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

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: Vermilion

It says she’s had two c sections prior.
Did she originally plan to deliver this third baby vaginally?

I agree with what a previous poster said, it appears that the issue with this particular pregnancy and circumstances with the fetus makes it more likely.

I unfortunately was not able to have any vaginal pregnancy as each of my girls stayed transverse and faced backwards, never moving into position for birth. I had no such dire warnings for my third.

Paxton doubling down on the woman and doctors against the court ruling is ridiculous.

The attorney general has lost his mind.
He has no business interfering with what the judge ruled and with medical decisions.

originally posted by: Gouldielockstitch

originally posted by: Jane1B

originally posted by: Rosby123

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Rosby123

Sounds like the law is working as intended..

The law allows abortions to save the life of the mother but that's not one of these cases in my opinion.

According to the law they shouldn't let her have an abortion but the judge ruled in her favour and in favour of common sense.

And according to common sense, the law is wrong.

Thanks to the right wing christians we have that marvelous law.

It’s hilarious to hear the Leftists scream “The war on women!!”, when they can’t even freaking define what a woman is.

What about the Liberal war on women with men trying to beat them in women’s sports?

Can biological men get pregnant?
Let me know

originally posted by: RazorV66
It’s hilarious to hear the Leftists scream “The war on women!!”, when they can’t even freaking define what a woman is.

What about the Liberal war on women with men trying to beat them in women’s sports?

Can biological men get pregnant?
Let me know

Does it look like leftists screaming 'the war on women' to you?

Biological men can't get pregnant. But right wing christians and various super conservatives shouldn't interfere with women's decisions and science.

a reply to: RazorV66

It's hilarious that white men scream it's a war against them because of a DEI class or an ad from a beer company with a transgender person.

Can you imagine if they started telling you with laws, what you can or cannot do with your sperm? Threatening your future ability to father children, or your very life?


Conflating winning a tournament to a woman's life or reproductive ability is typical, "I have no defense for this" so let's make it about something else.

There is no comparison to forcing women to carry a non viable or life threatening fetus.

originally posted by: bruce88
[

The "pro life" cultists

You should reflect on how insane this statement is.

a reply to: Rosby123

this appears to be a case where abortion is the best answer. I still think it's murder, but it's not up to me.
I can only hope this doesn't pave the way for abortion to be back to being a contraceptive.

a reply to: network dude

Abortion should be an option when there are legitimate reasons. This is my opinion.

Gratefully abortion is legal in many states and all over around the world.

originally posted by: Vermilion

It says she’s had two c sections prior.
Did she originally plan to deliver this third baby vaginally?

The only reason I asked this question is because there are few things from that article that raise red flags to me.

“I do not want to continue the pain and suffering that has plagued this pregnancy or continue to put my body or my mental health through the risks of continuing this pregnancy,” Cox wrote in an editorial published in The Dallas Morning News.”

Pro-abortion women and their pro-abortion doctors have used the ‘mental health’ escape clause as a guise to keep using abortion as a contraceptive.

“Doctors have told Cox that if the baby’s heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior cesareans sections, and that another C-section at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child.”

Considering she’s had two c sections prior it seems to me that this baby would be a c section regardless. If having a c section puts her life in danger, and the only way she can even give birth is by a c section than why is she getting pregnant in the first place? I’d have to look but I don’t believe doctors would advise a women to deliver vaginally after one, and especially not after two prior c sections, which is the case with this young lady.

“The idea that Ms. Cox wants so desperately to be a parent and this law may have her lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” Gamble said.

Says the pro-abortion judge. Appeal to emotion? She’s already a parent of two children. Seems to me she’s desperate to have an abortion.

“More than 40 woman have received abortions in Texas since the ban took effect, according to state health figures, none of which have resulted in criminal charges. There were more than 16,000 abortions in Texas in the five months prior to the ban taking effect last year.”

Despite the agonizing by the pro-abortion crowd there are indeed abortions still being done in Texas. The law has made abortion very rare, which is awesome for everybody in the state. So many little lives saved.

This is a bad deal all around, especially for the baby whose odds of living are pretty slim.
It seems she’s got the green light for her abortion so the baby’s odds are pretty much zero now unfortunately.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Vermilion

It says she’s had two c sections prior.
Did she originally plan to deliver this third baby vaginally?

The only reason I asked this question is because there are few things from that article that raise red flags to me.

“I do not want to continue the pain and suffering that has plagued this pregnancy or continue to put my body or my mental health through the risks of continuing this pregnancy,” Cox wrote in an editorial published in The Dallas Morning News.”

Pro-abortion women and their pro-abortion doctors have used the ‘mental health’ escape clause as a guise to keep using abortion as a contraceptive.

“Doctors have told Cox that if the baby’s heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior cesareans sections, and that another C-section at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child.”

Considering she’s had two c sections prior it seems to me that this baby would be a c section regardless. If having a c section puts her life in danger, and the only way she can even give birth is by a c section than why is she getting pregnant in the first place? I’d have to look but I don’t believe doctors would advise a women to deliver vaginally after one, and especially not after two prior c sections, which is the case with this young lady.

“The idea that Ms. Cox wants so desperately to be a parent and this law may have her lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” Gamble said.

Says the pro-abortion judge. Appeal to emotion? She’s already a parent of two children. Seems to me she’s desperate to have an abortion.

“More than 40 woman have received abortions in Texas since the ban took effect, according to state health figures, none of which have resulted in criminal charges. There were more than 16,000 abortions in Texas in the five months prior to the ban taking effect last year.”

