Can pro life defend their position

[MAGAnificent]

Even before Co-President Trump takes office we are having chaos because of his actions.

Co-President Musk, through tweets, killed the bi-partisan government funding bill leaving the inept Republicans in the House to rework the bill. One thing that was done was to remove $190 million for a children's cancer research program. The bill failed anyway.

Two things are clear from this, even before Co-President Trump takes his first day in office. (1) Trump has created an uncontrollable monster in Co-President Musk. (2) Like children with cancer, there will be no empathy for the poor and needy in Co-Presidents Trump's and Musk's Administration.

No. Not true.
You need to explain why the providers are wrong when they say care is delayed causing death because of these laws.
Cripes…you even stated that the way these women could have survived was to go to another state!!!! You are the one that sarcastically made comments about their not being border guards preventing them from leaving the state to get care!!!
WHY would you state they could leave the state for care if the issue was NOT the states abortion laws???

Your basic response is “ I’m right. The government knows better than the doctors and that’s that”!!!

Sounds pretty “ librul” !

You are of course welcome to provide a rebuttal other than “ nuh uh. Gubment right ,Doctors dummyheads”.

See post #1273. I cannot say it any better then that.

 

[jaeger19]

There in fact was. She WAS in a medical emergency, but either the doctor was too dumb to know the law or too dumb to know that her condition was life threatening.



So she wasn't in a medical emergency... but she died.



You are trying SO HARD to pretend that you provided scenario was not the doctor's fault. SO HARD.

I'd define a medical emergency as a medical condition that was killing the patient.

The doctors that reviewed the case in your own provided article stated that the doctor should have performed the abortion rather than send her home.

So did the doctor misdiagnose her condition such that they believed she wasn't in danger when she demonstrably was? Or were they too stupid to understand the clear wording of the law?

My guess is that the stupid doctor was listening to the misinformation from the Pro-Abortion lobby rather than reading the law themselves, because her determination was in line with those lies rather than the actual law.

1. Great. Explain medical detail how she was in medical emergency per Texas law. Explain medically.

2. That’s right. In one of the examples cited . The woman came into the hospital 17weeks pregnant with cramps and she was currently diagnosed with a miscarriage. The fetus would inevitable not survive but the fetus still had a heartbeat. She was treated with pain medication which stabilized her pain. Her vitals were all stable. The cramps were controlled by medication.
At this point.. the proper procedure would be to immediately offer to the patient to use medication to speed up the miscarriage which would stop the fetal heartbeat and cause expulsion of the fetus. Or perform a dilation and curettage or extraction ( depending on size and bone formation of the fetus) which again would stop the fetal heartbeat. Which under Texas law is illegal .
She was not in medical emergency. The issue is that the longer the miscarriage continues.. the greater chance the patient will develop an infection.
The woman waited in the hospital until the heartbeat was undetectable. Then the proper procedure was performed and she was discharged from the hospital. Unfortunately for her… the delay in care as a result of following Texas law.. did result in an infection and she became septic and died.

2, no actually it’s shockingly EASY to provide citations of women dying because of these anti abortion laws, in fact studies of maternal harm and death have found there since the anti abortion laws there has been a significant increase in maternal harm and death in states with abortion restrictions.

Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions.​

Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions | Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine

Figure 1. State abortion policy context in 2015 States with more restrictive abortion policy climate have higher total maternal mortality, measured as a death during pregnancy or within one year following the end of a pregnancy, a recent study conducted by a team of Tulane researchers finds.

sph.tulane.edu

“Compared to states where abortion is accessible, states that have banned, are planning to ban, or have otherwise restricted abortion have fewer maternity care providers; more maternity care “deserts”; higher rates of maternal mortality and infant death,”

The U.S. Maternal Health Divide: The Limited Maternal Health Services and Worse Outcomes of States Proposing New Abortion Restrictions

States banning/restricting abortion have fewer maternity care providers, more maternity care “deserts,” and higher rates of maternal mortality and infant death.

www.commonwealthfund.org

3. Sorry but the facts remain that the delay in care was in li line with Texas law regarding fetal heartbeat.

“Governor Greg Abbott today championed the State of Texas’ enduring position as a national leader in protecting the rights of the unborn at the 2023 Texas Rally for Life at the Texas Capitol in Austin. Addressing over a thousand pro-life Texans, the Governor celebrated Texas’ recent landmark pro-life achievements and promised to continue fighting for the lives of children—born and unborn.

