TheAngelFlight said:

---

Ironically, perhaps, Israel's government criticized the decision to reverse Roe v Wade and loosened their own abortion regulations thereafter.

If this woman was in Israel, she would categorically qualify to go get a free, government paid-for abortion.

---

Yeah, Israel has historically been ruled by the political left. But that's been changing in recent years as the Haredim are outbreeding the secularists, and the conflict with Hamas has heated up.

Hence the outrage over Bibi's proposed reform of the Israeli Supreme Court. Without a majority in the Knesset, the judiciary was the one branch of the government that the left still had control over.

I looked at the last study you linked.

I think it's very weak. The same genetics that causes the still born could be the same genetics that caused earlier deaths. There is absolutely no way to control for that. You absolutely cannot conclude that the still birth was the cause.

Ridiculous study imo. Thats why they conclude with "Stillbirth may be a risk marker for premature mortality among parous women."

Note the word "may". Know what that means... "It may not".

You need to go read those studies again. Start here:

Quote:

---

Compared with women with live births, women with stillbirths were more likely to be non-Hispanic black, advanced maternal age, have preexisting diabetes and hypertension, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and undergo vaginal delivery (Table 1). Women with stillbirths were less likely to have private insurance, a college education, and gestational hypertension.

---

But you're blaming the stillbirth. Do any of those studies say the stillbirth caused the deaths?

Women are NOT "drastically" more likely to die by delivering a stillborn. It's no more risky than a D&E. Why do pro-abortion advocates ALWAYS lie and exaggerate?? Not even Cox's doctor is claiming that.

Your side hopes this woman gets an abortion in Texas to set a legal precedent for widespread late abortions in Texas. That's it. And it's gross.

As for the original topic, I do firmly believe that self-defense is a legitimate reason for killing. Aborting a truly life-threatening pregnancy is the moral equivalent of shooting an armed home intruder. Not something anyone should want to do, but necessary.

However, 49.4 years of Roe's arbitrarily-made-up "constitutional right" to abortion created an environment where the majority of abortions had no justification beyond someone "not wanting to have a baby". Where 1/5 (or at its's early-1990's peak, 1/3) of all pregnancies in the country were aborted. Given that context, it's understandable why some people would have a default assumption that a woman seeking an abortion don't really have a medical need for one.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

You cited Paxton's letter as evidence of her not having a serious health risk?

Paxton doesn't know jack ***** He's not a doctor and he has not examined her. He's just a cruel bully who thinks he has the right to control her.

It's funny how we generally trust doctors and stay out of other people's medical business. Except here. Her doctors don't know about this, but you totally do, dude

---

Only a simpleton blindly trusts "Doctors" of any stripes, particularly the baby killing variety.

---

Just out of curiosity, where do you go for health care advice? Checkups? Anything medical related?

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

FlyRod said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Yeah, go hard right on this issue and force one of the few ladies with a valid medical reason to have a baby that will die and/or affect her ability to have kids in the future. The moderate voters will love it.

Govern me harder Daddy.

---

If we don't allow abortions and red states, and they do in blue states, we will outbreed the blue states. Long term its a winning strategy.

Also the morally correct one. Abortion is murder period. We cannot allow it.

---

No it's not. The majority of Americans do not have your extreme views on abortion. Boomers will continue dying and Gen Z will keep reaching voting age. This issue just accelerates the death of the Republican Party as we know it.

---

The majority of Germans sat back and watched Jews get loaded up in boxcars.

History will not judge the baby murderers kindly. A century from now it will be your generations version of slavery. We will look on in embarrassment at the depths of our depravity.

---

History will judge forced-birthers treating women like livestock and brood mares far more harshly, and rightly so. Definitely a slavery analogy here but it's not the one you're trying to make.

---

"Forced birthers" Rofl. Woman got pregnant. She CHOSE to steward a human life in her.

Abortion is murder and everyone, yes EVERYONE knows it.

You have the moral clarity of jar of 10w30.

---

Could you please share those survey data re "everyone knowing abortion is murder?"

Mary Bailey said:

---

You need to go read those studies again. Start here:

Quote:

---

Compared with women with live births, women with stillbirths were more likely to be non-Hispanic black, advanced maternal age, have preexisting diabetes and hypertension, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and undergo vaginal delivery (Table 1). Women with stillbirths were less likely to have private insurance, a college education, and gestational hypertension.

