America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 months ago by Whistlebritches. 78 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
TEXAS AG would rather you die then get a medically needed Abortion
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
ZRX1200 Offline
#51 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 1:32 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
And ABC ran a piece this morning with Diane Sawyer and a panel of women….this feels so organic [sarc]
Abrignac Offline
#52 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 2:15 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
If zealots didn’t pass asinine laws such as the one in Texas there wouldn’t be a need for such lawsuits.

To begin with the Texas law kicks in 6 weeks into a pregnancy. Might as well change it moment of conception. I’m not sure of the percentage, but I’m sure a vast majority of women skip a period once in their life. So it’s not a stretch to say that a women may not even know that she’s pregnant until 3-6 weeks post conception.
ZRX1200 Offline
#53 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 2:20 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Thanks for your white privileged mansplaining….
DrafterX Offline
#54 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 2:28 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
CROS was born with the Trisomy 18 and he turned out just fine... Mellow
rfenst Offline
#55 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 3:36 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
drglnc wrote:
...She left the day of the ruling most likely because she was told by lawyers that either A she was going to lose the court ruling or B that they didn't know how long it would take to get the ruling and if the doctors are telling her that the longer she waits the more risk she has then of course she decided to go elsewhere. luckily she had that ability and means...

Its not like she woke up and decided she didn't want the Baby... she had multiple emergencies related to the pregnancy. Her Doctors informed her that there was virtually no chance that their baby would survive to birth and continuing the pregnancy would pose grave risks to her life as well as jeopardize her future fertility. Why is a judge making decisions based on this and not the doctor. it is ridiculous.

How would you all feel if after multiple hospitalizations your wife's doctor said this pregnancy is not viable and will possibly kill you and ruin your chances at future pregnancy, then your told by a judge... If you die... You die... the fetus that is most likely going to die with in days of birth (only a 5% chance you even get that far) and has less then zero expectation of any quality life is more important then you?

Testimonial facts don't convince the Troglodytes around here of anything, let alone the truth.

The trial judge who wrote the order fcked' up big time. TSC should have remanded (sent) the case back to the trial court for clarification testimony. But, this was a political decision, made against common legal principals of appellate review.

I read the Texas Supreme Court Opinion. The ruling was based on a hyper-technicality that it punted on instead of deciding on the legal merits.

The TSC should have properly ruled that the case was not "ripe" (ready for review) because the trial judge did not use a few "magic words", one way or the other, in the Order. That is not her fault. The TSC should have done something to provide her the timely right to prove this situation falls within the pro-choice exceptions. It's delay was really just a blanket denial.

Believing her medical condition as you described above, I think she did the right thing. If she were my wife or daughter, I would be proud of her for trying to do this the right way under Texas law. Then, my advice would be for my wife or daughter to get out of that chit-hole state.
ZRX1200 Offline
#56 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 4:10 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Or the TSC could have just sat on the case like the 5th and 9th circus are currently doing because they don’t like upper courts decisions so they’re delaying rights…..

So do we only get mad at the other teams courts or do we get reforms?
HockeyDad Offline
#57 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 4:15 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
Troglodytes and a chithole state.

Well I guess that pretty much closes this thread down.
frankj1 Offline
#58 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 4:47 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
well, as long as we're stuck on vocabulary and have decided words matter...

there are likely no "convenience" abortions but that term does lead one to infer what the speakers' opinions are of many women

there aren't pro-abortion people opposed to pro-life people, but there are pro-choice opponents...but calling them pro-abortion also creates an incorrect understanding of the opposition and cancels discussion...

I am pro-choice. As it happens, I'd like to believe I'd always choose life...but ya never know.

What ever happened to the right side of the aisle being dedicated to less government in our lives?
Between this subject and State approved executions, I simply can't imagine further overreach by any government

To think people compare taxes and seat belts and stuff to Nazi Germany!
HockeyDad Offline
#59 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 5:29 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
There’s no convenience abortions?

The desire to abort this child is because it is going to be born handicapped. That sounds inconvenient. Maybe it should be ok to abort handicapped children up to birth but right now the law in Texas doesn’t allow for that after six weeks.

Had they known it would be handicapped within the first six weeks it would have been resolved so instead they tried to change the law and failed.





rfenst Offline
#60 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 5:50 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
HockeyDad wrote:
There’s no convenience abortions?

The desire to abort this child is because it is going to be born handicapped. That sounds inconvenient. Maybe it should be ok to abort handicapped children up to birth but right now the law in Texas doesn’t allow for that after six weeks.

Had they known it would be handicapped within the first six weeks it would have been resolved so instead they tried to change the law and failed.


You are dead wrong on two things here.

This had nothing to do with a "handicapped" baby in the womb within the usual meaning of the word. Her life was at risk. An important bodily function was at risk. The unborn child was close to certainly going to die, if even born alive. You have no proof otherwise of it being anything less.

Nice try at switching the lingo! Sarcasm

She did not try to "change the law." She sought proper and legal court procedures within the exception provided for in the statute.