“All of us are united by the truth that our creator endowed us with the right to life,” said Governor Abbott. “With your help, we made transformational changes in Texas law last session—life-saving changes. We promised we would protect the life of every child with a heartbeat, and we did. I signed a law doing exactly that”

You are of course welcome to explain in detail why the doctors were wrong about Texas law.

 

[jaeger19]

See post #1273. I cannot say it any better than that.

Exactly. The woman according to jmotivators position was not in an emergency situation when she came into the hospital.
She was not actively dying or “ being killed”.

You are both very wrong.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Exactly. The woman according to jmotivators position was not in an emergency situation when she came into the hospital.
She was not actively dying or “ being killed”.

You are both very wrong.

You continue to blow up your own argument.

 

[jmotivator]

1. Great. Explain medical detail how she was in medical emergency per Texas law. Explain medically.

What dumb hill you are choosing to die on here. The woman's condition lead to her death. The law leaves the determination to the doctor.

1. Great. Explain medical detail how she was in medical emergency per Texas law. Explain medically.

2. That’s right. In one of the examples cited .

It was a stupid example.

Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions.​

Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions | Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine

Figure 1. State abortion policy context in 2015 States with more restrictive abortion policy climate have higher total maternal mortality, measured as a death during pregnancy or within one year following the end of a pregnancy, a recent study conducted by a team of Tulane researchers finds.

sph.tulane.edu

This is a great example of a spurious conclusion. Nowhere in that study did they assess that the affected women were seeking an abortion that they couldn't have.

What that study found is that in states where more women choose to keep their babies the rate of pregnancy related illnesses increase. This isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

That finding is the same as saying that a state where no women are pregnant will have a lower rate of pregnancy complications than a state with pregnant women.

This is similar to the old study that claimed to show that DDT caused cancer in children by showing that countries that used DDT to control malaria had higher cancer rates. What the study actually found was that in countries that controlled malaria with DDT more children with a genetic predisposition to cancers were now living long enough to contract cancer because they weren't dying of malaria.

In other words, the study found that conservative states are more fertile than progressive states. Shocker.

3. Sorry but the facts remain that the delay in care was in li line with Texas law regarding fetal heartbeat.

The delay was caused by the doctor either underestimating the clear threat to the mother, or absolutely misunderstanding the law, or both.

The Texas law doesn't prevent an abortion in that case.

 

[jaeger19]

What dumb hill you are choosing to die on here. The woman's condition lead to her death. The law leaves the determination to the doctor.


It was a stupid example.



This is a great example of a spurious conclusion. Nowhere in that study did they assess that the affected women were seeking an abortion that they couldn't have.

What that study found is that in states where more women choose to keep their babies the rate of pregnancy related illnesses increase. This isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

That finding is the same as saying that a state where no women are pregnant will have a lower rate of pregnancy complications than a state with pregnant women.

This is similar to the old study that claimed to show that DDT caused cancer in children by showing that countries that used DDT to control malaria had higher cancer rates. What the study actually found was that in countries that controlled malaria with DDT more children with a genetic predisposition to cancers were now living long enough to contract cancer because they weren't dying of malaria.

In other words, the study found that conservative states are more fertile than progressive states. Shocker.



The delay was caused by the doctor either underestimating the clear threat to the mother, or absolutely misunderstanding the law, or both.

