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

One question which I may have asked previously. Would you support giving qualified immunity to doctors who perform what they determine to be a medically necessary therapeutic abortion? The State could still prosecute but the burden would be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the procedure was completely elective and that there was no valid medical reason for the procedure. Your thoughts?

 

Ask their doctor. It was not the Texas Law.

 

Stop it! You are so much better than this. Rarely do you get involved without well thought out responses. This thread is an exception.

Go start a thread on formula if you want.

But spare me this deflection from reality. You like every other poster in favor of legally killing the Child regardless of reason cannot show in the Law or Decision…where a doctor cannot protect the Mothers life or long term health if it is jeopardy.

And yes. Your intent was to mock me with with “immensely care” which I do. Sadly many do not. Which is why they fight to legally be able to kill the Child for any reason.

 

The lawyer that cannot show kne thing in the Law or Decision to support his argument…

 

I do not remember you asking this. And a very good/fair/appreciated question. But yes doctors should be protected as you mention. This should be something the state only gets involved in if there is concern from the medical community that a doctor is not engaged in protecting both the child and mother based on the law. I personally don’t want the state getting involved at all outside of setting what is morally right and protecting Life. Both the Mother and Child. There is way too much nuance in medicine to think the Mother should not be able to make a decision we wish on nobody. And I am sure some doctors will lean heavily on the idea it is better for the mother to have the abortion (they are the ones trained in medicine and should have the protection to provide the care they see fit). And nothing in the Texas Law or Decision prohibits them from this. The Decision said as much.

 

You mean like the doctor listed on the Cox lawsuit that was denied? Or the two doctors, both Board Certified OBGYNs, listed on the suit with the 20+ women in Texas?

 

The doctor that testified the life and health of the mother was not in jeopardy? So apparently wanted to kill the child anyway?

 

The doctor who testified the chances of her life was going to be in danger, it was better to act before Cox ended up like Zurakowski or worse, Glick.

And are you still claiming doctors have full discretion? Because Cox's doctor felt if she didn't act, Cox absolutely would've been in danger like Zurakowski and Glick. The doctor wanted to prevent this. The law denied her. Some discretion!

 

Your problem is not with the Law or Decision but Cox’s doctor.

You cannot cite one thing prohibiting her from providing an abortion if the mothers long term health or life was in danger.

 

You can dress up your crappy comments and cheap shots any way you like but your no different than the ones you accuse. You've always been this type of poster; you just can't help yourself.

 

That would be you my friend, The guy with no knowledge of really anything useful

 

This theme, like so many others of the Q's, started off as amusing just due to the lack of understanding, repeated misstatements of facts and law (or medicine) along with the random, improper capitalization of words, progressed to annoying based on the sheer volume and repetitiveness of the posts, then moved to concerning due to an apparent inability to correctly process information, perhaps with some organic basis, and has finally morphed into full blown, dog humping your leg exasperation. You really don't want to send the little dog flying across the room for a myriad of reasons, but you're damn sure not going to let him finish, either.

It has been explained. You simply don't get it. I can't repair what's wrong with you.

Bless your heart.

 

Says the guy who relies on Western Journal for information, the moron's guide to life.

 

The lawyer continues to be unable to cite in the law or decision their point. All they have is ad hominems..

 

Who said one got their little feelers hurt?

 

And the doctors for the other 20+ women named in the lawsuit? And the two doctors on the lawsuit? All of them are wrong, and you and the law is correct? Wow, that's a lot of inept OBGYNs in Texas! Maybe you should go there and explain to each of these doctors just how wrong they were. They clearly need your expertise on how to their jobs within the laws of the state!

 

It's like I'm playing three-dimensional chess and you're playing hit yourself in the head as hard as you possibly can with a hammer, but I'll try again. This time, I've used Google translate (English to Q gibberish) to see if that helps.:

The teXas Law is VaGue, i BeLieve intentionaLly So. beTween teXas' Draconian penalties For Doctors perForming aBortions in Violation of thEir Law and the teXas Law that ALlows anyone to Sue people imProPerly PerForming or aiDing and Abetting aBortions, docTors are undersTandably Reluctant to perForm one abSent a judIcial deTermination it is aLLowed. TeXas' goVernor is crazy, teXas attorneY general is Corrupt and Crazy and teXas Whacko anti-aBortion "Fringies" are Crazy. They Would loVe to send EVERY doCtor wiLling to perForm aBortions to priSon (or Worse) and Strip them of Their liCenses.

If the Vagueness of the Law wasn'T an issue, wHy are doCtor's wiLLing to spend sO Much moNey on Lawyers to get JuDicial deTerminations pRior to aCting and Why dId the loWer court Judge ruLe Cox fell unDer an ExCeption?

 

All of a sudden I’m a big Michigan fan …

Harbaugh Champions Right To Life After Football Championship