Terrible look for the state, in the Cox case the abortion was deemed medically necessary. End of story, government needs to stay out of people's healthcare. Commies up in the state of Texas, like China.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Pylon Cam said:

---

Ken Paxton is a sick individual, and the fact that Texas Republicans allowed this criminal to remain in power tells me everything I need to know about them.

---

The Republican Party of Texas is pure evil.

---

Generally speaking, those who are fighting for the life of innocent babies aren't the evil ones. Molech worshipping, on the othe hand, is by definition, evil.

HTH.

GMaster0 said:

---

Terrible look for the state, in the Cox case the abortion was deemed medically necessary. End of story, government needs to stay out of people's healthcare. Commies up in the state of Texas, like China.

---

That's actually the problem. The plaintiff didn't provide evidence that it's "medically necessary." This would be over if they had. I don't understand why they didn't do that. Why wouldn't her doctor testify to that?

This woman is represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights. They will keep bringing these borderline cases in an attempt to establish legal precedent and neuter the Texas law. IMO, she hurt her case by allowing the CRR to represent her. They are an entirely political organization with an obvious agenda.

The Texas Supreme Court issued a stay. Cox needs to go to another state if she's truly believes this is an emergency.

The lawsuit that should be focused on is the one filed by 5 women, one of which had lost all her amniotic fluid but was not allowed an abortion until she became septic.

A woman who went thru over a year of fertility treatments had to wait to save her life.

Mary Bailey said:

---

GMaster0 said:

---

Terrible look for the state, in the Cox case the abortion was deemed medically necessary. End of story, government needs to stay out of people's healthcare. Commies up in the state of Texas, like China.

---

That's actually the problem. The plaintiff didn't provide evidence that it's "medically necessary." This would be over if they had. I don't understand why they didn't do that. Why wouldn't her doctor testify to that?

This woman is represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights. They will keep bringing these borderline cases in an attempt to establish legal precedent and neuter the Texas law. IMO, she hurt her case by allowing the CRR to represent her. They are an entirely political organization with an obvious agenda.

The Texas Supreme Court issued a stay. Cox needs to go to another state if she's truly believes this is an emergency.

---

The doctor is a plaintiff in the case, and swore to the contents of the petition (filed 4 days ago.) The petition included several statements, sworn to by the doctor, saying the doctor believes in the "medical necessity" and the exception applies.

I'm not sure the doctor ever had a chance to "testify." Not sure how the court handled the case so far. But a sworn petition is essentially one in the same.

And look, the actual lawsuit is more complicated from the doctor's standpoint than simply whether the exception is met.

I'll repeat what I said above, you can disagree legally or medically, but there seems no reason to doubt the doctor here was and is acting in good faith and believes there is medical necessity as that is understood in the medical profession.

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Quote:

---

It's why compromises have to be made on abortion policy. All out bans are terrible policy, but there should still be reasonable restrictions.

---

We had states trying to pass legislation making abortion legal up until birth prior to 2022. In fact there are 7 states that do not have any restrictions on the timeline of an abortion. You consider that reasonable restrictions?

From the evidence I have read this particular situation is only messy to those who want unrestricted abortion, at least as it applies to the reasoning for the abortion.

---

this is probably the most ridiculous BS myth pushed by the forced birth side. this does not happen. ever. no woman ever carries a pregnancy to term then says oh nevermind the day before birth.

any late abortions are ALWAYS due to severe and rare (and usually horrible) situations, either to the mother or to the fetus, or both.

---

Yeah, that's true. Kermit Gosnell didn't actually exist. Good call.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kermit-gosnell-dr-abortion-clinic-story-b2346073.html

Quote:

---

By the end of the search, authorities had found 47 aborted fetuses and infants stored at the facility including one late-term infant frozen inside a water bottle.

---

---

Assuming any of this is true{doubtful} wouldn't it already be illegal under Roe? That assumes that these fetuses were viable.

---

Of course it's true. This case made international headlines. And no, Roe did not disallow late term abortions.

---

When were they allowed under Roe and when are they allowed now. Can't wait to hear your answer You ok with the Texas AG threatening to sue the doctors in this case?

---

Late term abortion were allowed under Roe. Not sure how else to say it. They are still allowed in several states.

I am okay with the doctors being sued if they are not following the law.

---

Roe allowed states to ban late term abortions.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Quote:

---

It's why compromises have to be made on abortion policy. All out bans are terrible policy, but there should still be reasonable restrictions.

---

We had states trying to pass legislation making abortion legal up until birth prior to 2022. In fact there are 7 states that do not have any restrictions on the timeline of an abortion. You consider that reasonable restrictions?

From the evidence I have read this particular situation is only messy to those who want unrestricted abortion, at least as it applies to the reasoning for the abortion.