The Texas law doesn't prevent an abortion in that case.

1. The infection she got led to her death. An infection she got because her care was delayed while the doctors followed the law.
2. Why? Why is an actual example of a woman having a miscarriage stupid? 15 to 20
Percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Though some studies put it at 30percent

3. Why would the study need to? The maternal death is likely due to delays in care.. like the examples I cited. Due to less access to care due to ob/gyn providers fleeing the states .. and due to women being forced to have high risk pregnancies.

4. Yeah no. In abortion stars the “choice” is taken away.

5. Umm that makes no sense. If children in countries using ddt had higher cancer rates than children in countries without ddt .. it would be the ddt.
Because the children in non malaria countries were ALSO not dying of malaria.

If ddt was not cancer causing.. the expectation is that both populations would live as long ( no malaria) and both would have the same rate of cancer.

A HIGHER propensity of cancer in the ddt countries would mean ddt could be cancer causing.

6. Well except studies have shown an increase since the abortion bans. The maternal morbidity was a RATE of death .. so it’s independent of the number of pregnancies.

7. Explain where in the law the doctor could know that they would not be charged.
Please show where the law clearly defines a “ clear threat”
Pregnancy itself is a threat to the mother.
Does that mean all women can have abortions if they are pregnant.?

 

[jmotivator]

1. The infection she got led to her death. An infection she got because her care was delayed while the doctors followed the law.

The doctors didn't follow the law. They knew it was a miscarriage before they sent her home. All that would be required by Texas state law was the medical records that showed that the baby was in the process of miscarriage and at 17 weeks had no chance of surviving outside the womb.

2. Why? Why is an actual example of a woman having a miscarriage stupid? 15 to 20
Percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Though some studies put it at 30percent

It was a stupid example because the example you gave was one where Texas law allowed for an abortion.

3. Why would the study need to? The maternal death is likely due to delays in care.. like the examples I cited. Due to less access to care due to ob/gyn providers fleeing the states .. and due to women being forced to have high risk pregnancies.

Because if a woman is pregnant and doesn't want an abortion then you can't blame abortion laws on her pregnancy complications.

4. Yeah no. In abortion stars the “choice” is taken away.

Well, no. It's limited. And if the a woman doesn't want an abortion then the abortion laws didn't limit her or cause her pregnancy complications.

5. Umm that makes no sense. If children in countries using ddt had higher cancer rates than children in countries without ddt .. it would be the ddt.
Because the children in non malaria countries were ALSO not dying of malaria.

It makes perfect sense. A childhood cancer that would normally manifest between the ages of 2 and 4 years old never manifest when the child dies of malaria at the age of 1.

If ddt was not cancer causing.. the expectation is that both populations would live as long ( no malaria) and both would have the same rate of cancer.

Well, no. There is a lot more that would go into that determination including other sources of environmental contamination, and racial/regional predispositions to specific cancers.
The reality is that childhood cancers are low in the most third world countries because of the high rate of infant death in those countries. Childhood cancer rates are much higher in western, first world countries.

Cancer in Children

Survival among children with cancer is improving, but children in low-income countries continue to have worse outcomes than children in high-income countries.

canceratlas.cancer.org

A HIGHER propensity of cancer in the ddt countries would mean ddt could be cancer causing.

Except that it wasn't higher (see above). The childhood cancer rate in those countries is lower because so many children die in infancy.

Infant Mortality Rate by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

6. Well except studies have shown an increase since the abortion bans.

Expect it didn't. There was no time and trend analysis in that paper.

7. Explain where in the law the doctor could know that they would not be charged.
Please show where the law clearly defines a “ clear threat”
Pregnancy itself is a threat to the mother.
Does that mean all women can have abortions if they are pregnant.

Again, dumb question. the law leaves it to the doctor's discretion, and requires that they keep a complete medical record to justify the determination.

