Quote:

---

Texas Medical Board claimed the association has received complaints regarding hospital administrators disallowing medical care providers from offering critical services to patients with ectopic pregnancies and other child birth complications.

---

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-abortion-law-hospitals-clinic-medication-17307401.php?t=61d7f0b189

I call Bull***** Not happening unless Dems/Libs are doing it to simply make a political statement. Then they are even more disgusting than I ever imagined.

Lol, white libs lyin

I'm no journalist, but if I was writing this piece I might reach out to a few hospitals and see if they're adopting such policies.

Is OP a Keef DB account whats with all the lies around this stuff.

Weird they post a letter instead of an interview with someone this happened to. Can't interview what doesnt exist I guess

"Received complaints" by angry white women who aren't pregnant.

PaulC_80 said:

---

I call Bull***** Not happening unless Dems/Libs are doing it to simply make a political statement. Then they are even more disgusting than I ever imagined.

---

Libs would definitely sacrifice the lives of women for the sake of their god Molech. Isn't that right, OP?

Smells like the ivermectin overdoses in Oklahoma, I hope hospitals aren't this stupid, you don't wait for an ectopic to rupture that's complete bullshi$:&

BREAKING NEWS!

Lib rag reports other org reports others are compaining without corroborating evidence!

More at 11!

boboguitar said:

---

Quote:

---

Texas Medical Board claimed the association has received complaints regarding hospital administrators disallowing medical care providers from offering critical services to patients with ectopic pregnancies and other child birth complications.

---

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-abortion-law-hospitals-clinic-medication-17307401.php?t=61d7f0b189

---

Which hospitals?

Alan Combs Zombie said:

---

Is OP a Keef DB account whats with all the lies around this stuff.

---

No. Just pro baby-killing at all costs.

Bull****

And, if true , they should lose their license. Nothing in Texas law prevents those services. Ruhtards that think so are, well, ruhtards

FTAggies said:

---

Smells like the ivermectin overdoses in Oklahoma, I hope hospitals aren't this stupid, you don't wait for an ectopic to rupture that's complete bullshi$:&

---

You think they'd risk getting sued out of existence?

PaulC_80 said:

---

I call Bull***** Not happening unless Dems/Libs are doing it to simply make a political statement. Then they are even more disgusting than I ever imagined.

---

Exactly. The far left (aka libs, progressives, dims, socialists, marxists, dictator loving heathens, etc) would gladly sacrifice many, even on their own side, if it means making a political statement "for the cause." They have no scruples and will hide behind even the deaths of others if it is the means to an end.

Houston Comical...

I don't read that trash rag.

BigRobSA said:

---

Bull****

And, if true , they should lose their license. Nothing in Texas law prevents those services. Ruhtards that think so are, well, ruhtards

---

Right, as you often are BigRob. And that ain't sarcasm sir.

"I'll take, Things That Didn't Happen, for $500 Alex"

I doubt many here would believe it, but a reliable source told me a woman at 18 weeks had her water break at a CS hospital, which tends to lead to loss of the pregnancy at that stage, but since they could still detect a fetal heartbeat there was little that legal would allow them to do unless she went septic, or went into labor, but infection was the expected outcome.

oldyeller said:

---

I doubt many here would believe it, but a reliable source told me a woman at 18 weeks had her water break at a CS hospital, which tends to lead to loss of the pregnancy at that stage, but since they could still detect a fetal heartbeat there was little that legal would allow them to do unless she went septic, or went into labor, but infection was the expected outcome.

---

Why do they hire dumb people in their "legal" department? Honest question.

BigRobSA said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

I doubt many here would believe it, but a reliable source told me a woman at 18 weeks had her water break at a CS hospital, which tends to lead to loss of the pregnancy at that stage, but since they could still detect a fetal heartbeat there was little that legal would allow them to do unless she went septic, or went into labor, but infection was the expected outcome.

---

Why do they hire dumb people in their "legal" department? Honest question.

---

Those dummies in legal are the reason everyone still has to mask up in clinics.

oldyeller said:

---

I doubt many here would believe it, but a reliable source told me a woman at 18 weeks had her water break at a CS hospital, which tends to lead to loss of the pregnancy at that stage, but since they could still detect a fetal heartbeat there was little that legal would allow them to do unless she went septic, or went into labor, but infection was the expected outcome.

---

I don't really understand your point.

If baby is alive and mom is fine, most obs would let baby pass without directly killing him (which yes, is unfortunately almost inevitable) then perform a d+c to remove products of conception if labor does not occur naturally after baby passes. What is the gotcha?

It's a horrible situation all around, either going to result in miscarriage or missed miscarriage. After the loss is confirmed, mom is the only patient and you do what needs to be done to prevent an intrauterine infection.

"Ma'am I can't treat your Ectopic Pregnancy because you are not pregnant."

Oh bull*****

Abortion on demand should abort the mother as well. Abortion due to rape or the mother dying during childbirth……..I almost understand but not really.

Pro-abortion propaganda. Expect more of every imaginable kind.