---

But you're blaming the stillbirth. Do any of those studies say the stillbirth caused the deaths?

Women are NOT "drastically" more likely to die by delivering a stillborn. It's no more risky than a D&E. Why do pro-abortion advocates ALWAYS lie and exaggerate?? Not even Cox's doctor is claiming that.

Your side hopes this woman gets an abortion in Texas to set a legal precedent for widespread late abortions in Texas. That's it. And it's gross.

---

That study is not about mortality, but morbidity, so I believe you're meaning to ask a slightly different question.

To answer, you are making a distinction without a difference. The study absolutely links causes of stillbirths to maternal morbidity. For example,

Quote:

---

In our study, compared with live birth deliveries, we observed that the prevalence of major organ dysfunction or failure (including disseminated intravascular coagulation, acute renal failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, shock) and hysterectomy (for presumed major blood loss control) were substantially higher among stillbirth deliveries. These morbidities may be related to specific stillbirth etiologies, such as placental abruption; infection of the fetus, fetal membranes, or placenta; and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

---

A stillbirth is the result of something. A stillbirth doesn't just happen on its own. Its not really itself a medical condition.

Its not really different than saying "trisomy 18 causes stillbirths", which I think you'd agree with...Trisomy 18 itself doesn't actually cause a stillbirth. Trisomy 18 causes or exacerbates the risk of infections of the fetus, hypertension, placental conditions including abruptions, etc. that lead to the stillbirth (or miscarriage, or death for those that are born). Therefore, we say trisomy 18 raises the risk of stillbirths.


I'm not sure why you suddenly went ad hominem. I suspect something must of have hit a nerve.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

You need to go read those studies again. Start here:

Quote:

---

Compared with women with live births, women with stillbirths were more likely to be non-Hispanic black, advanced maternal age, have preexisting diabetes and hypertension, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and undergo vaginal delivery (Table 1). Women with stillbirths were less likely to have private insurance, a college education, and gestational hypertension.

---

But you're blaming the stillbirth. Do any of those studies say the stillbirth caused the deaths?

Women are NOT "drastically" more likely to die by delivering a stillborn. It's no more risky than a D&E. Why do pro-abortion advocates ALWAYS lie and exaggerate?? Not even Cox's doctor is claiming that.

Your side hopes this woman gets an abortion in Texas to set a legal precedent for widespread late abortions in Texas. That's it. And it's gross.

---

That study is not about mortality, but morbidity, so I believe you're meaning to ask a slightly different question.

To answer, you are making a distinction without a difference. The study absolutely links causes of stillbirths to maternal morbidity. For example,

Quote:

---

In our study, compared with live birth deliveries, we observed that the prevalence of major organ dysfunction or failure (including disseminated intravascular coagulation, acute renal failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, shock) and hysterectomy (for presumed major blood loss control) were substantially higher among stillbirth deliveries. These morbidities may be related to specific stillbirth etiologies, such as placental abruption; infection of the fetus, fetal membranes, or placenta; and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

---

A stillbirth is the result of something. A stillbirth doesn't just happen on its own. Its not really itself a medical condition.

Its not really different than saying "trisomy 18 causes stillbirths", which I think you'd agree with...Trisomy 18 itself doesn't actually cause a stillbirth. Trisomy 18 causes or exacerbates the risk of infections of the fetus, hypertension, placental conditions including abruptions, etc. that lead to the stillbirth (or miscarriage, or death for those that are born). Therefore, we say trisomy 18 raises the risk of stillbirths.


I'm not sure why you suddenly went ad hominem. I suspect something must of have hit a nerve.

---

Nope. Just tired of your side being disingenuous. You post studies that you say support your assertion that Cox is in danger of death from a stillbirth (which her doctors don't claim.) The studies don't say that. You're confusing cause and correlation. Please don't try and school me on stillbirth. I sadly know all about it.

BTW, the doctor in the lawsuit isn't even Cox's doctor. She is the abortionist. She's named in other CRR suits as well. Just typical deception by the abortion side. The entire suit is full of liberal-speak. This woman wants an abortion because the child has Trisomy 18. That's it. The rest is exaggerations and outright lies in order to expand the abortion access in Texas. Just admit it. Because if C-sections and gestational diabetes is a reason to abort, which this suit is alleging, then that would greatly expand acceptable reasons for abortions in Texas.

