• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doctors in red states put in impossible position to care properly for their pregnant patients

Yes, I get it's going to cause more minorities to be born than whites. That's why I said "regardless of whether or not it is going to mainly affect women of color." What I was trying to say was it doesn't matter if 100 black children are born to every 25 white under the overturn of Roe . What this rep was accidentally saying IMHO is it is most important to save the 25 white children regardless of how many more are born to black mothers. Rep Miller probably figures the additional black children are living in ghettos and will kill themselves off in violence and in this way the numbers will balance out in the long run. That's not my belief so don't shoot the messenger.
 
Yes, I get it's going to cause more minorities to be born than whites.

I see.


I don't think that follows. Not at all. In fact I am completely confused trying to follow this train of thought.
 


Here is a real world story about the stupidity of these laws...


 
Those girls under 15 are 5 times more likely to die due to pregnancy than those over 20. You have to wonder what the percentage is for those 12 and under. Although many as young as 10 can actually get pregnant, it might be a death sentence for both mother and child.
 
And the doctors can’t due to vague laws… which was the topic in the OP
There is nothing in any states laws that would prevent a doctor from handling an abortion related emergency.
 

So you think a state should be able to deny someone an abortion, even when the chances of the mother dying are extremely high. In the article above a ten year old rape victim in Ohio was denied an abortion. Her chances of living through a pregnancy and giving birth, well I would not put money on it if I were you. Anyone under the age of 15 is 5 times more likely to die from pregnancy and I suspect someone as young as ten is basically doomed. So the life of a ten year old rape victim is not as important as a bunch of cells and the probability of the a living child is remote, and yet, a state can pass a law condemning her to probably death. And of course you agree with this!!!!!!!! And the lying members of SCOTUS just passed a probable death sentence on this girl/baby. This girl was lucky that she was able to go to another state to get the abortion, but if Ohio and other states pass laws making it illegal to leave the state for an abortion, even this would not have been available to this little girl. Yeah, glad you are so willing to stick up for the lying five on the court.
 
There is nothing in any states laws that would prevent a doctor from handling an abortion related emergency.
Isn't there? There are states that are questioning the removal of the egg when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy.
 
There is nothing in any states laws that would prevent a doctor from handling an abortion related emergency.

Why was this woman denied an abortion?

 
I see.



I don't think that follows. Not at all. In fact I am completely confused trying to follow this train of thought.
Well, ultimately the point is probably not even worth defending. But I thank you for at least indulging it.
 
Why was this woman denied an abortion?

It's unlikely that we are getting the full story from that tweet. I doubt the doctor or hospital refused to perform a DNC which is not banned for miscarraiges. My bet is that there were issues with her insurance covering it.
 
It's unlikely that we are getting the full story from that tweet. I doubt the doctor or hospital refused to perform a DNC which is not banned for miscarraiges. My bet is that there were issues with her insurance covering it.

So you think she is lying?
 
So you think she is lying?
No, I just don't think she is telling the entire story. I have never heard of a doctor refusing to perform a DNC after a miscarriage.
 
No, I just don't think she is telling the entire story. I have never heard of a doctor refusing to perform a DNC after a miscarriage.


Wow! Houston must be full of liars... Here is ANOTHER couple who faced the same kind of thing... Houston Methodist is also in on the big lie....

But on May 10, at 18 weeks pregnant, the 26-year-old Elizabeth returned from a jog and saw blood leaking out of her vagina. Then her water broke.

Later, in the Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital emergency room, she learned she had lost a dangerous amount of amniotic fluid, which is essential for fetal development. She faced an increased risk of infection and other life-threatening complications. Doctors presented her with two devastating options: Wait until Theodora becomes viable around 24 weeks and deliver her, only to watch her die or live with a severe disability, or induce labor now and effectively terminate the pregnancy.
“In my mind, the only rational thing to do, on top of the only emotionally merciful thing to do, would be to choose (termination), to save her from going through this type of suffering,” said Elizabeth, a political science graduate student at the University of Houston. “I couldn’t justify putting her through that.”

Elizabeth agonized over her choice. Then she realized she didn’t have one. The hospital did not approve her for immediate induction, a Houston Methodist spokesperson said, because she did not meet the standards set forth in the state’s highly restrictive abortion laws, which create civil penalties for terminating a pregnancy when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat.

The newly amended Texas Health and Safety Code only allows a termination when the pregnant woman is in “danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” — vague terminology that is open to a range of interpretations. A violation opens providers up to lawsuits, fines and, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, a felony charge.

 
With any social media post, dig deeper to find out the truth for yourself.


Is the Houston Methodist spokesperson lying? It sound like you don't want the hear the truth...

But on May 10, at 18 weeks pregnant, the 26-year-old Elizabeth returned from a jog and saw blood leaking out of her vagina. Then her water broke.

Later, in the Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital emergency room, she learned she had lost a dangerous amount of amniotic fluid, which is essential for fetal development. She faced an increased risk of infection and other life-threatening complications. Doctors presented her with two devastating options: Wait until Theodora becomes viable around 24 weeks and deliver her, only to watch her die or live with a severe disability, or induce labor now and effectively terminate the pregnancy.
“In my mind, the only rational thing to do, on top of the only emotionally merciful thing to do, would be to choose (termination), to save her from going through this type of suffering,” said Elizabeth, a political science graduate student at the University of Houston. “I couldn’t justify putting her through that.”

Elizabeth agonized over her choice. Then she realized she didn’t have one. The hospital did not approve her for immediate induction, a Houston Methodist spokesperson said, because she did not meet the standards set forth in the state’s highly restrictive abortion laws, which create civil penalties for terminating a pregnancy when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat.

The newly amended Texas Health and Safety Code only allows a termination when the pregnant woman is in “danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” — vague terminology that is open to a range of interpretations. A violation opens providers up to lawsuits, fines and, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, a felony charge.

 
True enough. A 12-year old victim of incest was recently taken by her mother to Kansas to get an abortion. She would have died otherwise.

 
Ran into a paywall on your link.
 
Actually, after taking a look at her Twitter feed, it reads like an SJW manifesto.

Is the Houston Methodist spokesman in the OTHER case lying?
 
Also note her condition was from last year that had nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling.

WTF? This thread is about DOCTORS in red states, not about the supreme court ruling... good lord Does the link work for you?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…