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

a reply to: Xtrozero

She might feel it's as soon as puberty blockers would be effective.

(Just a guess - Not my opinion)

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

Procreation is a biological mechanism. It does not require brains or morals or anything else invented by humans.

Sanctity of the child? After they are born.

But Hey! Let's put LIVING KIDS in cages. I love "selective" morality.

Life itself is a biological mechanism...lol geez

As I said, it is just not logical to go from just before birth being and "it" to seconds later the "it" is now a God Damn human being...lol

Just admit you are willing to kill one life to not put a burden on the mother and we can call it good. You all make it so complicated.

I had an abortion.

Keep telling how I think and feel.

originally posted by: Annee

I had an abortion.

Keep telling how I think and feel.

You already told us how you feel about it. let me think... "I would do it again," I think is what you said. You and Snookie have said there is no negative repercussion psychologically. With that, I think I can say your abortion had zero effect on you, and even today you feel it was the right thing to do.

But that isn't what we are talking about, as I didn't ask your feelings on this. I said to solve this issue we will need to draw a line of when abortions are legal and when they are illegal. We also need to understand it is a human life rather quickly in the process.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

I had an abortion.

Keep telling how I think and feel.

You already told us how you feel about it. let me think... "I would do it again," I think is what you said. You and Snookie have said there is no negative repercussion psychologically. With that, I think I can say your abortion had zero effect on you, and even today you feel it was the right thing to do.

But that isn't what we are talking about, as I didn't ask your feelings on this. I said to solve this issue we will need to draw a line of when abortions are legal and when they are illegal. We also need to understand it is a human life rather quickly in the process.

That line has already been drawn in each state so I'm not sure what your driving at here. With this case, in Texas, the law was clearly stated that in an emergency health crisis an abortion is legal but that idiot AG decided he knew better than her two doctors and her continued suffering was an okay thing for her to keep experiencing.

I guess my question is when an abortion is legal due to extreme circumstances why is it okay for one old white man in a position of legal power decide that it is now illegal?

originally posted by: quintessentone

That line has already been drawn in each state so I'm not sure what your driving at here. With this case, in Texas, the law was clearly stated that in an emergency health crisis an abortion is legal but that idiot AG decided he knew better than her two doctors and her continued suffering was an okay thing for her to keep experiencing.

I guess my question is when an abortion is legal due to extreme circumstances why is it okay for one old white man in a position of legal power to decide that it is now illegal?

That doesn't solve the issue as we see in Texas. We need a federal-level line drawn to pull the two extremes into moderate territory. In this case, the question is whether her case triggers the emergency health crisis part of the law.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

That line has already been drawn in each state so I'm not sure what your driving at here. With this case, in Texas, the law was clearly stated that in an emergency health crisis an abortion is legal but that idiot AG decided he knew better than her two doctors and her continued suffering was an okay thing for her to keep experiencing.

I guess my question is when an abortion is legal due to extreme circumstances why is it okay for one old white man in a position of legal power to decide that it is now illegal?

That doesn't solve the issue as we see in Texas. We need a federal-level line drawn to pull the two extremes into moderate territory. In this case, the question is whether her case triggers the emergency health crisis part of the law.

Two medical experts claimed it did trigger that part of the law but one agenda-driven old white guy with too much power on his hands and no medical training decided otherwise.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: tanstaafl
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, ...”

Again, there is a greater risk. That does not mean the baby will actually be born with Edwards syndrome, there is simply a greater risk.

The question the court is likely looking at is, is the mothers life in immediate peril, or not?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: tanstaafl
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, ...”

Again, there is a greater risk. That does not mean the baby will actually be born with Edwards syndrome, there is simply a greater risk.

The question the court is likely looking at is, is the mothers life in immediate peril, or not?

There’s been an incredible amount of misinformation/lack of information in this thread. Whether due to high emotions or lack of due diligence is up for debate.
What is not up for debate is the facts in this matter.
Here they are….