The problem is that the 1925 criminal statute, which AG Paxton says in in effect now, only has an exception for saving the life of the mother and no explicit exception for ectopic pregnancies. With premature ruptured membranes, there is a risk of infection but is induction necessary at that moment to save the life of the mother? The doctors are in a tough spot but only the doctor can determine what is best for the patient and whether it is necessary to save the life of the mother, thereby steering clear of the 1925 law. Hospital lawyers can't make that call.

cbaker20 said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

I doubt many here would believe it, but a reliable source told me a woman at 18 weeks had her water break at a CS hospital, which tends to lead to loss of the pregnancy at that stage, but since they could still detect a fetal heartbeat there was little that legal would allow them to do unless she went septic, or went into labor, but infection was the expected outcome.

---

I don't really understand your point.

If baby is alive and mom is fine, most obs would let baby pass without directly killing him (which yes, is unfortunately almost inevitable) then perform a d+c to remove products of conception if labor does not occur naturally after baby passes. What is the gotcha?

It's a horrible situation all around, either going to result in miscarriage or missed miscarriage. After the loss is confirmed, mom is the only patient and you do what needs to be done to prevent an intrauterine infection.

---

The point is in this specific case medical staff are deferring to legal, after noting, again in this specific case, infection is most likely and expected, and legal dictating that they could only intervene if she goes septic and it can reasonably be argued her life is in jeopardy. So the point is it is lawyers, rather than physicians, who are making the medical decisions, and apparently advocating that patients assume significantly greater risk than previously might have been warranted for fear of prosecution.

Quote:

---

The doctors are in a tough spot but only the doctor can determine what is best for the patient and whether it is necessary to save the life of the mother, thereby steering clear of the 1925 law. Hospital lawyers can't make that call.

---

Are you sure about that? You are probably correct but I have some doubts about how certain privileges of doctors at hospitals can be terminated. And hospital administrators and the hospital lawyers are extremely risk averse in my experience.

While yes it is good that the prolife won, rules need to be made to let these docs do their jobs so that pregnant women don't die due to sepsis or hemorrhage. Ectopic pregnancies, spontaneous and inevitable abortions are serious medical issues, and not allowing intervention (abortion D+C) because of a pro-life stance (when the baby dies in all scenarios regardless), shows a lack of understanding of medicine and arrogance.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The doctors are in a tough spot but only the doctor can determine what is best for the patient and whether it is necessary to save the life of the mother, thereby steering clear of the 1925 law. Hospital lawyers can't make that call.

---

Are you sure about that? You are probably correct but I have some doubts about how certain privileges of doctors at hospitals can be terminated. And hospital administrators and the hospital lawyers are extremely risk averse in my experience.

---

Doctors can't practice medicine anymore, it's up to the admins, lawmakers, and insurance adjusters to make medical decisions now, even though all are unqualified to do so.

Skillet Shot said:

---

"Received complaints" by angry white women who aren't pregnant.

---

Breaking news Chronical reporters send "complaints" to TMA to generate story.
I would not put it past them.

Absolutely not happening. Hospitals mostly communicated the same things to their medical staff - which is they didn't perform elective abortion services in the first place, so nothing has changed.

Do you have any direct knowledge of the situation to confirm that risk management is indeed calling the shots? Sounds like normal practice to me. Did mom even request a termination? Doesn't sound clear if she did or not and if she did, it is illegal under the circumstances you described.

When the situation changes, you change treatment algorithm accordingly to react to the threat. If mom is ok right now, there is no particular urgency to kill baby. She will likely start contracting and nature will sadly take its course. And no, she would not need to be at death's door. At the point which her doctor decides there is a threat to life, limb or function afaik it is at that point legal under Texas law.

So again, what is the horrible problem?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The doctors are in a tough spot but only the doctor can determine what is best for the patient and whether it is necessary to save the life of the mother, thereby steering clear of the 1925 law. Hospital lawyers can't make that call.

---

Are you sure about that? You are probably correct but I have some doubts about how certain privileges of doctors at hospitals can be terminated. And hospital administrators and the hospital lawyers are extremely risk averse in my experience.

---

Physicians may ostensibly be responsible, but in practice deferring to the hospital's legal team to avoid trouble. Part of the concern is that the 1925 law makes it a felony, punishable by 2-10 years, to provide an abortion in all but life threatening cases, and while the state's Supreme Court decision doesn't currently allow pursuing criminal charges against abortion providers, they intend to revisit the matter and Paxton has made his position fairly clear, so it is understandable why many physicians are gonna side with legal to avoid fines and penalties now, and the risk of felony prosecution should that become available to prosecutors once the SCOTX revisits the issue.

Quote:

---

Upon taking effect, the Act provides that a person "may not knowingly perform, induce, or attempt an abortion" except under limited circumstances, such as a life- threatening condition to the mother caused by the pregnancy. A person who violates the Act commits a first-degree felony if an unborn child dies as a result and incurs
civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation. My office is specifically authorized to pursue and recover those civil penalties, and I will strictly enforce this law. Further, we will assist any local prosecutor who pursues criminal charges. Additionally, state licensing authorities are required to revoke any applicable license or permit of a health care professional who performs or attempts to perform an abortion in violation of the Act.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Post-Roe%20Advisory.pdf

---