore. It is your choice to accept reality or deny it. You can’t show anything “Texas” has done to prevent an exception if the Mothers life or long term health is in jeopardy.

 

Glick. Dead because of the law. Zurowski. Infertile because of the law. Cox. Had to go out of state to get treatment because of the law. No legal decisions, but three cases of actual repercussions that according to you, had they and their respective doctors just read the law and the decision, would have been avoided? Again, I ask, how.

 

I'm already breaking my own statement but...

Do you understand that the text of a law and the application of a law are two different things?

Speeding is a good example. Posted speed limits are the law but just because you get pulled over doesn't mean you'll get a ticket. Why? Because there are humans with discretion involved that result in an uneven application of laws.

 

We could split the baby and see which half harms the mother. Oh right, you were already in a hurry to kill the baby.

 

Pure hyperbolic BS!

Cite one thing in Texas Law and the Decisions on it that has prevented a single mother from receiving an abortion if her life or long term health are at risk.

You can’t! You just follow the stories of the agenda. I am waiting for you to cite one thing. Which I know you can’t. And you also know you can’t.

 

I "attacked" you by "trying to imply" you don't care about kids unless you would support a law outlawing formula because I believe human breast milk is '"safer"? Seriously? Where did you find the twisted whole cloth to concoct that deflection?

Here's what I posted and asked of you in post #304 -

"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.

[If, as you say] you are 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?"

____________
From that point to avoid answering the question, "would you support a law requiring mothers to breast feed their babies?" you subsequently twisted the question into something more palatable to you.

It was a direct question your mind apparently conjectured as me implying you don't care about kids unless you support such a law. That's untrue and only you can say why you thought it necessary to evade the question as it was asked . Why not simply answer the question with honesty as it was asked rather than with dishonest avoidance as you did?

 

What these women actually experienced...their actual life stories, is pure hyperbolic BS? And if they had only read the law and the case, they would have had a difference experience how again?

Actual, real life experiences are much more important than how the law reads. What these women experienced actually happened, and there dozens of similar stories out there. It's not hyperbolic BS. It's real life! And you refuse to acknowledge it that the law, and you, are causing these women harm. Shame on you.

 

This was weak BS attack. You want to let it slide. I am not going to answer such a stupid red herring. You don’t typically play these weak games.

But you were 100% taking a shot at me with those words. And it was done with intent. There is no reason to answer such a dumb question that was posed as a red herring with the intent to take a shot at me (though weak).

 

Absolutely. And do you understand the law was written to give doctors full
discretion to do their job and keep the courts out of medical issues?

This is about the abortion agenda. Not the mothers healthcare.

 

@lacuna

Your kid(s) or at least one is a doctor I believe?

Cite one thing in the Texas Law or the Texas Supreme Court decision that would prevent them from providing an abortion if the mothers life or long term health were in jeopardy! You can’t. Because there is nothing in the Texas Law or Decision that hinders a doctor from protecting the Health of the Mother!

You know it!

 

If nothing else I hope you understand that no one who is replying to you wants to kill babies, fetuses, embryos, etc. No one.

 

We will disagree on that. There is no reason to be debating in this thread against Texas. Unless you want to make it easier to kill babies for convenience.

This thread from the title is all about that as there is nothing in the Texas Law or Decision that affects a mothers ability to receive quality healthcare including an abortion if her life or long term health are in jeopardy.

So if nothing else. I hope you understand that when you (not you but @swampbabe) make a false OP title about women’s healthcare when we all know it is about abortion. That defending the OP is taking a pro abortion stance for convenience. This thread was never about the healthcare of the Mother. It is about killing the child inside the mother.

 

I'll refrain from saying anything nasty that will get me banned but you're way off base claiming that I, or anyone else on here, actually wants to kill babies.

 

Still waiting on an explanation how reading the law and the Texas decision would have saved the 20+ women from the fate they suffered, which including needing to going out of state for care, receiving care, but only after it was too late so suffer complications like infertility, or dying.

And I find it incomprehensible to say all these women are lying and engaging in hyperbolic BS. Especially since most, if not all these women wanted to have children, or another child. Both Cox and Zurawski are on record saying they wanted to child and were devastated to find out they weren't going to be able to have a healthy child. Neither of these women wanted to "kill their baby for convenience."

 

I'll tell you this, most laws are so vague, doctors error on the side of caution and tell women to go elsewhere. Who is pushing this agenda? The women?

 

If something is going to save your life, is it considered health care?

 

My son is a trauma surgeon and Chief of Surgery in the hospital where he mostly practices. He has never performed an abortion, though he was required to observe a few when he was in medical school or residency.

None of this makes enough sense to me to even know where to begin a reply.

How and with what 'intent' was I "taking a shot" at you?
The question was asked as you had posted you "cared immensely about protecting the most innocent among us." There was no intent other than to establish if your support for authoritarian controls over women's health extended to mandating babies should by law not be fed formula, only human breast milk which is proven to be more beneficial in a child's intellectual and physical development.

Your refusal to answer the question as it was asked is a curious thing.

 

Nonsense. The court in the decision specifically and rightly said this law is for doctors to do their job as they do every single day.

 

Nothing about the Texas Law is about Women’s Healthcare and Authoritarianism. It is a red herring that has nothing to do with the topic which is why there is no need to answer it. But I am sure you know the answer. I 100% am immensely concerned with protecting the most innocent. And you and I both know that formula is not dangerous to children. If you want to start a thread on formula…go for it.

But you keep trying to change the subject and are doing so by attempting to imply formula is somehow in the conversation with abortion.

Please show one thing in the Texas Law that prohibits a Mother from receiving an abortion if necessary to protect her health. You can’t! And it appears like others you are falling for the false OP. Can you just admit this is not about the Mothers Healthcare and actually about killing the Child? Or can you show me where in the Texas Law and Decision there is one thing prohibiting a Mother from receiving Healthcare and the procedure of abortion if her health is in jeopardy?

Which is it? I know the answer. And so do you.

 

If you were a doctor, and a law was passed that could allowed for you to lose your license if you perform a specific procedure. Now understand they have made it illegal to do so, but weren't specific about when you could do it, would you go with your gut and base your decisions to do the procedure, the same way you did before? Or would you just stop performing that procedure all together?