The story you have provided already stated that 1) The determination was made that the 17 week pregnancy was miscarrying and 2) 12 doctors who reviewed the facts of the case agreed and that the pregnancy should have been terminated.

The Medical team told her they had to wait for there to be no heartbeat which was a lie The law stated clearly the exception to that rule, which applied to her case.

Your only real defense of your example is that the woman who would die 72 hours later wasn't in a medical emergency.

 

[jaeger19]

The doctors didn't follow the law. They knew it was a miscarriage before they sent her home. All that would be required by Texas state law was the medical records that showed that the baby was in the process of miscarriage and at 17 weeks had no chance of surviving outside the womb.



It was a stupid example because the example you gave was one where Texas law allowed for an abortion.



Because if a woman is pregnant and doesn't want an abortion then you can't blame abortion laws on her pregnancy complications.



Well, no. It's limited. And if the a woman doesn't want an abortion then the abortion laws didn't limit her or cause her pregnancy complications.



It makes perfect sense. A childhood cancer that would normally manifest between the ages of 2 and 4 years old never manifest when the child dies of malaria at the age of 1.



Well, no. There is a lot more that would go into that determination including other sources of environmental contamination, and racial/regional predispositions to specific cancers.
The reality is that childhood cancers are low in the most third world countries because of the high rate of infant death in those countries. Childhood cancer rates are much higher in western, first world countries.

Cancer in Children

Survival among children with cancer is improving, but children in low-income countries continue to have worse outcomes than children in high-income countries.

canceratlas.cancer.org

Except that it wasn't higher (see above). The childhood cancer rate in those countries is lower because so many children die in infancy.

Infant Mortality Rate by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

Expect it didn't. There was no time and trend analysis in that paper.



Again, dumb question. the law leaves it to the doctor's discretion, and requires that they keep a complete medical record to justify the determination.

The story you have provided already stated that 1) The determination was made that the 17 week pregnancy was miscarrying and 2) 12 doctors who reviewed the facts of the case agreed and that the pregnancy should have been terminated.

The Medical team told her they had to wait for there to be no heartbeat which was a lie The law stated clearly the exception to that rule, which applied to her case.

Your only real defense of your example is that the woman who would die 72 hours later wasn't in a medical emergency.

1. They knew it was a miscarriage but it had a heart beat. When the heart beat was gone per Texas law.. they removed the fetus.
According to Texas law the heart beat prevented them from removing the fetus. That is the law.
Surviving outside the womb has no bearing on the law.

2 well yes. So cancer rates would initially be lower in malaria countries. . When malaria issue was solved you would expect cancer rates to be similar to countries without malaria.

But cancer rates were higher in countries with DDT use than on malaria countries .
Which means DDT Could be the cause of cancer

3. Sure there was. They measured maternal death rate. Which is independent of the number of pregnancies.

4. But they don’t leave it to a doctors discretion. The doctor is forced to make a call between whats medically indicated and the law.
Yes 12 doctors agree that doing the abortion was medically indicated . But that’s not the law. And medical doctors are not who determine whether a doctor faces charges.

The medical team who told her to wait was not a lie. That was the law. The fetus had a heart beat and the women was medically stable and not in an emergency situation.

Sorry but you are flat out wrong. What’s the irony is that one one hand you don’t want doctors and patients making the decisions, thus laws against abortion , fetal heartbeat rules, no exceptions for health of the mother,
And only in emergency situations,

But when the law causes a woman to die because they doctors hands are tied you scream “ but but we didn’t tie his hands”. He should just know what a prosecutor would think.

 

[Bodi]

The embryo IS making sexual contact. The zygote is formed inside a sexual part of the woman and the embryo goes into the uterus, which is also a sex organ, and it implants in the endometrium there, so it does penetrate part of the sex organs. When it develops sex characteristics, in the seventh week, those sex characteristics are inside a sex organ. The embryo/fetus stays inside that sex organ all during pregnancy. Pregnancy is sexual. Childbirth is sexual. Get over it.

