A Texas judge grants a pregnant woman permission to get an abortion despite the state’s ban

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
But most women who seek out abortions experience incredible relief once it's been done.

For the short term I agree, later in life regret sets in. I'm not going to debate what we both can look up pretty easily.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm not going to debate what we both can look up pretty easily.

You can't look it up.

Anonymous testimonial posts on Quora and pro-life websites don't count as statistics.

originally posted by: Annee
Women's autonomy should not be legislated on and voted on by a public -- in the first place.

I don't care who voted who into office,

Right to abortion is not their business.

Great, go to Texas and protest.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee
Women's autonomy should not be legislated on and voted on by a public -- in the first place.

I don't care who voted who into office,

Right to abortion is not their business.

Great, go to Texas and protest.

I have no intention of ever stepping foot in Texas.

Women’s autonomy should be a Federal right.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
But most women who seek out abortions experience incredible relief once it's been done.

For the short term I agree, later in life regret sets in. I'm not going to debate what we both can look up pretty easily.

No it doesn’t. I made the right decision. I’d make the same again.

Look up? On a Right leaning, Christian based site — I’m sure.

Five Years After Abortion, Nearly All Women Say It Was the Right Decision, Study Finds: www.ucsf.edu...

originally posted by: Annee

I have no intention of ever stepping foot in Texas.

Women’s autonomy should be a Federal right.

Talk to your liberal congress that had at least 3 chances to make it so, why didn't they?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

I have no intention of ever stepping foot in Texas.

Women’s autonomy should be a Federal right.

Talk to your liberal congress that had at least 3 chances to make it so, why didn't they?

States Rights?

I do not support States Rights when it involves ALL women.

Right of women's autonomy should be Federal.

originally posted by: Annee

Right of women's autonomy should be Federal.

That was my question... Your liberal congress had 3 chances to make it a federal law and they didn't why? If they do not make it Federal then it goes down to each state to decide. Why didn't the liberals make it a federal law when they could?

I'll tell you why...its because they don't have much else to get people to support them. All they have anymore is White people will put them back in chains, the evil rich will take all their money, and they will make abortions illegal. They can't give up one of their best talking points for women's right to choose.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Your liberal congress had 3 chances to make it a federal law and they didn't why

That wouldn't have changed anything. SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act. There would have been nothing stopping SCOTUS from ruling any ACT Congress put in place, regarding reproductive rights, unconstitutional, citing States' Rights.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero

Your liberal congress had 3 chances to make it a federal law and they didn't why

That wouldn't have changed anything. SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act. There would have been nothing stopping SCOTUS from ruling any ACT Congress put in place, regarding reproductive rights, unconstitutional, citing States' Rights.

We've been down this Constitutional states' rights before.

Anything that applies to ALL equally -- should not be decided by states and public vote. It should be Federal.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That wouldn't have changed anything. SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act. There would have been nothing stopping SCOTUS from ruling any ACT Congress put in place, regarding reproductive rights, unconstitutional, citing States' Rights.

Nope...

Congress could have supported Roe vs Wade with a law and so when that horrable ruling went away you would still have the law. The reason it is at the state level is because Congress didn't act, and they still can.

We are still back to why didn't the liberal congresses act.

originally posted by: Annee
We've been down this Constitutional states' rights before.

Anything that applies to ALL equally -- should not be decided by states and public vote. It should be Federal.

Well, I guess you are just F'ed if on one side you all say it should be Federal, and when I asked why didn't the liberal Congresses address this with a federal law then you all say they can't due to State rights.

So where are we here with you all just constantly whimpering over it?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee
We've been down this Constitutional states' rights before.

Anything that applies to ALL equally -- should not be decided by states and public vote. It should be Federal.

Well, I guess you are just F'ed if on one side you all say it should be Federal, and when I asked why didn't the liberal Congresses address this with a federal law then you all say they can't due to State rights.

So where are we here with you all just constantly whimpering over it?

It’s the same as what happened with Marriage Equality.

When majority of public supported it SOCA overruled the states.