The studies find statistically significant correlation between stillbirths and maternal morbidities. That is how science works. That is how the medical field works.

But if you want to be walked through the mechanisms by which trisomy 18 causes placental abnormalities which lead to blood loss by the mother, then by all means you can google it.

And I bet you understand that lest the unrelated rants and insults wouldn't be coming out.

There is also an extremely high negative correlation between numbers of pirates and CO2 production. That doesn't mean more pirates results in less CO2.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Do not be surprised if this is an issue the Dems run and succeed on in Texas.

Paxton is a double agent for the Dems. 10000 billion % turnout rate against republicans next election.

I'm against abortion being used as birth control. But if the state succeeds in blocking this woman's abortion, eventually 100% of all abortions will be legal. It'll start a movement that will get bans in Texas overturned. Such an insane hill to die on.

Win the battle to lose the war.

Re: Long term mortality

Quote:

---

During the study period...13.1% mothers with stillbirths died, compared [to] 6.2%) women without stillbirth (crude hazard ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-2.61).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17540801/

---

This study is INSANE. I don't know what was going in in Israel with births in the 60s and 70s, but the fact that any cohort had a 6.2% maternal mortality - much less the one that was supposed to be the healthier group - is stunningly bad.

Current maternal mortality in the US these days is somewhere around 26 per 100,000 (0.026%).

I think they are clearly trying to conflate morbidity and mortality to basically make any pregnancy that physically inconveniences the mother in anyway, ie all pregnancies, termable.

The vast majority of people will accept legit life of mother, rape and incest as conditions where it is pardonable to take human life. But the reality is the vast majority are for convenience.

The Activists are clearly trying push the boundaries and Abbott is right to ask them to prove it. This is really simple.

And for the conservatives who are worried about the political fall our from finally taking a strong stance against baby murder, it's a million lives a year in the United States alone. And 95% are because we simply can't be inconvenienced by another human being. It runs deep to the core of the hedonism that is rotting us on the inside.





For this case or any case, if the life of the mother is legitimately in question, prove it, and do what you have to do.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone to prove it was necessary to end a human life. We have this standard literary everywhere else in our society.

I feel like we're being lied to in this case. There is simply no evidence that the fact this baby has trisomy 18 poses any risk to Kate Cox.

docaggie said:

---

Re: Long term mortality

Quote:

---

During the study period...13.1% mothers with stillbirths died, compared [to] 6.2%) women without stillbirth (crude hazard ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-2.61).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17540801/

---

This study is INSANE. I don't know what was going in in Israel with births in the 60s and 70s, but the fact that any cohort had a 6.2% maternal mortality - much less the one that was supposed to be the healthier group - is stunningly bad.

Current maternal mortality in the US these days is somewhere around 26 per 100,000 (0.026%).

---

The study period was over several decades. So, while I would agree the underlying magnitudes there seem high, women do sometimes die over the few decades after they have a child (or stillbirth.) You're not making an apples to apples comparison.

Obviously, there is still a notable difference in mortality between those who had healthy births and those who had stillbirths. And that's the point, although long term mortality and that study are certainly the least relevant concerns in this case.

I've said all along if someone doesn't believe the risk justifies an abortion under the law, fine. My issue was about another claim that this woman is not at any additional risk of complications or death. This woman is at more risk for health issues and possibly death than average or similarly placed women carrying a healthy baby.

Just thought I'd provide some actual data and facts on this situation.

In the 8 years prior to the reversal of Roe and Texas' new restrictions on abortion, 50,000-55,000 abortions occurred in Texas each year, with a large majority of those occurring in the first 10 weeks of the pregnancy (about 91%), most of those were performed on women in their 20s (about 63%, with a mean of 27 and a mode of 24), and about 85% were unmarried.

Since Roe was overturned (June 2022) through July 2023 (the latest data available from THHS), there have been 120 abortions performed in Texas.

The abortion prohibitions in Texas have resulted in tens of thousands of additional births that otherwise would not have occurred.

