Posted on 08/05/2023 2:32:43 AM PDT by thegagline
A Texas judge ruled Friday the state’s abortion ban has proven too restrictive for women with serious pregnancy complications and must allow exceptions without doctors fearing the threat of criminal charges.
The ruling is the first to undercut Texas’ law since it took effect in 2022 and delivers a major victory to abortion rights supporters, who see the case as a potential blueprint to weaken restrictions elsewhere that Republican-led states have rushed to implement.
***
“This is exactly why we did this. This is why we put ourselves through the pain and the trauma over and over again to share our experiences and the harms caused by these awful laws.”
The challenge is believed to be the first in the U.S. brought by women who have been denied abortions since the Supreme Court last year overturned Roe v. Wade, which for nearly 50 years had affirmed the constitutional right to an abortion. ***
“Today’s ruling should prevent other Texans from suffering the unthinkable trauma our plaintiffs endured,” said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights***
“It would be unconscionable for the State of Texas to appeal this ruling.” *** During two days of emotional testimony in an Austin courtroom, women gave wrenching accounts of learning their babies would not survive birth and being unable to travel long distances to states where abortion is still legal.
*** The challenge, filed in March, does not seek to repeal Texas’ abortion ban, but instead aims to force more clarity on when exceptions are allowed under the law, which is one of the most restrictive in the U.S.
Under the law in Texas, doctors who perform abortions risk life in prison and fines of up to $100,000.***
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Another “judge” Legislating by decree.
German law allows the pregnancy to be interrupted after the first trimester for a serious matter BUT THIS ISN’T A RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. The life of the baby has to be saved if this is reasonably possible.
In this Texas case, according to the news story, we’re talking of babies that would not survive birth. Possibly, ectopic pregnancies which are not only harmful to the baby but also to the mother. A termination of the pregnancy THAT IS NOT AN ABORTION might be able to save both. We live in an age of miracles. Let’s think life. Not abortion.
States rights.
What LAW did the judge cite to bolster her ruling? We are in a place where judges use their feelings instead of law. In doing so, these judges set themselves up as a higher authority than elected legislators.
The immediate impact of State District Judge Jessica Mangrum’s decision was unclear in Texas, where all abortion clinics have shuttered in the past year.
All of this would be fixed by having abortions done in real medical clinics. Abortions are performed in the Port-A-John of medical facilities to keep the costs down.
Late term abortion to protect the health of the mother is NEVER needed.
Once the baby is viable, it can be delivered and put in NICU. There is NO need to kill it to *save* the mother’s life.
Life threatening complications rarely occur earlier on in the pregnancy.
The ONLY complication that justifies ending the pregnancy is an ectopic pregnancy, and that has NEVER been considered an abortion. Ectopic pregnancies are fatal when the Fallopian tube ruptures and if it does, the baby is dead anyway, so it’s not even aborting the pregnancy to deal with that medical emergency.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refuted that idea in a statement released this week, stating that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives.
“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG said.
So who's the kid?
-PJ
In which of those cases, would the mother die if an emergency C-Section was done instead of an abortion?
Why put a mother through a c-section when the baby is dead?
Not all of them would be stillborn. If they baby is already dead, I don’t think that’s an abortion.
Is the judge a doctor?
Abortion is NOT needed.
Deliver the baby early and put it in NICU and save the baby’s life.
If the baby is dead, it’s not an abortion in the sense that involves the killing the baby under the pretense of saving them mother’s life.
And nobody is telling the doctors to do nothing while the mother’s condition worsens
There are other medical options besides killing the baby to treat the mother.
And nearly all medical professionals must know this?
You would think.....
But having seen the medical community in action over the last few years, I am not convinced they have our best interests at heart in spite of the few that actually do care and do no harm.
I used the phrase, from the German law, if possible. If you know the state of medicine with respect to ectopic pregnancies, you can speak to the matter.
I’ll give an example that involved a friend of mine. A fellow ROTC cadet. I’ll just give his name as John. His mom had a choice during his pregnancy. Either she or her baby could be saved. She choose to give up her life so her son could live. This was not required by law or by the Catholic Church. She freely gave her life. John always felt her spirit strong with him. And he resolved to live his life well so he could meet her in the next life, not that he or any of us is perfect. Nowadays, with advances in medicine, I presume both could live.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.