---

this is probably the most ridiculous BS myth pushed by the forced birth side. this does not happen. ever. no woman ever carries a pregnancy to term then says oh nevermind the day before birth.

any late abortions are ALWAYS due to severe and rare (and usually horrible) situations, either to the mother or to the fetus, or both.

---

Yeah, that's true. Kermit Gosnell didn't actually exist. Good call.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kermit-gosnell-dr-abortion-clinic-story-b2346073.html

Quote:

---

By the end of the search, authorities had found 47 aborted fetuses and infants stored at the facility including one late-term infant frozen inside a water bottle.

---

---

Assuming any of this is true{doubtful} wouldn't it already be illegal under Roe? That assumes that these fetuses were viable.

---

Of course it's true. This case made international headlines. And no, Roe did not disallow late term abortions.

---

When were they allowed under Roe and when are they allowed now. Can't wait to hear your answer You ok with the Texas AG threatening to sue the doctors in this case?

---

Late term abortion were allowed under Roe. Not sure how else to say it. They are still allowed in several states.

I am okay with the doctors being sued if they are not following the law.

---

Roe allowed states to ban late term abortions.

---

Right. But Roe didn't ban them. They were and are still done.

I agree with whoever said people can leave that don't like it but they won't. They'll vote and I hope like hell abortion isn't the issue that turns Texas over to the dems.

Mary Bailey said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Quote:

---

It's why compromises have to be made on abortion policy. All out bans are terrible policy, but there should still be reasonable restrictions.

---

We had states trying to pass legislation making abortion legal up until birth prior to 2022. In fact there are 7 states that do not have any restrictions on the timeline of an abortion. You consider that reasonable restrictions?

From the evidence I have read this particular situation is only messy to those who want unrestricted abortion, at least as it applies to the reasoning for the abortion.

---

this is probably the most ridiculous BS myth pushed by the forced birth side. this does not happen. ever. no woman ever carries a pregnancy to term then says oh nevermind the day before birth.

any late abortions are ALWAYS due to severe and rare (and usually horrible) situations, either to the mother or to the fetus, or both.

---

Yeah, that's true. Kermit Gosnell didn't actually exist. Good call.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kermit-gosnell-dr-abortion-clinic-story-b2346073.html

Quote:

---

By the end of the search, authorities had found 47 aborted fetuses and infants stored at the facility including one late-term infant frozen inside a water bottle.

---

---

Assuming any of this is true{doubtful} wouldn't it already be illegal under Roe? That assumes that these fetuses were viable.

---

Of course it's true. This case made international headlines. And no, Roe did not disallow late term abortions.

---

When were they allowed under Roe and when are they allowed now. Can't wait to hear your answer You ok with the Texas AG threatening to sue the doctors in this case?

---

Late term abortion were allowed under Roe. Not sure how else to say it. They are still allowed in several states.

I am okay with the doctors being sued if they are not following the law.

---

Roe allowed states to ban late term abortions.

---

Right. But Roe didn't ban them. They were and are still done.

---

Roe was not going to ban abortions just like SCOTUS recently did not ban abortions. They have no ability to ban abortions. They can only speak to affirmative rights and what states can permissibly do.

Late terms were and are exceedingly rare. But abortions are happening later and later as women need more time to get together money and the opportunity to travel for abortions.


I see Kermit Gosnell was brought up. That is a terrible example. He was not behaving legally. He violated numerous federal and state laws. He is a convicted serial killer. He will die in prison, and the state originally sought to have him executed for his actions. Roe did not allow for that.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

GMaster0 said:

---

Terrible look for the state, in the Cox case the abortion was deemed medically necessary. End of story, government needs to stay out of people's healthcare. Commies up in the state of Texas, like China.

---

That's actually the problem. The plaintiff didn't provide evidence that it's "medically necessary." This would be over if they had. I don't understand why they didn't do that. Why wouldn't her doctor testify to that?

This woman is represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights. They will keep bringing these borderline cases in an attempt to establish legal precedent and neuter the Texas law. IMO, she hurt her case by allowing the CRR to represent her. They are an entirely political organization with an obvious agenda.

The Texas Supreme Court issued a stay. Cox needs to go to another state if she's truly believes this is an emergency.

---

The doctor is a plaintiff in the case, and swore to the contents of the petition (filed 4 days ago.) The petition included several statements, sworn to by the doctor, saying the doctor believes in the "medical necessity" and the exception applies.

I'm not sure the doctor ever had a chance to "testify." Not sure how the court handled the case so far. But a sworn petition is essentially one in the same.

And look, the actual lawsuit is more complicated from the doctor's standpoint than simply whether the exception is met.

I'll repeat what I said above, you can disagree legally or medically, but there seems no reason to doubt the doctor here was and is acting in good faith and believes there is medical necessity as that is understood in the medical profession.