Your words even deny her that right.
Gene363 Offline
#61 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 6:18 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
Let's be honest and call abortion what it is, killing. I prefer to say murder, but abortion is just too clinical. Then make it a decision between a doc, the Mother and the Father, you wish to kill the child you created, sign here and we'll crush the little inconcoence and flush it down the sewer.

Some limited intelects will consider this as anti-woman in spite of the fact that roughly half the childern murdered by abortion would have been women denied any and all rights.
HockeyDad Offline
#62 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 6:22 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
Her life wasn’t at risk. They couldn’t find a doctor who would sign on to that. We’ve all emotionally signed on to her life was in danger or she might not be able to have kids in the future but doctors wouldn’t sign on to that. We’ve just emotionally declared that a fact.

That’s why they pre-sued like getting a pre-approval from an HMO for a CAT scan. They wanted to change “in the exercise of a reasonable medical judgment” to “good faith belief” that an abortion is necessary.

The unborn child was close to certainly going to die, if even born alive. Texas law doesn’t allow that as grounds for eliminating it.
rfenst Offline
#63 Posted: Wed, Dec 13 2023, 6:25 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
Gene363 wrote:
Let's be honest and call abortion what it is, killing. I prefer to say murder, but abortion is just too clinical. Then make it a decision between a doc, the Mother

I agree with the above, including the word "killing" because that is truly what it is. If it makes you more comfortable, I'll also agree it is "murder".
drglnc Offline
#64 Posted: Thu, Dec 14 2023, 2:37 PM EST
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
HockeyDad wrote:
Her life wasn’t at risk. They couldn’t find a doctor who would sign on to that. We’ve all emotionally signed on to her life was in danger or she might not be able to have kids in the future but doctors wouldn’t sign on to that. We’ve just emotionally declared that a fact.

That’s why they pre-sued like getting a pre-approval from an HMO for a CAT scan. They wanted to change “in the exercise of a reasonable medical judgment” to “good faith belief” that an abortion is necessary.

The unborn child was close to certainly going to die, if even born alive. Texas law doesn’t allow that as grounds for eliminating it.



Except... if you read the Cox Vs Texas petition... this is not true...

The petition lays out the factors such as health risk and inability to birth more children in the future based on the possible scenarios playing out if the abortion is not granted... it also provides the name of the DR that has not only signed off on the need but also the willingness to perform the abortion once approval (CYA) is received.

They were seeking Pre Approval as a (clearly necessary) CYA because the Drs are fearful of the blow back that Texas has guaranteed would occur with politicians and judges making medical decisions... they new the law made allowances, and also knew that Texas would ignore those allowances and hunt them down... which it now has proved to be the case...
rfenst Offline
#65 Posted: Thu, Dec 14 2023, 3:13 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
drglnc wrote:
Except... if you read the Cox Vs Texas petition... this is not true...

The petition lays out the factors such as health risk and inability to birth more children in the future based on the possible scenarios playing out if the abortion is not granted... it also provides the name of the DR that has not only signed off on the need but also the willingness to perform the abortion once approval (CYA) is received.

They were seeking Pre Approval as a (clearly necessary) CYA because the Drs are fearful of the blow back that Texas has guaranteed would occur with politicians and judges making medical decisions... they new the law made allowances, and also knew that Texas would ignore those allowances and hunt them down... which it now has proved to be the case...

True that.

The penalty is life in parison with a fine of at least $100k. Then there are the civil lawsuits any disinterested Texan can file and collect on. It's so one sided that if the Plaintiif (person suing) wins, defendant (person sued) has to pay damages plus fees and costs; but if the Defendant wins the are forbidden from collecting fees and costs...
Abrignac Offline
#66 Posted: Fri, Dec 15 2023, 9:52 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
rfenst wrote:
True that.

The penalty is life in parison with a fine of at least $100k. Then there are the civil lawsuits any disinterested Texan can file and collect on. It's so one sided that if the Plaintiif (person suing) wins, defendant (person sued) has to pay damages plus fees and costs; but if the Defendant wins the are forbidden from collecting fees and costs...


As I’ve stated before, it’s a law passed by a bunch of zealots.
ZRX1200 Offline
#67 Posted: Fri, Dec 15 2023, 6:32 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Yet Californians keep moving there…..weird
rfenst Offline
#68 Posted: Sat, Dec 16 2023, 7:12 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
ZRX1200 wrote:
Yet Californians keep moving there…..weird

Part of the reason Texas' electorate is turning purple on its way to blue...
Whistlebritches Offline
#69 Posted: Sat, Dec 16 2023, 11:24 PM EST
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
rfenst wrote:
Part of the reason Texas' electorate is turning purple on its way to blue...



Wishful thinking Poindexter
Whistlebritches Offline
#70 Posted: Sat, Dec 16 2023, 11:27 PM EST
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
Abrignac wrote:
As I’ve stated before, it’s a law passed by a bunch of zealots.



Actually its a law passed by people who care about children..........when abortion is completely banned (COMPLETELY) I'll rest

Life begins at conception
rfenst Offline
#71 Posted: Sun, Dec 17 2023, 11:40 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
Whistlebritches wrote:
Life begins at conception

I agree it's murder, but disagree with you on this issue.
Interestingly, voters in Texas don't agree that abortion should be banned.
Times are changing in ways you won't like...
Whistlebritches Offline
#72 Posted: Sun, Dec 17 2023, 12:01 PM EST
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
rfenst wrote:
I agree it's murder, but disagree with you on this issue.
Interestingly, voters in Texas don't agree that abortion should be banned.
Times are changing in ways you won't like...