“A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion,” the court ruling says. “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.”
The court also found that Cox’s doctor, Damla Karsan, “asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.”
thehill.com...
All Kate Cox doctor, Dr. Kamla Karsan(a woman) had to do was attest to her patient needing an abortion to save her life yet she would not.
If Dr. Karsan, in her expert medical opinion, thought her patient needed an abortion due to Kate’s risk of death, she could have given her one without even asking anybody.
The court order is easy to read and it would clear up many fallacies rolling around in this thread.
txcourts.gov...
Knowing these facts, my opinion is that this was some kind of publicity stunt. Whether that is Kate’s doctor and/or Kate herself who knows.
I also find it strange that Kate lives in Dallas yet her doctor is in Houston.
Is it common for a pregnant woman to have a doctor 4 hours away?

Here’s some more interesting facts from court….

Plaintiffs’ claim that “Kate Cox needs an abortion, and she needs it now” through relief
from this Court is demonstrably false. Pls.’ Pet. ¶ 1. The Cox’s purport to be Dallas residents
seeking to obtain an abortion in Houston. Id. at ¶ 6. Yet, at this very moment, they reside in
Florida. See id. at Pls.’ Ver. Pgs. Florida’s medical exception to its abortion prohibition expressly
includes pregnancies where a baby has a fatal fetal abnormality like trisomy 18. See Fla. Stat. §
390.0111(c). So, if Ms. Cox “needs an abortion and she needs it now,” she can do just that—in
Florida, the state where she is currently located. No relief is necessary from this Court or any other.
reproductiverights.org...

originally posted by: quintessentone

Two medical experts claimed it did trigger that part of the law but one agenda-driven old white guy with too much power on his hands and no medical training decided otherwise.

Maybe they had an agenda... That is why I said we need a hard line drawn at the fed level.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

Two medical experts claimed it did trigger that part of the law but one agenda-driven old white guy with too much power on his hands and no medical training decided otherwise.

Maybe they had an agenda... That is why I said we need a hard line drawn at the fed level.

That's for the activists to deal with, I'm just glad the woman's suffering has ended and she can resume a normal life. That Ken Paxton needs to be removed from his seat of power, he's a menace.

a reply to: quintessentone

That Ken Paxton needs to be removed from his seat of power, he's a menace.

You'll get no argument from me on that. However, state legislatures decided not to impeach him and the Texas Supreme Court backed his argument in this case.

The whole pro-life / anti-choice / war on women movement is f#ed up! That's why Texas lawmakers could just say "FU" to Roe v Wade, and refuse to honor it. Now, Texas leads the way in refusing to honor the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and federal law.

originally posted by: frogs453

Separation of Church and State? Not in Texas apparently.

I don't think you understand what that means. Except for one, our forefathers were very religious, so their goal was not a government void of religion, but religion void of government. We need to remember they came from England who had a state church and so to protect all religions they said "Separation of Church and State". So they were not talking about decisions that might have religious morals as a factor.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

But that isn't what we are talking about, as I didn't ask your feelings on this. I said to solve this issue we will need to draw a line of when abortions are legal and when they are illegal. We also need to understand it is a human life rather quickly in the process.

You say?

Frankly, I am not interested in your opinion on this. It is not an issue you personally are facing.

I did not know how I'd feel or what decision I'd make until I was faced with it.

Point is -- it is no one else's business.

And NO -- I do not need to draw a line.

A potential human is NOT a human.

I guarantee you there are a lot of women (and men) who when faced with this decision will have different feelings then they had before.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So they were not talking about decisions that might have religious morals as a factor.

Who told you that? You say it as if you think it's a fact.
LOL

originally posted by: Vermilion

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, ...”
Again, there is a greater risk. That does not mean the baby will actually be born with Edwards syndrome, there is simply a greater risk.

The question the court is likely looking at is, is the mothers life in immediate peril, or not?

There’s been an incredible amount of misinformation/lack of information in this thread. Whether due to high emotions or lack of due diligence is up for debate.
What is not up for debate is the facts in this matter.
Here they are….

