barbacoa taco said:

---

They filed suit because the doctor ran the risk of prosecution and lawsuits if they went through with it. These hospitals have legal departments that advise them on this stuff and these decisions are not taken lightly. And SCOTX basically just confirmed that the "exception" is unattainable. The doctor can use his reasonable judgment, but of some blowhard DA disagrees with that then the doctor is screwed

And she did leave the state for an abortion. Not ideal, but she had to do what she had to do given the fact that it was an emergency at this point and SCOTX wasn't going to do the right thing.

---

Did she get the abortion?

If so, the case is moot and has been dropped, correct?

And the doctor didn't run the risk of prosecution. No one was going to take him to court over a legitimate abortion.

This case occurred for one reason - to expand or overturn the law.

At least be honest when you argue.

Thank you, brother Paxton!

If you push, I'll find it, but there's a lot of lying by statistics when comparing america to europe for maternal mortality. Its been examined before, and the reason you don't see anything deeper (most of the time) is because the deeper answers aren't nice to talk about. In general, if you look into mothers that:

-take prenatal vitamins
-do not engage in detrimental behavior to the fetus (drinking considerable amounts of alcohol, smoking, or drugs)
-are not significantly obese with no other high medical risks
-attend prenatal checkups

The maternal death rate plummets to practically zero for both europe and america.

America has a wider spectrum of everything compared to western europe. Every filter you could think of to compare america to europe in hospital care, America has a wider range. From the mother to the system to the delivery.

Quote:

---

And SCOTX basically just confirmed that the "exception" is unattainable. The doctor can use his reasonable judgment, but of some blowhard DA disagrees with that then the doctor is screwed

---

Because it couldn't be that a politically agendized doctor would lie and claim whatever he needed to in front of a sympathetic judge in a pre-arranged court case.

Don't like the law? Go get the votes to change it. Can't get the votes? Oh well.

barbacoa taco said:

---

You and others really need to stop opining on topics you clearly don't know much about. It's frankly embarrassing how ridiculous some of these brazen statements are

---

This is incredibly rich coming from you. So rich it just HAS to be fattening.

Element_AG said:

---

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.

---

There are the most interesting facts. Do you have a source?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

You and others really need to stop opining on topics you clearly don't know much about. It's frankly embarrassing how ridiculous some of these brazen statements are

---

This is incredibly rich coming from you. So rich it just HAS to be fattening.

---

I'll echo what Barbacoa said and I do know about it. I have seen it first hand. I know the family very well. I have seen how hard it is and traumatizing when you take your son in for 60+ hospital stays and he's fighting for his life a few times a year. The kid is an absolute living miracle and BTHO all possible odds so far. I don't know which side of the aisle Barbacoa resides on and I don't really care. I sit on the right side and this is one of the few instances in which I've been in favor of the right to choose. Keep in mind, I'm not advocating for her child's abortion, I'm advocating for the mother's right to choose. Had the mother I know had the choice, I do believe she would not abort her child.

rak1693 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

You and others really need to stop opining on topics you clearly don't know much about. It's frankly embarrassing how ridiculous some of these brazen statements are

---

This is incredibly rich coming from you. So rich it just HAS to be fattening.

---

I'll echo what Barbacoa said and I do know about it. I have seen it first hand. I know the family very well. I have seen how hard it is and traumatizing when you take your son in for 60+ hospital stays and he's fighting for his life a few times a year. The kid is an absolute living miracle and BTHO all possible odds so far. I don't know which side of the aisle Barbacoa resides on and I don't really care. I sit on the right side and this is one of the few instances in which I've been in favor of the right to choose. Keep in mind, I'm not advocating for her child's abortion, I'm advocating for the mother's right to choose. Had the mother I know had the choice, I do believe she would not abort her child.

---

And again, the right to abort a baby with defects is NOT what this case was about. You're being manipulated.

Before agreeing with barbacoa, you might want to search his history. He hates you.

Isn't it the reason this case exists in the first place? If she had the right to choose, the case wouldn't exist. The doctor wouldn't face any possible charges.

rak1693 said:

---

Isn't it the reason this case exists in the first place? If she had the right to choose, the case wouldn't exist. The doctor wouldn't face any possible charges.

---

No, they were saying being pregnant was threatening her life and health but failed to show proof. Texas has no exemption for fetal defects. They were trying to neuter the Texas abortion ban by saying that C-sections and possible gestational diabetes were reasons for abortion. Read the thread. The doctor who filed suit wasn't even her OB. This was done by CRR. The T-18 was merely a footnote as they know fetal defects aren't even a gray area in Texas. Read the suit.