That's nonsense.

Got to love that well thought out and detailed answer there...

 

[Bodi]

The doctors didn't follow the law. They knew it was a miscarriage before they sent her home. All that would be required by Texas state law was the medical records that showed that the baby was in the process of miscarriage and at 17 weeks had no chance of surviving outside the womb.



It was a stupid example because the example you gave was one where Texas law allowed for an abortion.



Because if a woman is pregnant and doesn't want an abortion then you can't blame abortion laws on her pregnancy complications.



Well, no. It's limited. And if the a woman doesn't want an abortion then the abortion laws didn't limit her or cause her pregnancy complications.



It makes perfect sense. A childhood cancer that would normally manifest between the ages of 2 and 4 years old never manifest when the child dies of malaria at the age of 1.



Well, no. There is a lot more that would go into that determination including other sources of environmental contamination, and racial/regional predispositions to specific cancers.
The reality is that childhood cancers are low in the most third world countries because of the high rate of infant death in those countries. Childhood cancer rates are much higher in western, first world countries.

Cancer in Children

Survival among children with cancer is improving, but children in low-income countries continue to have worse outcomes than children in high-income countries.

canceratlas.cancer.org

Except that it wasn't higher (see above). The childhood cancer rate in those countries is lower because so many children die in infancy.

Infant Mortality Rate by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

Expect it didn't. There was no time and trend analysis in that paper.



Again, dumb question. the law leaves it to the doctor's discretion, and requires that they keep a complete medical record to justify the determination.

The story you have provided already stated that 1) The determination was made that the 17 week pregnancy was miscarrying and 2) 12 doctors who reviewed the facts of the case agreed and that the pregnancy should have been terminated.

The Medical team told her they had to wait for there to be no heartbeat which was a lie The law stated clearly the exception to that rule, which applied to her case.

Your only real defense of your example is that the woman who would die 72 hours later wasn't in a medical emergency.

That is a really long way of saying that you want to deny women their right to bodily autonomy and consequently oppress them.

 

[Lursa]

Got to love that well thought out and detailed answer there...

He doesnt have any. He cant support the most basic foundation behind the issue: Who says abortion is wrong?

@Corbell if it's not wrong, why worry about women's decisions?

 

[jmotivator]

1. They knew it was a miscarriage but it had a heart beat. When the heart beat was gone per Texas law.. they removed the fetus.
According to Texas law the heart beat prevented them from removing the fetus. That is the law.
Surviving outside the womb has no bearing on the law.

Again, if they didn't know that the miscarriage was a severe health risk then it was a bad diagnosis... demonstrably so. The doctors who reviewed the case for your article stated as much;

2 well yes. So cancer rates would initially be lower in malaria countries. . When malaria issue was solved you would expect cancer rates to be similar to countries without malaria.

Only if Malaria was the only thing killing infants in third world countries. It's not. But when the deaths from Malaria declined, and more children lived past 2 years old, the number of childhood cancers increased, which was erroneously blamed on DDT.

Ending DDT use on that justification ended up dooming tens of millions of children to death from Malaria again.

But cancer rates were higher in countries with DDT use than on malaria countries .
Which means DDT Could be the cause of cancer.

I'm not sure where your data is coming from, but that not what happened. What happened was infant mortality from malaria skyrocketed again after DDT was discontinued.

3. Sure there was. They measured maternal death rate. Which is independent of the number of pregnancies.

It does and it doesn't. The study points out the weakness in it's limitations section. They have no way to track intention of the mothers in these cases, and whether the pregnancies were intentional or unintentional. The rate of maternal mortality would be higher in a population of women who accept the risks of an intentional pregnancy.

4. But they don’t leave it to a doctors discretion. The doctor is forced to make a call between whats medically indicated and the law.
Yes 12 doctors agree that doing the abortion was medically indicated . But that’s not the law. And medical doctors are not who determine whether a doctor faces charges.