“A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion,” the court ruling says. “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.”
The court also found that Cox’s doctor, Damla Karsan, “asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.”
thehill.com...
All Kate Cox doctor, Dr. Kamla Karsan(a woman) had to do was attest to her patient needing an abortion to save her life yet she would not.
If Dr. Karsan, in her expert medical opinion, thought her patient needed an abortion due to Kate’s risk of death, she could have given her one without even asking anybody.
The court order is easy to read and it would clear up many fallacies rolling around in this thread.
txcourts.gov...
Knowing these facts, my opinion is that this was some kind of publicity stunt. Whether that is Kate’s doctor and/or Kate herself who knows.
I also find it strange that Kate lives in Dallas yet her doctor is in Houston.
Is it common for a pregnant woman to have a doctor 4 hours away?

Here’s some more interesting facts from court….

Plaintiffs’ claim that “Kate Cox needs an abortion, and she needs it now” through relief
from this Court is demonstrably false. Pls.’ Pet. ¶ 1. The Cox’s purport to be Dallas residents
seeking to obtain an abortion in Houston. Id. at ¶ 6. Yet, at this very moment, they reside in
Florida. See id. at Pls.’ Ver. Pgs. Florida’s medical exception to its abortion prohibition expressly
includes pregnancies where a baby has a fatal fetal abnormality like trisomy 18. See Fla. Stat. §
390.0111(c). So, if Ms. Cox “needs an abortion and she needs it now,” she can do just that—in
Florida, the state where she is currently located. No relief is necessary from this Court or any other.
reproductiverights.org...

But wait.... There have been a million tears in this thread alone spilled over this case. We see this time and time again with the left mostly as they push some extremely spun storyline knowing if/when the true story comes out people will only remember the initial one they invented.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

That line has already been drawn in each state so I'm not sure what your driving at here. With this case, in Texas, the law was clearly stated that in an emergency health crisis an abortion is legal but that idiot AG decided he knew better than her two doctors and her continued suffering was an okay thing for her to keep experiencing.

I guess my question is when an abortion is legal due to extreme circumstances why is it okay for one old white man in a position of legal power to decide that it is now illegal?

That doesn't solve the issue as we see in Texas. We need a federal-level line drawn to pull the two extremes into moderate territory. In this case, the question is whether her case triggers the emergency health crisis part of the law.

We need to let the woman and her doctor decide.

PERIOD!

a reply to: Annee

A potential human is NOT a human.

Personally, I think the operative word is "being". All human cells are alive, but not all human cells are created equally. What is the difference between "human' and "human being". When does "human" equal "being".

I think that implies the question that should be asked is actually: When is a "spirit" or "soul" imbued into the organized cell structure of the human body?" Some say conception, some say the first breath, some say, "there's no such thing as a human soul".

At any rate, spiritual embodiment is not a question for the courts. Like religion, it's a private matter. The State can't impose religious morals on The People through laws. That's what the 1st Amendment says.

That's my 2 cents....FWIW

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero

So they were not talking about decisions that might have religious morals as a factor.

Who told you that? You say it as if you think it's a fact.
LOL

Separation of Church and State has been defined by lawsuits won.

Unfortunately, we are currently combating Chrisitan Nationalism/Dominionism.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Who told you that? You say it as if you think it's a fact.
LOL

If someone has morals based on religious doctrine how is that removed from their decision-making process... the short answer is it isn't and has nothing to do with it.

There is a reason it is called "Separation of Church and State" and not "Separation of Religion and State" and is to prevent something like the British monarch as the supreme governor of the Church of England.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Plaintiffs’ claim that “Kate Cox needs an abortion, and she needs it now” through relief from this Court is demonstrably false. Pls.’ Pet. ¶ 1. The Cox’s purport to be Dallas residents seeking to obtain an abortion in Houston. Id. at ¶ 6. Yet, at this very moment, they reside in Florida.

WOW! Ken Paxton is a bigger douche bag than I thought! Kate Cox fled to Florida, to be in a medically safe place where the doctors weren't being threatened with life in prison and eternal vigilante lawsuits for helping her, while waiting for their case to be judicated.