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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Jane1B
originally posted by: JAGStorm
originally posted by: bruce88
originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Rosby123

This is absolutely insane and they are putting her life on the line.

The "pro life" cultists do not care about her, at all.

Or her other TWO children. What are they going to do if her life is cut short?

The right wing christians haven't thought it that much.

Pffft. Female care givers are disposable and easily replaced.

Good composition of different replies!
Applause!



What's really mind boggling is that the same people who are against abortions no matter the circumstances are in favour of the wars around the globe.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: bruce88
Or her other TWO children. What are they going to do if her life is cut short?

So she already has 2 other children? So, that means this comment by the judge is just nonsensical:

“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.

Now, that said, if - and I mean IF - this condition of the baby really and truly is life-threatening to the Mother and not just being used as an excuse, then apparently the law is being misapplied, and shame on Paxton for pushing it this far.

On the other hand, if the claim that this condition is really threatening the life of the mother, is false (does anyone want to challenge the fact that radical leftists won't lie about this kind of thing?), that would explain Paxtons response.

I haven't the time right now to research this to try to figure that out, so I'll just stop here...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
On the other hand, if the claim that this condition is really threatening the life of the mother, is false (does anyone want to challenge the fact that radical leftists won't lie about this kind of thing?), that would explain Paxtons response.

I haven't the time right now to research this to try to figure that out, so I'll just stop here...

👏It 👏is 👏none 👏of 👏your 👏business.

originally posted by: Euronymous2625
a reply to: tanstaafl
👏It 👏is 👏none 👏of 👏your 👏business.

If we were talking about cysts, or tumors, or hysterectomies, I would totally agree with you. But we aren't, are we?

More importantly, the protection of life (liberty, and property) was actually written directly into the Constitution, and it is incumbent upon all sane, rational people to protect those most vulnerable.

We endured 60 years of legalized murder-for-convenience-sake based on a fallacious argument that abortion was somehow related to 'privacy'.

So, forgive me if I ignore your irrelevant comment.

a reply to: tanstaafl

So your belief is multiple doctors lied to the judge and he just believed it? Rather than criminally indicted Paxton is pandering to a very small base and frankly has no problem with potential death sentences for pregnant women.

You may have missed by post a few pages back where this situation has happened to multiple women as he's gone so far with this law that doctors are afraid of up to 99 years in prison? This seems like a reasonable thing?

a reply to: tanstaafl

We endured 60 years of legalized murder-for-convenience-sake based on a fallacious argument that abortion was somehow related to 'privacy'.

What do you mean 'we', white man?
-Tonto

Well since the "ever-objective" Supreme Court are wacky evangelicals, its now up to states to decide for themselves. And more women and men will vote agreeing it's none of your business. At least that's the way I see it.

It will be like a madlib the next 4 years or so. Just fill in the state.

Abortion in ______ is legal on request until fetal viability and after fetal viability if, in the professional judgement of an attending physician, the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant individual's life or health.

If not that, it will be a lot of this, which shows the way voters are leaning.

In November 2022, voters rejected a ballot measure that could have penalized abortion providers.

Followed by elected officials then going against it. It seems the only thing keeping it on the books in some cases is legislative maneuvers and court rulings.

Then, in 2023, the state legislature passed a law clarifying that the right of privacy embedded in the state constitution does not include abortion rights.

And then to another conservative madlib state:

In November 2022, voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have established that _______ state constitution does not recognize abortion rights.

That's indirect writing on the wall of consensus. Honestly if every state held a vote today on whether or not to permit abortion to viability, there would only be a handful of states that dont uphold the choice, if the madlib states are any indication.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
We endured 60 years of legalized murder-for-convenience-sake based on a fallacious argument that abortion was somehow related to 'privacy'.

Oh look, someone upset women want to have control over their own bodies, obviously that is unacceptable as women must be controlled by men.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl
What do you mean 'we', white man?

Racist much?

Well since the "ever-objective" Supreme Court are wacky evangelicals, its now up to states to decide for themselves.

Unless you can cite a section in the Constitution delegating the power over abortions to the federal government, it was always a States Right. The problem was caused by a radical leftist court that fabricated a Constitutional 'Right' where none existed.

originally posted by: bruce88
a reply to: tanstaafl
Oh look, someone upset women want to have control over their own bodies, obviously that is unacceptable as women must be controlled by men.

Oh look, someone who refuses to acknowledge that an unborn child in the womb is NOT a part of the mothers body, just so they can sleep around and escape responsibility for their actions at the cost of the life of a human child.

Sickness, that is.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Do you think states should have the right to decide whether or not their residents can be forced to take a vaccine? OR do you think that's a constitutional, human rights matter?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: bruce88
Or her other TWO children. What are they going to do if her life is cut short?

So she already has 2 other children? So, that means this comment by the judge is just nonsensical:

“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.

Now, that said, if - and I mean IF - this condition of the baby really and truly is life-threatening to the Mother and not just being used as an excuse, then apparently the law is being misapplied, and shame on Paxton for pushing it this far.