If y'all notice, I never post on the politics forum. This particular subject is sensitive for me so I joined in. Life is too short for me to worry about how people lean politically. But life is not too short to hate the Longhorns!

rak1693 said:

---

Isn't it the reason this case exists in the first place? If she had the right to choose, the case wouldn't exist. The doctor wouldn't face any possible charges.

---

The Dallas DA had already stated he would not prosecute.

This may be a dumb question, but isn't that irrelevant if Paxton threatened criminal prosecution? He stated that in the three letters to the hospitals

Mary Bailey said:

---

rak1693 said:

---

Isn't it the reason this case exists in the first place? If she had the right to choose, the case wouldn't exist. The doctor wouldn't face any possible charges.

---

No, they were saying being pregnant was threatening her life and health but failed to show proof. Texas has no exemption for fetal defects. They were trying to neuter the Texas abortion ban by saying that C-sections and possible gestational diabetes were reasons for abortion. Read the thread. The doctor who filed suit wasn't even her OB. This was done by CRR. The T-18 was merely a footnote as they know fetal defects aren't even a gray area in Texas. Read the suit.

---

THIS!!

Everybody keeps arguing about this from the inaccurate assumption that this was Cox's OB doctor, that stated in her professional opinion, it was indeed a serious danger to life of the mother if the baby is carried to term and delivered. That's what the law requires, and that's what never happened in this case. Saying that there's possible health risks and complications from it is NOT the same thing as being life-threatening to the mother. That statement could be made about literally every pregnancy. Pregnancy in its nature has the potential to cause health risks to the mother, in varying levels of severity.

Bottom line is, the state says since a doctor has not stated and explained the life-threatening nature of carrying this baby to term, it does not meet the standard for an exception to be granted. Pretty simple and clear legal justification for that. The optics of this case are getting twisted by all the liberals who want to use this as catalyst to try and get the laws changed for allowing full-on limitless abortions.

For the record, regardless of the legal aspect, my personal moral opinion is we humans do not have the authority to choose when somebody's potential suffering is too great to even allow them a chance at life. That is God's choice and His alone. Why is the same argument not made on the opposite side for euthenasia? People suffer from horrible fatal ailments all the time, but any sane person does not find euthenasia or medically assisted suicide morally right. So why does it apply to babies with potentially fatal deformities/ailments? As sad and heart-wrenching as it is to see, God has a reason for bringing each and every life into this world, whether it's for 2 days or 95 years. He will call you home when it's your time. I get the emotional aspect of wanting to prevent a newborn infant from suffering, but God makes that call--not us.

Quote:

---

For the record, regardless of the legal aspect, my personal moral opinion is we humans do not have the authority to choose when somebody's potential suffering is too great to even allow them a chance at life. That is God's choice and His alone. Why is the same argument not made on the opposite side for euthenasia?

---

I am a Christian and believe in God. I do not agree with you on this as a black/white issue.

We humans make such decisions all the time. Although we treat our dying humans worse than our dying dogs, we do use morphine to give the dying a nudge. (And don't tell me morphine doesn't do that, it does.) "A chance at life". What does that mean? Does it mean just non-intervention and doing nothing? Does it mean using all available medical knowledge/techniques regardless the cost or the parent's ability to pay? Platitudes are easy and both "sides" use them. A lot.

Also, there are two arguments in your words. One is what we humans should/shouldn't to morally. It's a completely different argument on when government should be included in the decision.

Forcing a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term, and then having a 3rd c-section and saying this is not a significant health risk well, not sure that's going to play well to the thinking public. And then doubling down by the state legally threatening the doctor and hospital.

But that's why we have elections. This is how a state goes from red to blue. Nice going.

the whole case is based on lies and these leftist could have traveled one state over to kill the baby at any time but they wanted to take it to court and try to and wreck the texas law to allow more leftist to kill babies

doubledog said:

---

clarythedrill said:

---

I am on the mothers side on this one. However, she could have gone to another state and had the fetus blended and sucked out of her already instead of going through all this rigamoroe with the Texas courts.

---

You would think. If this was just a privacy issue, then she would have. Someone put her up to this and paid for all expenses. They exploited her and the situation just for their agenda and that is a shame.

---

This. It is starting to happen at the school/county level also.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Forcing a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term, and then having a 3rd c-section and saying this is not a significant health risk well, not sure that's going to play well to the thinking public. And then doubling down by the state legally threatening the doctor and hospital.

But that's why we have elections. This is how a state goes from red to blue. Nice going.

---

The fetus is not "non-viable" plenty of trisomy 18 children survive a significant amount of time outside the womb. You don't think this child deserves the chance?

