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

a reply to: Annee



All I can say as a male, is that I'm glad I'll never have to be part of an abort or keep decision. I've got my general opinions on abortion but at the end of the day, not my business.

I don't like the thought of life being aborted at any stage. But I realize there are circumstances that may call for it. I do believe if people are going to have an abortion, the earlier in developement the more humane it is.

It has to be a deeply personal decision or unfortunate circumstance that I'm thankful I'll never have to face.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Annee

All I can say as a male, is that I'm glad I'll never have to be part of an abort or keep decision. I've got my general opinions on abortion but at the end of the day, not my business.

I don't like the thought of life being aborted at any stage. But I realize there are circumstances that may call for it. I do believe if people are going to have an abortion, the earlier in developement the more humane it is.

It has to be a deeply personal decision or unfortunate circumstance that I'm thankful I'll never have to face.

👍

I agree.

The point is it’s a personal choice (or should be). Legislating this personal choice and having the public vote to deny you this personal Right is insane.

Not an easy choice.

There are many reasons a woman chooses to abort.

I had 2 young children, was a stay at home, no job, going through a divorce. My husband was jealous of his own children and it was beginning to affect them. Why would I want to bring another child into that environment? (It was his child).

I chose the welfare of my LIVING children. I have no regrets.

a reply to: Vermilion

From page 2 of Kate’s petition..
“continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life”

And from page 3 of Kate’s petition..
“to seek a temporary restraining order authorizing her physician to provide her with the abortion she needs to preserve her life”

So, now you're saying that the doctors DID assert her life was in danger? Because before, you were going on about her doctors never said her life was at risk. While Xtrozero was going on about they never said the magic words "high risk".

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.

So which is it? Was her life in danger, or was the priority to preserve her reproductive capabilities?

a reply to: Vermilion

An activist lawyer, she tried to game the law.

Please explain how she tried to "game the law". Please explain to me why the Supremacy Clause is moot in Texas, and why the doctor couldn't assert their right to legal protection against prosecution and/or liability under the federal law and its guarantees?

Also, please explain to me why Texas allows a woman to have an abortion if her life is at risk, if she has no constitutional right to an abortion? Is this just Texas being super nice and altruistic? Or maybe, it's because it's as painfully obvious as the nose on the Pope's face that women in America have a basic 2nd Amendment right to use lethal force in self-defense of limb and/or life?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

From page 2 of Kate’s petition..
“continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life”

And from page 3 of Kate’s petition..
“to seek a temporary restraining order authorizing her physician to provide her with the abortion she needs to preserve her life”

So, now you're saying that the doctors DID assert her life was in danger? Because before, you were going on about her doctors never said her life was at risk. While Xtrozero was going on about they said the magic words "high risk".

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.

So which is it? Was her life at risk, or was the priority to preserve her reproductive capabilities?

According to the petition the doctor attested to life threatening situation, at least twice on the pages mentioned.
Then in court the doctor wouldn’t attest to it.
Shady.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

An activist lawyer, she tried to game the law.

Please explain how she tried to "game the law". Please explain to me why the Supremacy Clause is moot in Texas, and why the doctor couldn't assert their right to legal protection against prosecution and/or liability under the federal law and its guarantees?

Also, please explain to me why Texas allows a woman to have an abortion if her life is at risk, if she has no constitutional right to an abortion? Is this just Texas being super nice and altruistic? Or maybe, it's because it's as painfully obvious as the nose on the Pope's face that women in America have a basic 2nd Amendment right to use lethal force in self-defense of limb and/or life?

I’ve done enough work for you.
The petition and court decision have been posted here.
I’ve explained how shady and incompetent the petition was.
It’s been proven the judge made a giant ‘mistake’ in allowing the abortion initially.
This was a pathetic attempt to skirt the abortion law.
These are all facts I’ve posted.
This thing smelled bad from day 1.
There have been dozens of abortions here in Texas since it rightfully went back to the states to decide for themselves.
The 2nd has nothing to do with this.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the fact that she lives in Dallas yet her doctor is 4 hours away in Houston. Any thoughts on that?

a reply to: Vermilion


HAHA, you get caught in your own contradiction conundrum and now you wanna take you ball and go home! LOL

Nope.