On the other hand, if the claim that this condition is really threatening the life of the mother, is false (does anyone want to challenge the fact that radical leftists won't lie about this kind of thing?), that would explain Paxtons response.

I haven't the time right now to research this to try to figure that out, so I'll just stop here...

They are saying if they wait until the baby is dead there is a chance they will have to do a hysterectomy which means she will not be able to bear any more children. She was having this child because she wanted it.

The other aspect, should we REALLY force women to carry their dead babies? Is this pro life?

Well...

The Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocked a pregnant woman from obtaining an emergency abortion on Friday, shortly after the state's attorney general requested the block.

"Without regard to the merits, the Court administratively stays the district court's December 7, 2023 order," the late Friday ruling said.

Reuters

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl

We endured 60 years of legalized murder-for-convenience-sake based on a fallacious argument that abortion was somehow related to 'privacy'.

What do you mean 'we', white man?
-Tonto

Well since the "ever-objective" Supreme Court are wacky evangelicals, its now up to states to decide for themselves. And more women and men will vote agreeing it's none of your business. At least that's the way I see it.

It will be like a madlib the next 4 years or so. Just fill in the state.

Abortion in ______ is legal on request until fetal viability and after fetal viability if, in the professional judgement of an attending physician, the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant individual's life or health.

If not that, it will be a lot of this, which shows the way voters are leaning.

In November 2022, voters rejected a ballot measure that could have penalized abortion providers.

Followed by elected officials then going against it. It seems the only thing keeping it on the books in some cases is legislative maneuvers and court rulings.

Then, in 2023, the state legislature passed a law clarifying that the right of privacy embedded in the state constitution does not include abortion rights.

And then to another conservative madlib state:

In November 2022, voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have established that _______ state constitution does not recognize abortion rights.

That's indirect writing on the wall of consensus. Honestly if every state held a vote today on whether or not to permit abortion to viability, there would only be a handful of states that dont uphold the choice, if the madlib states are any indication.

Not against the idea of voting in a referendum in each state. Still many states will vote in favour of abortion.

originally posted by: frogs453
Well...

The Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocked a pregnant woman from obtaining an emergency abortion on Friday, shortly after the state's attorney general requested the block.

"Without regard to the merits, the Court administratively stays the district court's December 7, 2023 order," the late Friday ruling said.

Reuters

The wrong stuff as always in Texas.
The judges and lawyers who push to block this abortion are just at odds with common sense. Needless to say they disregard the medical advise and circumstances in favour of their ideological beliefs.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Do you think states should have the right to decide whether or not their residents can be forced to take a vaccine? OR do you think that's a constitutional, human rights matter?

No one can lawfully be forced to allow themselves to be injected with foreign substances, by a State or the Federal govt.

Which has ZERO to do with abortion.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: tanstaafl
They are saying if they wait until the baby is dead there is a chance they will have to do a hysterectomy which means she will not be able to bear any more children. She was having this child because she wanted it.

The other aspect, should we REALLY force women to carry their dead babies? Is this pro life?

No, and I already stated my position that IF this is as described, then Paxton is misapplying the law.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

I noticed a lot of pro life NO abortion proponents are VERY quiet

I'm in the middle as I want abortion to be something that isn't the first choice as it has been pushed a good deal. I also believe States should have the right to regulate and if people don't like it then vote in others that fit their values more.

New Mexico is a day drive or bus ride away too.

a reply to: frogs453

She's currently at 20 weeks. By the time the TX Supreme Court rules she could very well be in her third trimester. Which will of course open a whole new can of worms.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You know what's closer than an abortion clinic 10 hours away? A f***ing hospital! This is a goddamn medical procedure.

If you don't want abortions for unwanted pregnancies, fine, whatever. The odds of this child surviving to term are about 5%. If it survives after that, it will be dead within days, if not hours. Meanwhile, the mother's reproductive health and life are st rural if she carries the baby to term.

If a doctor deems an abortion as being medically necessary the government should have absolutely no say on whether or not they are allowed to go through with it.

originally posted by: Threadbarer

You know what's closer than an abortion clinic 10 hours away? A f***ing hospital! This is a goddamn medical procedure.

If you don't want abortions for unwanted pregnancies, fine, whatever. The odds of this child surviving to term are about 5%. If it survives after that, it will be dead within days, if not hours. Meanwhile, the mother's reproductive health and life are st rural if she carries the baby to term.

If a doctor deems an abortion as being medically necessary the government should have absolutely no say on whether or not they are allowed to go through with it.

I don't agree with the 100% no abortion some states have put into place. I think the 15 weeks is a good middle ground. My point is abortions are still available, but maybe not on every street corner.

I also wonder if all this pushes more focus on birth control in the first place. How many women in the past just saw abortions as an inconvenience that the State would pay for so really put little thought or effort into prevention in the first place, and that is really where we all should want to be.