Having a 3rd C-section carries no more risk than the late-term abortion she seeks.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Forcing a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term, and then having a 3rd c-section and saying this is not a significant health risk well, not sure that's going to play well to the thinking public. And then doubling down by the state legally threatening the doctor and hospital.

But that's why we have elections. This is how a state goes from red to blue. Nice going.

---

Well, there's a reason they picked a case like this to try and attack the abortion law...and that's it.

They wanted it to have extra bad optics AND conflate the fetal defect with the threat to the life of the mother.

If they succeed, they could possibly cause the abortion law to be effectively neutered.

It's a good legal strategy from their side.

But, if you want to not have abortions in TX, they you have to defend the law.

It's like when TAMU went after that bar owner that was using the 12th Man in his marketing. The optics were horrible - big bad TAMU goes after poor little bar owner. However, if you don't defend the trademark, you lose it.

Same concept here.

damiond said:

---

the whole case is based on lies and these leftist could have traveled one state over to kill the baby at any time but they wanted to take it to court and try to and wreck the texas law to allow more leftist to kill babies

---

Coming from a Republican, you give Republicans a very bad look. Your emotional intelligence seems to be very low.

your emotional intelligence seems low is leftist commie speak for i do not like your opinion and think you should go to the gulag for reeducation

Nothing adds up in this case and it appears the plaintiffs are simply not acting in good faith.

AggieUSMC said:

---

Nothing adds up in this case and it appears the plaintiffs are simply not acting in good faith.

---

how is that? She had a trisomy 19 fetus on purpose?

Logos Stick said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Logos Stick 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.

---

Tell me you didn't read the letter without telling me you didn't read the letter.

There are clear guidelines that must be followed for the exemption. If she meets the criteria, no one will force her to give birth.

I know you and your fellow libs would like the criteria to simply be the word of the mom, but it's a medical and legal definition.

---

So abortions can still be performed in Texas if they meet those guidelines?

---

Obviously. Read the letter. For example, they didn't get the get the second opinion that is required.

---

I did not know they did not get the required second opinion. Seems they could have done so fairly easily. Have they explained why they did not get a second opinion?

richardag said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Logos Stick 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.

---

Tell me you didn't read the letter without telling me you didn't read the letter.

There are clear guidelines that must be followed for the exemption. If she meets the criteria, no one will force her to give birth.

I know you and your fellow libs would like the criteria to simply be the word of the mom, but it's a medical and legal definition.

---

So abortions can still be performed in Texas if they meet those guidelines?

---

Obviously. Read the letter. For example, they didn't get the get the second opinion that is required.

---

I did not know they did not get the required second opinion. Seems they could have done so fairly easily. Have they explained why they did not get a second opinion?

---

There is no required second opinion under law.

Ken Paxton's letter said the doctor's hospital's policies required the doctor get a second opinion. The petition said the doctor got clearance from her hospital to perform the abortion if a court ruled she could.

shiftyandquick said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Nothing adds up in this case and it appears the plaintiffs are simply not acting in good faith.

---

how is that? She had a trisomy 19 fetus on purpose?

---

So you're for killing babies because of genetic defects?

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.

---

You think this law is going to force only right wing Christians like you to have more babies that are going to be clones of you?

States that ban 100% of abortions are about to find out the law of unintended consequences. If anything, the red states' urban ghettos will explode. And hello crime wave in 15 years or so. More likely is an explosion of population of groups that historically have voted Democrat.

Red State upper and middle classes will travel to a blue state and have an abortion. The poor, stupid, homeless, drug addicts are going to become baby factories.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion-and-crime-revisited/

I know for those who think a fetus has a "soul" and is the same thing as a fully grown human this is a terrible choice that must be banned and any other consequences are just too bad. But if you aren't religious and don't believe in the concept of a "soul" or that an early stage fetus is human, feels pain, etc... then forcing a person to have a child in every circumstance is just imposition of your religious views on another. You get to feel morally superior and just, and they have to raise and pay for an unwanted kid for the next 18 years and beyond. Or worse, they have a serious medical problem, die, and you get to shrug your shoulders and claim it was "God's will."

How about you just mind your own business and let mothers, fathers, doctors and THEIR priest, rabbi, pastor or whatever decide with the putative mother having the final say? No, old white Preacher Texas guy wants to dictate what you can and can't do because he thinks a fetus has a "soul." If you break this law, then armed police officers show up at your house with guns and haul you away or shoot you. I bet you also still see yourself as a "small government" guy.