You ignore the Federal Law, again and again, just referring the court's decision as if it's God's word. Well, Texas did the same thing with Roe v Wade, and pretended it didn't exist until SCOTUS overruled it in the DOBBS case. They're hoping the same with work again, with the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)

You've waived away the idea that a woman could have a 2nd Amendment right to use lethal force in self-defense of life or limb. But you continually defend Texas law, saying "Hey, it protects women whose lives in danger! What else do you want?" Like it's charity!

LOL
We see you!

a reply to: Vermilion

Then in court the doctor wouldn’t attest to it.

False! The doctor attested to a good faith recommendation, invoking EMTALA, which the court ignored, favoring Texas law requiring reasonable medical judgement, which can be challenged later, as poor judgement, in a court of law.

You keep pretending that federal doesn't exist in Texas!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

Then in court the doctor wouldn’t attest to it.

False! The doctor attested to a good faith recommendation, invoking EMTALA, which the court ignored, favoring Texas law requiring reasonable medical judgement, which can be challenged later, as poor judgement, in a court of law.

You keep pretending that federal doesn't exist in Texas!

Page 2 of the decision.,,

“But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a "life-threatening physical condition" or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires.”

Kate’s petition did indeed state that on more than one occasion, but in court the doctor wouldn’t attest to it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion


HAHA, you get caught in your own contradiction conundrum and now you wanna take you ball and go home! LOL

Nope.

You ignore the Federal Law, again and again, just referring the court's decision as if it's God's word. Well, Texas did the same thing with Roe v Wade, and pretended it didn't exist until SCOTUS overruled it in the DOBBS case. They're hoping the same with work again, with the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)

You've waived away the idea that a woman could have a 2nd Amendment right to use lethal force in self-defense of life or limb. But you continually defend Texas law, saying "Hey, it protects women whose lives in danger! What else do you want?" Like it's charity!

LOL
We see you!

Take a breath and re-hinge yourself.
I haven’t ignored federal law nor have I defended Texas law.
The court records speak for themselves.

The Texas judge who approved the abortion was wrong.

a reply to: Vermilion

Again, make up your mind. Was abortion required to save Kate's life or was it about saving her ability to have another baby?

Kate’s petition did indeed state that on more than one occasion, but in court the doctor wouldn’t attest to it. but in court the doctor wouldn’t attest to it.

Pffft. Nonsense!

You don't even know what this case was about! This case was about the hospital and the medical team's liability, should they decide to preserve Kate Cox's reproductive ability and possibly her life.

Again, the doctor refused to use the wording, reasonable medical judgement, the judge and the state of Texas wanted, because of Texas' trap laws that don't protect the medical team and the hospital against prosecution or vigilante lawsuits.

Sure, an abortion could have been performed had the doctors used that language. However, under Texas law, anyone can challenge the doctor's reasonable medical judgement, putting the doctor, the medical team and the hospital at risk.

From the pleading:

Under the Act, a physician who performs a post-viability abortion under either the medical emergency or medical necessity exception may be held liable, even if the physician believed he or she was acting reasonably, and in accordance with his or her best medical judgment, as long as others later decide that the physician’s actions were nonetheless unreasonable.”).

It's all in the original pleading. That's why they asked for a "restraining order."

Here's what EMTALA says;

(2) Exception: Application to Inpatients.
(i) If a hospital has screened an individual under paragraph (a) of this section and found the individual to have an emergency medical condition, and admits that individual as an inpatient in good faith in order to stabilize the emergency medical condition, the hospital has satisfied its special responsibilities under this section with respect to that individua

www.cms.gov...

138. Dr. Karsan has met Ms. Cox, reviewed her medical records, and believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment, that a D&E abortion is medically recommended for Ms. Cox.
139. It is also Dr. Karsan’sgood faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed.