They do leave it to the doctor's discretion based on the diagnosis. It's there in the bill.

The medical team who told her to wait was not a lie. That was the law. The fetus had a heart beat and the women was medically stable and not in an emergency situation.

It was a lie, or based on a bad diagnosis. She was 72 hours away from dying from complications but either the doctor failed to realize that (again, the physicians who reviewed the case stated the doctor should have ended the pregnancy on the first visit), or they didn't know the law. Neither is a problem of the law, and both rest entirely with the doctor.

Sorry but you are flat out wrong. What’s the irony is that one one hand you don’t want doctors and patients making the decisions, thus laws against abortion , fetal heartbeat rules, no exceptions for health of the mother,
And only in emergency situations,

I don't want doctors and patients choosing to kill healthy babies. The baby in this example was not healthy. Again, demonstrably so.

But when the law causes a woman to die because they doctors hands are tied you scream “ but but we didn’t tie his hands”. He should just know what a prosecutor would think.

The law didn't cause women to die. Bad doctors do.

 

[jaeger19]

Again, if they didn't know that the miscarriage was a severe health risk then it was a bad diagnosis... demonstrably so. The doctors who reviewed the case for your article stated as much;



Only if Malaria was the only thing killing infants in third world countries. It's not. But when the deaths from Malaria declined, and more children lived past 2 years old, the number of childhood cancers increased, which was erroneously blamed on DDT.

Ending DDT use on that justification ended up dooming tens of millions of children to death from Malaria again.



I'm not sure where your data is coming from, but that not what happened. What happened was infant mortality from malaria skyrocketed again after DDT was discontinued.



It does and it doesn't. The study points out the weakness in it's limitations section. They have no way to track intention of the mothers in these cases, and whether the pregnancies were intentional or unintentional. The rate of maternal mortality would be higher in a population of women who accept the risks of an intentional pregnancy.



They do leave it to the doctor's discretion based on the diagnosis. It's there in the bill.



It was a lie, or based on a bad diagnosis. She was 72 hours away from dying from complications but either the doctor failed to realize that (again, the physicians who reviewed the case stated the doctor should have ended the pregnancy on the first visit), or they didn't know the law. Neither is a problem of the law, and both rest entirely with the doctor.



I don't want doctors and patients choosing to kill healthy babies. The baby in this example was not healthy. Again, demonstrably so.



The law didn't cause women to die. Bad doctors do.

1. Pregnancy itself is a risk . And the fetus still had a heart beat . Which under the law ,could not be aborted.
The doctors that reviewed the case most certainly new that the women was at risk and that the longer the miscarriage continued the greater the risk of infection.
But as the doctors reviewing the case also stated.. the law does have a prohibition when a heart beat is present. In fact some of the physicians stated that they themselves had delayed care because of the law.

“But Texas’ new abortion ban had just gone into effect. It required physicians to confirm the absence of a fetal heartbeat before intervening unless there was a “medical emergency,” which the law did not define. It required doctors to make written notes on the patient’s condition and the reason abortion was necessary.

The law did not account for the possibility of a future emergency, one that could develop in hours or days without intervention, doctors told ProPublica.”

And a further example in a similar situation.

This is what Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did.

“When a Dallas woman asked a court for approval to end her pregnancy because her fetus was not viable and she faced health risks if she carried it to term, Paxton fought to keep her pregnant. He argued her doctor hadn’t proved it was an emergency and threatened to prosecute anyone who helped her. “Nothing can restore the unborn child’s life that will be lost as a result,” he wrote to the court.”

In addition :

the Biden administration issued federal guidance reminding doctors in hospital emergency rooms they have a duty to treat pregnant patients who need to be stabilized, including by providing abortions for miscarriages.