The State of Texas has not sued any doctor for performing any of those 120 abortions.

There is a medical exception when, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female has a life-threatening physical condition or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed. See Texas Health and Safety Code 170, 170A, and 171.

The prohibitions on abortion after 20 weeks do not apply to an unborn child that has a severe fetal abnormality. See THSC 171.

There is no law in Texas that provides for any liability or any form of punishment, civil or criminal, for a woman that receives an abortion. In fact, Texas law specifically shields a woman who has received an abortion from any liability under any of the abortion prohibitions.

More than one doctor for CRR testified before the Texas Supreme Court that the exceptions were clear, they understood the exceptions were to be a matter between a doctor providing care for their patient, but they were afraid of facing fines and/or losing their license. Texas testified that if the reporting requirements under the law were met, no doctors would face liability under the law because it was not its place to question the care provided by a doctor.

Mrs. Cox was 20 weeks and 3 days pregnant when she filed her suit.

Based on the statements in the petition, Dr. Karsan believes in the exercise of her reasonable medical judgment Mrs. Cox applies for the medical exception. As such, she can legally perform Mrs. Cox's abortion at any time, without a court order.

Mrs. Cox is free to travel at any time outside of Texas to a state that allows abortion but has not done so.

Dr. Karsan could have performed the abortion for Mrs. Cox after the TRO was issued but did not. Even with the administrative stay of the TRO by the Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Karsan can still perform Mrs.Cox's abortion at any time as long as she follows the law.

Mrs. Cox and her husband were in Florida on December 4, 2023. The petition was filed December 5, 2023.

Mrs. Cox is from the Dallas Area. Dr. Karsan is from Houston. The petition was filed in Austin.

Mrs. Cox's social media was scrubbed from the internet prior to December 5, 2023.


Here are my personal thoughts.

Nobody is trying to force Mrs. Cox to give birth against the advice of her doctor. If Dr. Karsan (or any other doctor) had just performed the abortion and complied with the reporting requirements, we would have never heard of Mrs. Cox.

Texas wants the law upheld and followed. Texas is upset that a judge refused to have an evidentiary hearing on the TRO and made a medical determination for which she was not qualified to make in the TRO without one.

If you take a fair and objective look at the facts, I don't know how any reasonable person can come to any conclusion other than this lawsuit is a political ploy.

I understand people being upset with some of the stories of women who were not given an abortion until they were in sepsis. The law does not require that. At what point do we question the doctors making those decisions?

Element_AG said:

---

Just thought I'd provide some actual data and facts on this situation.

In the 8 years prior to the reversal of Roe and Texas' new restrictions on abortion, 50,000-55,000 abortions occurred in Texas each year, with a large majority of those occurring in the first 10 weeks of the pregnancy (about 91%), most of those were performed on women in their 20s (about 63%, with a mean of 27 and a mode of 24), and about 85% were unmarried.

Since Roe was overturned (June 2022) through July 2023 (the latest data available from THHS), there have been 120 abortions performed in Texas.

The abortion prohibitions in Texas have resulted in tens of thousands of additional births that otherwise would not have occurred.

The State of Texas has not sued any doctor for performing any of those 120 abortions.

There is a medical exception when, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female has a life-threatening physical condition or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed. See Texas Health and Safety Code 170, 170A, and 171.

The prohibitions on abortion after 20 weeks do not apply to an unborn child that has a severe fetal abnormality. See THSC 171.

There is no law in Texas that provides for any liability or any form of punishment, civil or criminal, for a woman that receives an abortion. In fact, Texas law specifically shields a woman who has received an abortion from any liability under any of the abortion prohibitions.

More than one doctor for CRR testified before the Texas Supreme Court that the exceptions were clear, they understood the exceptions were to be a matter between a doctor providing care for their patient, but they were afraid of facing fines and/or losing their license. Texas testified that if the reporting requirements under the law were met, no doctors would face liability under the law because it was not its place to question the care provided by a doctor.

Mrs. Cox was 20 weeks and 3 days pregnant when she filed her suit.

Based on the statements in the petition, Dr. Karsan believes in the exercise of her reasonable medical judgment Mrs. Cox applies for the medical exception. As such, she can legally perform Mrs. Cox's abortion at any time, without a court order.