140. Dr. Karsan is unsure how close to death her patients need to be before abortion is permitted under Texas law

141. Without authorization from the Court to provide Ms. Cox a medically indicated abortion, Dr. Karsan cannot risk loss of her medical license, life in prison, and massive civil fines.

142. Dr. Karsan has consulted with the administration of the hospital where she regularly practices and has been told that if she obtains court authorization to protect her and any medical staff who would assist her in performing an abortion from liability under Texas’s abortion bans, the hospital will allow her to perform a D&E abortion for Ms. Cox.

D&E abortions are illegal in Texas. The hospital would not allow the abortion without court permission and protection.

This wasn't about an illegal, bad faith abortion. It was about gaining protection, guidance and clarity on the obscurity of the law for the doctor and the hospital.

But the high court offered ZERO guidance, clarity or protection to the medical team.

a reply to: Vermilion

I haven’t ignored federal law nor have I defended Texas law.

Yes you have.

The Texas judge who approved the abortion was wrong.

Why? Was it because Cox's health and life were never at risk?

originally posted by: Vermilion

The Texas judge who approved the abortion was wrong.

So, you’re anti abortion.

And don’t like the one judges decision.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion

The Texas judge who approved the abortion was wrong.

So, you’re anti abortion.

And don’t like the one judges decision.

Well, this woman paved the way in warning other women in similar emergency health crisis situations that they should just go out of state at the outset of issues such as these.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

D&E abortions are illegal in Texas. The hospital would not allow the abortion without court permission and protection.
Page 6 of decision…
A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment.

Sure, an abortion could have been performed had the doctors used that language.
That’s what the courts decision says, agreed.

It’s like you’re trying to argue with me about this. It’s not my decision, and I haven’t even given an opinion about it.
Your beef should be with that rotten doctor, the rotten lawyer, and that rotten judge.
I’m just the messenger so holster your weapon.

But the high court offered ZERO guidance, clarity or protection to the medical team.
From page 6 of the decision…
The points we have made above provide some clarity about the legal standards and framework for this sensitive area of Texas law.

a reply to: Vermilion

The top court doesn't care about the woman's health only their political/religious agenda.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion

The Texas judge who approved the abortion was wrong.

So, you’re anti abortion.

And don’t like the one judges decision.

You know I’m anti abortion. I said so back on an early page of this thread . My opinion about abortion has nothing to do with this thread. I can keep my feelings separate of the facts.

That judge was wrong.
The Supreme Court stated that in their decision.
I think she’s a rotten activist judge, as I also stated before.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion

The Texas judge who approved the abortion was wrong.

So, you’re anti abortion.

And don’t like the one judges decision.

You know I’m anti abortion. I said so back on an early page of this thread . My opinion about abortion has nothing to do with this thread. I can keep my feelings separate of the facts.

That judge was wrong.
The Supreme Court stated that in their decision.
I think she’s a rotten activist judge, as I also stated before.

So now when a judge follows the law to the letter they are activist judges?

a reply to: Vermilion

It’s like you’re trying to argue with me about this. It’s not my decision, and I haven’t even given an opinion about it.

You most certainly have given an opinion about it. But, this issue isn't about you. We are all in this thread discussion the issue. Me, I'm discussing the blatant misogyny, cruelty and the miscarriage of justice.

I’m just the messenger so holster your weapon.

What's your message, again?

When you say "holster your weapon", which is an allusion to 2nd Amendment, you're really telling me to "shut my mouth", a 1st Amendment complaint.

You completed mocked and dismissed the concept that a woman has a 2nd Amendment right to use lethal force to save life and limb, but you laud the generosity of the Texas law that allow exceptions for the life a woman. But a life or limb saving abortion isn't a constitutional right, in your opinion, or Sam Alito's opinion.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion

The Texas judge who approved the abortion was wrong.

So, you’re anti abortion.

And don’t like the one judges decision.

Well, this woman paved the way in warning other women in similar emergency health crisis situations that they should just go out of state at the outset of issues such as these.

The abortion road out of Texas was paved as soon as roe got kicked back to the states.