“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fought against that, arguing that following the guidance would force doctors to “commit crimes” under state law and make every hospital a “walk-in abortion clinic”

Perhaps you should explain to the Texas attorney general how he doesn’t understsnd the law.

YOU “ don’t want doctors killing “ healthy babies”.
Great. Give a definitive diagnosis of “ healthy” .
So a medical provider can determine whether they can provide an abortion or not.
Is it a 10 percent chance they won’t make it to term, 40bpercent”. What if they baby could make it to term but will be on life support until it eventually dies?


No. It’s clear the law caused her death. It’s what happens when government makes medical decisions for people.

You were given the quote by the Texas attorney general .

Explain

 

[choiceone]

That's nonsense.

No, it isn't nonsense.

Your problem is the following.

1. If an embryo were a person, it would have a sex even without sex organs and if it were to implant into the endometrium of her uterus, it would be penetrating her flesh in a sex organ in her body. That IS sexual contact between persons. Without her consent and against her will, the only option is to claim it's rape.

2. If an embryo isn't a person (the Constitution doesn't recognize it as a person), if it implants in the endometrium of her uterus, it's penetrating her flesh in a sex organ, but it has no recognizable rights and can be considered an aspect of her own body. Without her consent and against her will, it's presence is just a bodily disturbance that she should have a right to control.

Nonsense would be if we decided, as the Constitution does, that the embryo isn't a person and so should not be considered to have a separate body violating hers.

 

[choiceone]

And no women are dying because of them. End of story.

There are women who have already died because of the repercussions of the laws for hospitals and doctors.

 

[choiceone]

There in fact was. She WAS in a medical emergency, but either the doctor was too dumb to know the law or too dumb to know that her condition was life threatening.



So she wasn't in a medical emergency... but she died.



You are trying SO HARD to pretend that you provided scenario was not the doctor's fault. SO HARD.

I'd define a medical emergency as a medical condition that was killing the patient.

The doctors that reviewed the case in your own provided article stated that the doctor should have performed the abortion rather than send her home.

So did the doctor misdiagnose her condition such that they believed she wasn't in danger when she demonstrably was? Or were they too stupid to understand the clear wording of the law?

My guess is that the stupid doctor was listening to the misinformation from the Pro-Abortion lobby rather than reading the law themselves, because her determination was in line with those lies rather than the actual law.

The doctor wasn't stupid. There are several complex issues here.

First, my understanding is that no one is obligated to perform an abortion to save a woman's life because he/she has a right of conscience not to perform an abortion. This would legally apply even to a doctor, despite the medical oath to do no harm, because the traditional oath implied not providing an abortion, presumably even in an emergency. My understanding is that no doctor who refuses to provide an abortion to save a woman's life is committing malpractice, because the law doesn't require that an exception be made.

Second, there is a difference between a medical emergency of imminent danger and one of immediate danger. It's the difference between a problem that will cause her death or is very likely to do so, but not at this moment, and a problem that is already causing her death. The problem is that, if the doctor does not treat the woman in imminent but not immediate danger, the latter can arise and so suddently result in death that a decent doctor will prefer not to wait.

Third, no one should make a law that forces a doctor to risk his medical license and liberty, and therefore his family's entire livelihood, to treat a patient in imminent or even eventual but not imminent danger and so risk being arrested. Doctors aren't Jesus Christ, so you don't get to treat them that unjustly and get away with it.

 

[choiceone]

. . . .
The delay was caused by the doctor either underestimating the clear threat to the mother, or absolutely misunderstanding the law, or both.

The Texas law doesn't prevent an abortion in that case. . . .

No, the delay was caused by the doctor's taking account of the law's passage on not providing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected unless the woman's life is immediately threatened.

This case is exactly like the one in Ireland involving Savita Halappanavar, which led to a huge movement to change Ireland's anti-abortion law.

In that case, too, because of the fetal heartbeat, doctors waited for the heartbeat to end naturally while monitoring the woman so that, if she started going into sepsis before that happened, they would intervene. But sepsis can arise quickly and cause death, and that's what happened.