But when it comes to women’s rights — the ERA still hasn’t been ratified.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Congress could have supported Roe vs Wade with a law and so when that horrable ruling went away you would still have the law. The reason it is at the state level is because Congress didn't act, and they still can.

That is simply not true. And, SCOTUS has overruled congressional laws and acts before. An act of Congress can't stop that.

Can Congress re-authorize the parts of the Voting Rights Act that SCOTUS struck down? Nope.

Congress recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act, in case SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is not a constitutional right. In that case, existing same sex marriages will remain intact, grand-fathered in so to speak, but any new same sex marriages would not enjoy national protection.

Since SCOTUS, in their infinite wisdom, ruled that there is no constitutional right to abortion, the best Congress can do is enact a national ban. Sure, it could make that ban match Roe restrictions. But states will sue, because SCOTUS ruled abortion was a states' rights issue, and we'll be right back here, again.

Congress can't make a law saying that abortion a constitutional right, without a constitutional amendment, only SCOTUS can declare that. I think eventually they will again rule that abortion is a constitutional right, but not until hundreds, if not thousands of women die. due to their callous and ignorant folly.

That Attorney General, Ken Paxton, has to go, he's a menace to society.

Cox’s attorneys called Paxton’s strategy a “fearmongering” tactic and an effort to “bulldoze the legal system” to ensure Cox continued to suffer.

Her case underscores the aggressive nature of the state’s top attorney when it comes to not only enforcing a ban on abortion even in dire circumstances, but creating a climate of fear around abortion that targets providers.

“Ken Paxton was trying to say who the judge’s emergency order protected or didn’t protect – but he doesn’t actually have the authority to do that,” said Joanna Grossman, professor at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in Dallas. “His behavior here is a continuation of what he’s been doing for the past three years and beyond – and that is enforcement through fear. His MO is to make threats, be a bully, and scare people and providers out of abortion access. The actual legal rules aren’t as important to him.”

www.theguardian.com...

I hope Kate Cox's suffering has ended and that she has a complete recovery.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Sookiechacha
The fetus has Trisomy 18, but I get why the technicality is so important.

Her wishes mean nothing and they are going to reinforce her place by making her play incubator for political posturing reasons. Force her to full term and then spend the first two weeks, if not stillborn, trying to keep the child comfortable until the inevitable.

That's cruel to everyone involved. The fetus/baby and the mother. It's not compassion making these rulings.

Well, that depends. I actualy did a bit of research on this, since my wife and I are having another baby (via surrogacy), and there is some concern about it possibly having one of the Trisomy conditions.

Apparently, these tests are absolutely NOT 100% reliable,, and in fact, can be wrong anywhere from 20% of the time to a whopping 50%.

I also spoke with a work colleague who told me 2 things - first, her own personal experience, where she was told her baby had Trisomy 23 (Downs syndrome), and she was pushed to have an abortion by her doctor. She refused, and her baby was healthy and happy and is not 12 years old with ZERO signs of Downs syndrome.

She then told me about her long time childhood friend who had the same situation, but this time it was Trisomy 18, and the same thing occurred - her baby is now 8 years old and no problems whatsoever.

So, this apparently isn't as cut and dried as some would have us believe.

originally posted by: Annee

But when it comes to women’s rights — the ERA still hasn’t been ratified.

You all keep ignoring the elephant in the room with all this. You just say women's rights while not recognizing the rights of the child. It's like if the mom says its a baby then its a baby, if the mom says it is a bag of cells then it is a bag of cells. Kill a pregnant woman and it is a double homicide, but if the mom wants to kill the baby then it's OK.

There are many back and forths within the law too as to the legal rights of the unborn. We also cannot define when a human becomes a human either so there is the other side of the issue and why this isn't just a simple case of woman's rights.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Sookiechacha
The fetus has Trisomy 18, but I get why the technicality is so important.

Her wishes mean nothing and they are going to reinforce her place by making her play incubator for political posturing reasons. Force her to full term and then spend the first two weeks, if not stillborn, trying to keep the child comfortable until the inevitable.