Well sir the Texas Supreme Court and the voters support the anti abortion law.........not sure what else you need.

Now that being said I know there will be challenges to be addressed in 2024.........Just like our border issues,I have faith
rfenst Offline
#73 Posted: Sun, Dec 17 2023, 1:43 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
Whistlebritches wrote:
Well sir the Texas Supreme Court and the voters support the anti abortion law.........not sure what else you need.

Now that being said I know there will be challenges to be addressed in 2024.........Just like our border issues,I have faith


UT/Texas Politics Project Poll: Majority of Texans Oppose Banning Abortion; Texans Saying State Is on the Wrong Track Reaches Historic High

https://news.utexas.edu/2022/07/06/ut-texas-politics-project-poll-majority-of-texans-oppose-banning-abortion-texans-saying-state-is-on-the-wrong-track-reaches-historic-high/

After the last ruling, I think more voters in favor will come out.
BuckyB93 Offline
#74 Posted: Sun, Dec 17 2023, 3:16 PM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,203
Should abortion be outlawed? I say no.
Should the procedure and process receive government funding? I say no.

I see it as a personal issue and I don't think it's any of my business to push my personal opinions and beliefs onto others and vice versa
rfenst Offline
#75 Posted: Sun, Dec 17 2023, 4:05 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
BuckyB93 wrote:
Should abortion be outlawed? I say no.
Should the procedure and process receive government funding? I say no.

I see it as a personal issue and I don't think it's any of my business to push my personal opinions and beliefs onto others and vice versa

Agree 100%.
Whistlebritches Offline
#76 Posted: Sun, Dec 17 2023, 5:08 PM EST
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
BuckyB93 wrote:
Should abortion be outlawed? I say no.
Should the procedure and process receive government funding? I say no.

I see it as a personal issue and I don't think it's any of my business to push my personal opinions and beliefs onto others and vice versa



rfenst wrote:
Agree 100%.



Okay gentleman where do you stand on the death penalty??

I may be wrong here but my heart says anyone who supports taking the most innocent of life should have no trouble condemning the most evil among us.

What say you?
BuckyB93 Offline
#77 Posted: Sun, Dec 17 2023, 6:41 PM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,203
I'm not anti death penalty.

I have my own personal opinions on these topics and I try not to put them out there. I haven't had to deal with either of them. Both are touchy subjects and not clear cut to put a line in the sand. My opinion is just that, my opinion. Each of these have extenuating circumstances.

Am I pro life? Yes but, again, extenuating circumstances may over rule my opinion (rape, still birth, dangerous health to the mother and/or child) which I understand. I personally wouldn't choose that as a solution but there situations where it might be the best call.

Am I pro death penalty? Yes, in some cases the offender should answer to the creator. Serial killer, rape and stuff like that needs to answer to a higher power for their actions.

Then there is the right to die. Should you be able to, under doctor guidance, allow yourself to die? I would say yes. I have a do not resuscitate in my medical records. If I cannot speak for myself and if the only way I can stay alive is being a vegetable attached to a machine, pull the plug on me. Here in MA, it takes three independent doctors coming to the same consensus and then need approval from my medical power of attorney.
Whistlebritches Offline
#78 Posted: Sun, Dec 17 2023, 10:38 PM EST
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
BuckyB93 wrote:
I'm not anti death penalty.

I have my own personal opinions on these topics and I try not to put them out there. I haven't had to deal with either of them. Both are touchy subjects and not clear cut to put a line in the sand. My opinion is just that, my opinion. Each of these have extenuating circumstances.

Am I pro life? Yes but, again, extenuating circumstances may over rule my opinion (rape, still birth, dangerous health to the mother and/or child) which I understand. I personally wouldn't choose that as a solution but there situations where it might be the best call.

Am I pro death penalty? Yes, in some cases the offender should answer to the creator. Serial killer, rape and stuff like that needs to answer to a higher power for their actions.

Then there is the right to die. Should you be able to, under doctor guidance, allow yourself to die? I would say yes. I have a do not resuscitate in my medical records. If I cannot speak for myself and if the only way I can stay alive is being a vegetable attached to a machine, pull the plug on me. Here in MA, it takes three independent doctors coming to the same consensus and then need approval from my medical power of attorney.



Well we are on the same page.

Was hoping someone would pipe and put Mrs Cox's abortion needs in context.She was never in any real danger.......the truth is she was told her unborn child wasn't right,the child would always have medical issues and it was doubtful the child would ever have a chance at a normal life.My heart goes out to this family and if the choice they made was theirs and theirs alone I don't necessarily support them but the choice to have the procedure performed elsewhere was always on the table(which is exactly what she did).Dallas to Wichita Kansas is a 5 hour drive............much cheaper than a lawsuit........so who's really behind this????? George Soros(the devil himself comes to mind)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Back to Top