Naturally, the Catholic church claimed it was malpractice, but in fact it wasn't. The doctors were attempting to follow a poorly written law. So the movement against the law led to a new law. Some Catholic priests actually said, "We've lost Ireland!" That is what was stupic.

 

[choiceone]

No, it isn't nonsense.

Your problem is the following.

1. If an embryo were a person, it would have a sex even without sex organs and if it were to implant into the endometrium of her uterus, it would be penetrating her flesh in a sex organ in her body. That IS sexual contact between persons. Without her consent and against her will, the only option is to claim it's rape.

2. If an embryo isn't a person (the Constitution doesn't recognize it as a person), if it implants in the endometrium of her uterus, it's penetrating her flesh in a sex organ, but it has no recognizable rights and can be considered an aspect of her own body. Without her consent and against her will, it's presence is just a bodily disturbance that she should have a right to control.

Nonsense would be if we decided, as the Constitution does, that the embryo isn't a person and so should not be considered to have a separate body violating hers.

The last sentence should read, "Nonsense would be if we decided, as the Constitution doesn't, that the embryo is a person and should be considered to have a separate body, but the pregnancy isn't sexual.

 

[MAGAnificent]

There are women who have already died because of the repercussions of the laws for hospitals and doctors.

1000% BS.

 

[Corbell]

Got to love that well thought out and detailed answer there...

It's all that needed to be said. THe other post was nonsense.

 

[jaeger19]

1000% BS.

Great. Again explain why these doctors all have it wrong
Here is what the Texas attorney general did.
When a Dallas woman asked a court for approval to end her pregnancy because her fetus was not viable and she faced health risks if she carried it to term, Paxton fought to keep her pregnant. He argued her doctor hadn’t proved it was an emergency and threatened to prosecute anyone who helped her. “Nothing can restore the unborn child’s life that will be lost as a result,” he wrote to the court.”

Explain why the Texas attorney general doesn’t understand Texas law.
And explain why the physicians in Texas should disregard the Texas attorney general.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Great. Again explain why these doctors all have it wrong
Here is what the Texas attorney general did.
When a Dallas woman asked a court for approval to end her pregnancy because her fetus was not viable and she faced health risks if she carried it to term, Paxton fought to keep her pregnant. He argued her doctor hadn’t proved it was an emergency and threatened to prosecute anyone who helped her. “Nothing can restore the unborn child’s life that will be lost as a result,” he wrote to the court.”

Explain why the Texas attorney general doesn’t understand Texas law.
And explain why the physicians in Texas should disregard the Texas attorney general.

Once again, last time I checked, there were no state troopers, police, TBI agents, or border guards preventing her from traveling to another state to terminate her pregancy. Texas abortion laws did not kill her.

 

[jaeger19]

Once again, last time I checked, there were no state troopers, police, TBI agents, or border guards preventing her from traveling to another state to terminate her pregancy. Texas abortion laws did not kill her.

If Texas law didn’t kill her. Why does she have to leave the state to get the care she desperately needed?

Please explain lol.

 

[MAGAnificent]

If Texas law didn’t kill her. Why does she have to leave the state to get the care she desperately needed?

Please explain lol.

The point is that she had the choice of travelling to a different state to get the abortion and she didn't. The Texas abortion laws did not kill her. A combination of not going elsewhere and an incompetent medical team did.

 

[jaeger19]

The point is that she had the choice of travelling to a different state to get the abortion and she didn't. The Texas abortion laws did not kill her. A combination of not going elsewhere and an incompetent medical team did.

The point is why did she have to leave the state to get life saving care?

You simply refuse to acknowledge facts.

You realize this women went to the hospital not knowing she needed an abortion right?

Is it your expectation she should have diagnosed herself.. then driven perhaps hours to an out of state hospital to get care she didn’t know she needed?