Mrs. Cox is free to travel at any time outside of Texas to a state that allows abortion but has not done so.

Dr. Karsan could have performed the abortion for Mrs. Cox after the TRO was issued but did not. Even with the administrative stay of the TRO by the Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Karsan can still perform Mrs.Cox's abortion at any time as long as she follows the law.

Mrs. Cox and her husband were in Florida on December 4, 2023. The petition was filed December 5, 2023.

Mrs. Cox is from the Dallas Area. Dr. Karsan is from Houston. The petition was filed in Austin.

Mrs. Cox's social media was scrubbed from the internet prior to December 5, 2023.


Here are my personal thoughts.

Nobody is trying to force Mrs. Cox to give birth against the advice of her doctor. If Dr. Karsan (or any other doctor) had just performed the abortion and complied with the reporting requirements, we would have never heard of Mrs. Cox.

Texas wants the law upheld and followed. Texas is upset that a judge refused to have an evidentiary hearing on the TRO and made a medical determination for which she was not qualified to make in the TRO without one.

If you take a fair and objective look at the facts, I don't know how any reasonable person can come to any conclusion other than this lawsuit is a political ploy.

I understand people being upset with some of the stories of women who were not given an abortion until they were in sepsis. The law does not require that. At what point do we question the doctors making those decisions?

---

Lawsuits to change things people don't like usually are always political in nature. There's a reason the right spent fifty years trying every way imaginable to get Roe overturned. Now expect the same from the left and suburban Republican CMs in red states.

Quote:

---

There is a medical exception when, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female has a life-threatening physical condition or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed. See Texas Health and Safety Code 170, 170A, and 171.

---

So what's a life threatening physical condition? Because the potential for a life threatening condition isn't enough apparently. The woman has to get deathly ill and suffer before this can be triggered, with certainty at least.

Quote:

---

The prohibitions on abortion after 20 weeks do not apply to an unborn child that has a severe fetal abnormality. See THSC 171.

---

So why are we here then? Why did Paxton even send his letter if this is a clear exception that applies here?

Quote:

---

There is no law in Texas that provides for any liability or any form of punishment, civil or criminal, for a woman that receives an abortion. In fact, Texas law specifically shields a woman who has received an abortion from any liability under any of the abortion prohibitions.

---

For the time being.

Quote:

---

Based on the statements in the petition, Dr. Karsan believes in the exercise of her reasonable medical judgment Mrs. Cox applies for the medical exception. As such, she can legally perform Mrs. Cox's abortion at any time, without a court order.

---

Ok, then why are we having this debate then? Because Paxton has already threatened the doctor and the hospital with prosecution. So if the exception applies and there's no issue then why did Paxton feel the need to do that?

Quote:

---

Mrs. Cox is free to travel at any time outside of Texas to a state that allows abortion but has not done so.

---

People need to stop saying this. It's not always easy for pregnant women, let alone those with pregnancy complications, to travel. Sometimes it can be very hard and put her at greater health risk, especially with flying. Then there's the risk of miscarrying while in transit. Not coincidentally, it's almost always men who casually and smugly say this.

Quote:

---

Nobody is trying to force Mrs. Cox to give birth against the advice of her doctor.

---

Um, that's EXACTLY what people are doing. People want to force her to give birth because of the minuscule chance that the baby survives birth. Even if the baby suffers in agony for a few hours.

Quote:

---

If Dr. Karsan (or any other doctor) had just performed the abortion and complied with the reporting requirements, we would have never heard of Mrs. Cox.

Texas wants the law upheld and followed. Texas is upset that a judge refused to have an evidentiary hearing on the TRO and made a medical determination for which she was not qualified to make in the TRO without one.

---

None of this is true. No, Texas does not "mean well" in all this. Texas is mad that a woman is seeking an abortion. End of story. Texas thinks it has the right to make medical decisions for her.

The medical exceptions are unclear and so vague that they are nearly impossible to trigger. Doctors face risks of felony conviction, loss of medical license, and lawsuits if they make a decision that a prosecutor disagrees with. The baby is unviable. The effects on the mother in carrying the unviable pregnancy are less certain. We don't know if it will kill her or make her infertile. But there's a chance, which is why she wants the abortion. Texas is saying that's not good enough. She must be forced to carry the baby to term until and unless she's significantly sicker and near death.