Despite the agonizing by the pro-abortion crowd there are indeed abortions still being done in Texas. The law has made abortion very rare, which is awesome for everybody in the state. So many little lives saved.

This is a bad deal all around, especially for the baby whose odds of living are pretty slim.
It seems she’s got the green light for her abortion so the baby’s odds are pretty much zero now unfortunately.

What are you talking about??
You have disregarded everything else and focused on the c-section.

Women can still travel elsewhere to have an abortion if it's necessary.

Baby was going to die no matter what decision was reached, and carrying to term was going to endager the mother.

*shrugs* seems like it worked as intended... now if the state keeps appealing/blocking her form getting an abortion thats a problem.

a reply to: Irishhaf

The AG of the state has written letters to the three hospitals that could carry out the abortion that he will charge them with felonies if they perform the procedure.

a reply to: Vermilion

“I do not want to continue the pain and suffering that has plagued this pregnancy or continue to put my body or my mental health through the risks of continuing this pregnancy,” Cox wrote in an editorial published in The Dallas Morning News.”

Pro-abortion women and their pro-abortion doctors have used the ‘mental health’ escape clause as a guise to keep using abortion as a contraceptive.

Do you know what the threshold for lethal self defense is in Texas?

In Texas, an individual is generally allowed to use deadly force in self-defense if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a forcible felony. This is known as the “Castle Doctrine” and it applies to an individual’s home, car, or place of business.

LINK

There is no question that this pregnancy is threatening bodily harm to Cox, so why doesn't she have the right to exercise her 2nd Amendment right in Texas?

Cox is very brave to allow herself to be used to challenge this law, rather than just to go another state.


But, what this is really about is Texas challenges the federal law, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that states:

(b) Necessary Stabilizing Treatment for Emergency Medical Conditions and Labor.—

(1) In general.—If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this title) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—

(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or

(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c)

www.ssa.gov...

So, according to federal law, hospitals are required to "stabilize the medical condition", even if that requires an emergency abortion.

More:
www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Jane1B

Women can still travel elsewhere to have an abortion if it's necessary.

That’s true, so why all the crying that Conservatives and the Right are waging a war on women then?

The woman from the story in the OP should be able to have the necessary abortion she needs.
But this overall cock and bull story that women have been violated by Conservatives is just that….it’s bullsh!t.

a reply to: RazorV66

The woman from the story in the OP should be able to have the necessary abortion she needs.

So why can't she? Even though the judge said she could, the Texas State AG is threatening her doctors with felony charges if they provide her abortion.

But this overall cock and bull story that women have been violated by Conservatives is just that….it’s bullsh!t.

Well, Kate Cox's rights sure have been violated by conservative in Texas. Even you agree she should be able to access her rights, but conservatives in Texas won't let her.

a reply to: RazorV66

Just travel out of state you say?

Kylie Beaton lives with her husband and their daughter in Fort Worth, Texas. Kylie was thrilled to learn she was pregnant with their second child, but at her 20-week scan, she discovered the baby had a condition, alobar holoprosencephaly, in which the brain does not develop normally and the head grows abnormally quickly. After learning the baby would barely survive past birth, Kylie considered traveling to New Mexico for abortion care. But the baby’s head was already measuring at close to 24 weeks—a size past the gestational cutoff for the New Mexico clinic—and Kylie had no choice but to continue the pregnancy. At Kylie’s 28-week ultrasound appointment, she begged to be induced before the baby’s head grew too large to deliver vaginally, but her doctors refused due to Texas’s abortion bans. After rushing to the hospital with abdominal pain at 35 weeks, Kylie was finally sent for an emergency Cesarean, and her baby died four days after he was born. Kylie said that having to go through the birth and death of her son made losing him much harder, and she fears for her health, safety, and ability to get pregnant again in the future.

• Samantha Casiano, who lives in East Texas with her partner and their children, learned at her 20-week scan that her baby had anencephaly and would not survive. She asked her doctor what her options were—but since she lacked the time, finances, and resources to travel out of state, she was told she had none but to continue with the pregnancy. As the months wore on, Samantha found it excruciating to have people constantly congratulating her, and she worried relentlessly about how she would afford a funeral for her daughter. Though the baby was born breech (positioned backwards), which usually necessitates a Cesarean section, Samantha was not given the option to have the procedure; she noted the hypocrisy of treating her daughter like a healthy baby only while she was in utero. Her daughter died four hours after birth, and, after a simple funeral, Samantha resolved to tell her story publicly in the hope that others would not have to go through the same experience. She wished she had been able to put her daughter to rest earlier, since she was going to have to rest either way.

22 Texas Women Sue After Being Denied Medically Necessay Abortions

a reply to: frogs453

I can still remember the days when people were opposed to Obama Care because it "would lead to DEATH PANELS !!!."

Looks like Dobbs decision is doing it.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Jane1B

Women can still travel elsewhere to have an abortion if it's necessary.

That’s true, so why all the crying that Conservatives and the Right are waging a war on women then?

The woman from the story in the OP should be able to have the necessary abortion she needs.
But this overall cock and bull story that women have been violated by Conservatives is just that….it’s bullsh!t.

You said it...
I said that conservatives and right wing christians are at odds with science and medicine and want to make the life of some of the pregnant women miserable.

a reply to: frogs453

And that doesn't even touch on the counties in Texas that are instituting travel bans for abortion.

Another victim of the US culture war.

Keep fighting it and there will be more.