That's cruel to everyone involved. The fetus/baby and the mother. It's not compassion making these rulings.

Well, that depends. I actualy did a bit of research on this, since my wife and I are having another baby (via surrogacy), and there is some concern about it possibly having one of the Trisomy conditions.

Apparently, these tests are absolutely NOT 100% reliable,, and in fact, can be wrong anywhere from 20% of the time to a whopping 50%.

I also spoke with a work colleague who told me 2 things - first, her own personal experience, where she was told her baby had Trisomy 23 (Downs syndrome), and she was pushed to have an abortion by her doctor. She refused, and her baby was healthy and happy and is not 12 years old with ZERO signs of Downs syndrome.

She then told me about her long time childhood friend who had the same situation, but this time it was Trisomy 18, and the same thing occurred - her baby is now 8 years old and no problems whatsoever.

So, this apparently isn't as cut and dried as some would have us believe.

First of all, I wish you both the best outcome for your baby.

But this woman, Kate Cox, visited the emergency room 4X and had two doctors. So, I think second and perhaps third expert medical tests and opinions are a must in these cases.

In Kate Cox's case there appears to have been absolutely no doubt as to the outcome of her situation.

Her fetus has Trisomy 18, which means there is a greater risk of miscarriage and stillbirth, and, according to a study published by the National Library of Medicine, “The complexity and the severity of the clinical presentation at birth and the high neonatal and infant mortality make the perinatal and neonatal management of babies with trisomy 18 particularly challenging, controversial, and unique among multiple congenital anomaly syndromes.”

According to the Cleveland Clinic, in at least 95% of cases, fetuses don’t survive full term.

The NLM study says the major cause of death is central apnea, cardiac failure, and respiratory problems and obstructions.

ca.finance.yahoo.com... r_sig=AQAAADzzOREI99leaEFA7zS1Jr1hmU68SKlLmqugnkIetAXoQwcehuoZaGQueIkAPoJZv0FaByWa9vVPPK43VWAxBKV5XHjh1wxYB4cF29A8kBsBIRvKOVLKzr9PtShSWcCzJBnu3kA7pofU h-XX_t7V1DRHibsSbXX7X9FITIHPU-Nm

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Congress can't make a law saying that abortion a constitutional right, without a constitutional amendment, only SCOTUS can declare that. I think eventually they will again rule that abortion is a constitutional right, but not until hundreds, if not thousands of women die. due to their callous and ignorant folly.

There are ways around it such as recently below. Congress has 3 or 4 directions they can go and could have used back while Roe vs Wade was in place.

As discussed in this CRS Legal Sidebar, abortion-related legislation has been introduced in the past several Congresses. For example, the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (H.R. 3755/S. 1975), which was passed by the House last year, would create a statutory right permitting health care providers to provide abortion services and preempt state laws restricting that right, such as state prohibitions on abortions prior to fetal viability. The congressional findings in that bill assert authority from both the Commerce Clause (stating that “[a]bortion restrictions substantially affect interstate commerce” and “affect the cost and availability of abortion services”), as well as section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A more recent bill in the Senate, the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 (S. 4132), omits the findings section.

a reply to: Xtrozero

There is already federal law that allow abortion for the health of the woman, not just the life of the woman, that pre-empts state laws.

Biden administration says federal law preempts state abortion bans when emergency care is needed

“Under the law, no matter where you live, women have the right to emergency care – including abortion care,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a news release Monday. “Today, in no uncertain terms, we are reinforcing that we expect providers to continue offering these services, and that federal law preempts state abortion bans when needed for emergency care.”

Texas doesn't care.

When it comes to pregnancy, “we’re talking about things like ectopic pregnancy, and incomplete miscarriages where there’s a risk of hemorrhage, and preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome,” says Lindsay Wiley, a law professor and director of the Health Law and Policy Program at UCLA Law. “We’re not talking about a run of the mill elective abortion situation.”

Texas argues that federal law does not allow doctors to provide abortions now banned under its state laws, and that the Biden Administration wants to “transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic.”

time.com...