No, this isn't a reasonable law. It's vaguely written such that the exceptions are almost unattainable.

We shouldn't be having this discussion. This is a private medical decision and the state has no right to butt its head into such discussions.

Quote:

---

If you take a fair and objective look at the facts, I don't know how any reasonable person can come to any conclusion other than this lawsuit is a political ploy.

---

So what if it's a political ploy? These situations are going to happen again, so we're going to need court interpretation of the laws. And really, these laws need fixing. You can't be upset that the state was taken to court over this. Such a cruel and extreme abortion ban is basically begging to be taken to court.

And maybe she's doing a good thing for the women and girls of Texas, hoping that her actions can prevent others from suffering from Texas's cruel laws.

Quote:

---

I understand people being upset with some of the stories of women who were not given an abortion until they were in sepsis. The law does not require that. At what point do we question the doctors making those decisions?

---

Yeah, it basically does.

But still, it shouldn't even be a question about how sick the mom has to get. If it's an unviable pregnancy, that's the end of the discussion. How she handles the pregnancy is her decision, not yours.

The fact is, any law that prevents a woman from terminating an unviable pregnancy is not about "protecting life." it's about controlling the mother. End of story.

Element_AG said:

---

Just thought I'd provide some actual data and facts on this situation.

In the 8 years prior to the reversal of Roe and Texas' new restrictions on abortion, 50,000-55,000 abortions occurred in Texas each year, with a large majority of those occurring in the first 10 weeks of the pregnancy (about 91%), most of those were performed on women in their 20s (about 63%, with a mean of 27 and a mode of 24), and about 85% were unmarried.

Since Roe was overturned (June 2022) through July 2023 (the latest data available from THHS), there have been 120 abortions performed in Texas.

The abortion prohibitions in Texas have resulted in tens of thousands of additional births that otherwise would not have occurred.

The State of Texas has not sued any doctor for performing any of those 120 abortions.

There is a medical exception when, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female has a life-threatening physical condition or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed. See Texas Health and Safety Code 170, 170A, and 171.

The prohibitions on abortion after 20 weeks do not apply to an unborn child that has a severe fetal abnormality. See THSC 171.

There is no law in Texas that provides for any liability or any form of punishment, civil or criminal, for a woman that receives an abortion. In fact, Texas law specifically shields a woman who has received an abortion from any liability under any of the abortion prohibitions.

More than one doctor for CRR testified before the Texas Supreme Court that the exceptions were clear, they understood the exceptions were to be a matter between a doctor providing care for their patient, but they were afraid of facing fines and/or losing their license. Texas testified that if the reporting requirements under the law were met, no doctors would face liability under the law because it was not its place to question the care provided by a doctor.

Mrs. Cox was 20 weeks and 3 days pregnant when she filed her suit.

Based on the statements in the petition, Dr. Karsan believes in the exercise of her reasonable medical judgment Mrs. Cox applies for the medical exception. As such, she can legally perform Mrs. Cox's abortion at any time, without a court order.

Mrs. Cox is free to travel at any time outside of Texas to a state that allows abortion but has not done so.

Dr. Karsan could have performed the abortion for Mrs. Cox after the TRO was issued but did not. Even with the administrative stay of the TRO by the Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Karsan can still perform Mrs.Cox's abortion at any time as long as she follows the law.

Mrs. Cox and her husband were in Florida on December 4, 2023. The petition was filed December 5, 2023.

Mrs. Cox is from the Dallas Area. Dr. Karsan is from Houston. The petition was filed in Austin.

Mrs. Cox's social media was scrubbed from the internet prior to December 5, 2023.


Here are my personal thoughts.

Nobody is trying to force Mrs. Cox to give birth against the advice of her doctor. If Dr. Karsan (or any other doctor) had just performed the abortion and complied with the reporting requirements, we would have never heard of Mrs. Cox.

Texas wants the law upheld and followed. Texas is upset that a judge refused to have an evidentiary hearing on the TRO and made a medical determination for which she was not qualified to make in the TRO without one.

If you take a fair and objective look at the facts, I don't know how any reasonable person can come to any conclusion other than this lawsuit is a political ploy.