Women vote, and this will get them to turn out in droves to vote for dumbass Democrats just on this one issue. Then we'll have a bunch of socialist laws because right wing nut jobs can't compromise. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. Set the law at 12 to 15 weeks with further exceptions for the health of mom or baby. Then focus on the real issues in the country.

I was never involved with an abortion, and I'd like to think that even if I got my high school GF preggers, I would have helped her decide to have the kid and would have married her. I just believe in religious and medical liberty and think people ought to be able to make up their own minds.

AggieUSMC said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Forcing a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term, and then having a 3rd c-section and saying this is not a significant health risk well, not sure that's going to play well to the thinking public. And then doubling down by the state legally threatening the doctor and hospital.

But that's why we have elections. This is how a state goes from red to blue. Nice going.

---

The fetus is not "non-viable" plenty of trisomy 18 children survive a significant amount of time outside the womb. You don't think this child deserves the chance?

Having a 3rd C-section carries no more risk than the late-term abortion she seeks.

---

What is the quality of life for those children?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

richardag said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Logos Stick 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.

---

Tell me you didn't read the letter without telling me you didn't read the letter.

There are clear guidelines that must be followed for the exemption. If she meets the criteria, no one will force her to give birth.

I know you and your fellow libs would like the criteria to simply be the word of the mom, but it's a medical and legal definition.

---

So abortions can still be performed in Texas if they meet those guidelines?

---

Obviously. Read the letter. For example, they didn't get the get the second opinion that is required.

---

I did not know they did not get the required second opinion. Seems they could have done so fairly easily. Have they explained why they did not get a second opinion?

---

There is no required second opinion under law.

Ken Paxton's letter said the doctor's hospital's policies required the doctor get a second opinion. The petition said the doctor got clearance from her hospital to perform the abortion if a court ruled she could.

---

Thanks for the reply.

akm91 said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Nothing adds up in this case and it appears the plaintiffs are simply not acting in good faith.

---

how is that? She had a trisomy 19 fetus on purpose?

---

So you're for killing babies because of genetic defects?

---

I can't believe this actually needs to be said, but it's dangerous and risky for a woman to carry a nonviable pregnancy. But it's very easy for a man behind a keyboard to arrogantly say that she should do that.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

And SCOTX basically just confirmed that the "exception" is unattainable. The doctor can use his reasonable judgment, but of some blowhard DA disagrees with that then the doctor is screwed

---

Because it couldn't be that a politically agendized doctor would lie and claim whatever he needed to in front of a sympathetic judge in a pre-arranged court case.

Don't like the law? Go get the votes to change it. Can't get the votes? Oh well.

---

Just don't ***** when Texas goes more blue.

shiftyandquick said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Nothing adds up in this case and it appears the plaintiffs are simply not acting in good faith.

---

how is that? She had a trisomy 19 fetus on purpose?

---

Right. There is no good reason to believe the pregnant woman wasn't there in good faith. She was told the fetus/baby had a condition that was as likely to result in a stillbirth as anything, and if it was born alive, it would almost certainly die a painful death soon after birth.

That she apparently left to go get an abortion in another state would sure seem like confirmation she wasn't just some pawn for lawyers, but just genuinely trying to get herself an abortion due to her situation.

barbacoa taco said:

---

akm91 said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Nothing adds up in this case and it appears the plaintiffs are simply not acting in good faith.

---

how is that? She had a trisomy 19 fetus on purpose?

---

So you're for killing babies because of genetic defects?

---

I can't believe this actually needs to be said, but it's dangerous and risky for a woman to carry a nonviable pregnancy. But it's very easy for a man behind a keyboard to arrogantly say that she should do that.

---

Facts of the case is that this pregnancy is not life threatening to the mother. An OBGYN in a city 4 hours away from where the mom lives stated it was medically recommended not medically necessary.

It's very easy for you behind a keyboard to advocate killing another person's baby.

AggieUSMC said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Forcing a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term, and then having a 3rd c-section and saying this is not a significant health risk well, not sure that's going to play well to the thinking public. And then doubling down by the state legally threatening the doctor and hospital.

But that's why we have elections. This is how a state goes from red to blue. Nice going.

---

The fetus is not "non-viable" plenty of trisomy 18 children survive a significant amount of time outside the womb. You don't think this child deserves the chance?

Having a 3rd C-section carries no more risk than the late-term abortion she seeks.

---

I think you need to take off the rose colored glasses. Just because you heard a heartwarming story about a kid with this condition doesn't mean it applies here. The doctors have said with certainty the baby won't survive, and at best will only survive a few hours.

A C-section at this point would be pre-viability, i.e. an abortion, i.e. illegal.