I understand people being upset with some of the stories of women who were not given an abortion until they were in sepsis. The law does not require that. At what point do we question the doctors making those decisions?

---

Texas law. LOL Blacks denied eating in a diner was once state law. Because it is law doesn't make it right

She fled the state

BREAKING: Kate Cox has left the state to get an abortion after her doctors said carrying her pregnancy with a fatal diagnosis to term could threaten her health and fertility. The TX Supreme Court halted an order to allow the abortion this weekend

— Marin Wolf (@maringwolf) December 11, 2023

Unbelievable that a woman in an emergency situation had to flee the state because a panel of judges hadn't yet given her permission to get necessary healthcare. Utterly insane that we even are having this discussion in 2023, but that's what happens when the state is run by ultra-extreme Christian nationalists who are intent on eliminating personal freedoms and controlling people.

Everything about this case is just disgusting. The only good thing that may come out of it is the accelerated demise of the Texas GOP.

She was in Florida?!?

That can't be right. You can die traveling while pregnant /Taco


LOL

Fled the state. LMFAO.

She should have fled to New Mexico to get the abortion instead.

I didn't say that, I said that traveling can put a strain on pregnant women. If you have ever met any pregnant women in your life, you'd know that. I didn't comment on this woman's personal situation because I don't know her.

You may find this woman's horrible situation funny, but I don't.

I'm not pro-abortion but I find it strange that a group that was so concerned about death penalties wants the government in control of this.

barbacoa taco said:

---

I didn't say that, I said that traveling can put a strain on pregnant women. If you have ever met any pregnant women in your life, you'd know that. I didn't comment on this woman's personal situation because I don't know her.

You may find this woman's horrible situation funny, but I don't.

---

It's not horrible at All.

She waited until 5 months was up to have the abortion for nothing but political reasons.

She then goes to Florida instead of a state where she could have the abortion.

I don't give two cents about this lady at all. She's scum.

Man, you really need to educate yourself on this case. It's obvious you know nothing at all and are just having a knee-jerk reaction based on your preconceived notions and hatred.

SHE WANTED TO HAVE THE BABY. But at some point was given the diagnosis and needed to abort. She couldn't do that. She did not wait until 20 weeks just for fun like you insinuate.

Try to let go of your hatred and have the slightest bit of compassion. Maybe once you have some more life experience and meet some more women, especially pregnant women, and get out of your bubble, you'll have a more educated and sympathetic response.

Logos Stick said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

I didn't say that, I said that traveling can put a strain on pregnant women. If you have ever met any pregnant women in your life, you'd know that. I didn't comment on this woman's personal situation because I don't know her.

You may find this woman's horrible situation funny, but I don't.

---

It's not horrible at All.

She waited until 5 months was up to have the abortion for nothing but political reasons.

She then goes to Florida instead of a state where she could have the abortion.

I don't give two cents about this lady at all. She's scum.

---

You are a wimpy internet warrior. Which is worse?

seriously. Logos's posts are some of the most incel-y **** I've seen on this site. sounds just like those 4chan losers who hate all women because they can't get a date.

She could have easily fled to New Mexico and had the abortion.

The obsession you guys have with baby killing is unbelievable. Sickening!

ok, so you haven't paid attention at all to this. otherwise you'd know she didn't even want to abort but had to based on circumstances.

putting you on the ignore list now, troll.

Logos Stick said:

---

She could have easily fled to New Mexico and had the abortion.

The obsession you guys have with baby killing is unbelievable. Sickening!

---

So you're okay with the baby being killed at long as the woman does as you said, which is to to b New Mexico to do it?

I know exactly what is going on. In fact, I know the details better than you do. Thats obvious from your posts.

She traveled to another state in anticipation of the petition being filed.

So she could not have traveled to NM where she could have the abortion on the same date, instead of Florida?!

If so, we would not be discussing this right now.

Can she not fly there right now?

The ignorance and justification from the left in unbelievable.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

She could have easily fled to New Mexico and had the abortion.

The obsession you guys have with baby killing is unbelievable. Sickening!

---

So you're okay with the baby being killed at long as the woman does as you said, which is to to b New Mexico to do it?

---

I'm ok with the state of Texas laws being followed, unlike you libs.

That goes for the border and DACA and all the other laws y'all don't like.