---

The doctor said a repeat C-section would possibly impair her fertility. That's true of all C-sections. She said her uterus could rupture. That's true of all labor after a C-section. If this is allowed under the exceptions, any woman with a prior C-section can abort because a repeat C-section might harm their fertility. This not a valid case for the exception IMO. Like the person said above, the woman with sepsis was the case to champion.

This doctor was a prolific abortion provider before it was outlawed in Texas. That is a reason to doubt that the doctor is acting in good faith.

Texas does not have an exception for fetal abnormality. If the citizens want one, they need to work towards that.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Quote:

---

It's why compromises have to be made on abortion policy. All out bans are terrible policy, but there should still be reasonable restrictions.

---

We had states trying to pass legislation making abortion legal up until birth prior to 2022. In fact there are 7 states that do not have any restrictions on the timeline of an abortion. You consider that reasonable restrictions?

From the evidence I have read this particular situation is only messy to those who want unrestricted abortion, at least as it applies to the reasoning for the abortion.

---

this is probably the most ridiculous BS myth pushed by the forced birth side. this does not happen. ever. no woman ever carries a pregnancy to term then says oh nevermind the day before birth.

any late abortions are ALWAYS due to severe and rare (and usually horrible) situations, either to the mother or to the fetus, or both.

---

Yeah, that's true. Kermit Gosnell didn't actually exist. Good call.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kermit-gosnell-dr-abortion-clinic-story-b2346073.html

Quote:

---

By the end of the search, authorities had found 47 aborted fetuses and infants stored at the facility including one late-term infant frozen inside a water bottle.

---

---

Assuming any of this is true{doubtful} wouldn't it already be illegal under Roe? That assumes that these fetuses were viable.

---

Of course it's true. This case made international headlines. And no, Roe did not disallow late term abortions.

---

When were they allowed under Roe and when are they allowed now. Can't wait to hear your answer You ok with the Texas AG threatening to sue the doctors in this case?

---

Late term abortion were allowed under Roe. Not sure how else to say it. They are still allowed in several states.

I am okay with the doctors being sued if they are not following the law.

---

Roe allowed states to ban late term abortions.

---

Right. But Roe didn't ban them. They were and are still done.

---

Roe was not going to ban abortions just like SCOTUS recently did not ban abortions. They have no ability to ban abortions. They can only speak to affirmative rights and what states can permissibly do.

Late terms were and are exceedingly rare. But abortions are happening later and later as women need more time to get together money and the opportunity to travel for abortions.


I see Kermit Gosnell was brought up. That is a terrible example. He was not behaving legally. He violated numerous federal and state laws. He is a convicted serial killer. He will die in prison, and the state originally sought to have him executed for his actions. Roe did not allow for that.

---

I answered a simple question that someone asked. I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. Late term abortion was previously legal in SOME states and it still is. It's really that simple. Maybe go back and look at who/what I was replying to.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Pylon Cam said:

---

Ken Paxton is a sick individual, and the fact that Texas Republicans allowed this criminal to remain in power tells me everything I need to know about them.

---

The Republican Party of Texas is pure evil.

---

You need to graduate from saying things that a 15 year old leftist would say.

Everyone should read the petition for themselves. This is not about this woman's life or health. This is purely an attempt to degrade the Texas law to the point of being unenforceable. Sad for those "pro-life conservatives" on this thread that were taken in by it. You cannot trust CRR.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Quote:

---

It's why compromises have to be made on abortion policy. All out bans are terrible policy, but there should still be reasonable restrictions.

---

We had states trying to pass legislation making abortion legal up until birth prior to 2022. In fact there are 7 states that do not have any restrictions on the timeline of an abortion. You consider that reasonable restrictions?

From the evidence I have read this particular situation is only messy to those who want unrestricted abortion, at least as it applies to the reasoning for the abortion.

---

this is probably the most ridiculous BS myth pushed by the forced birth side. this does not happen. ever. no woman ever carries a pregnancy to term then says oh nevermind the day before birth.

any late abortions are ALWAYS due to severe and rare (and usually horrible) situations, either to the mother or to the fetus, or both.

---

Yeah, that's true. Kermit Gosnell didn't actually exist. Good call.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kermit-gosnell-dr-abortion-clinic-story-b2346073.html

Quote:

---

By the end of the search, authorities had found 47 aborted fetuses and infants stored at the facility including one late-term infant frozen inside a water bottle.

---

---

Assuming any of this is true{doubtful} wouldn't it already be illegal under Roe? That assumes that these fetuses were viable.

---

Of course it's true. This case made international headlines. And no, Roe did not disallow late term abortions.

---

When were they allowed under Roe and when are they allowed now. Can't wait to hear your answer You ok with the Texas AG threatening to sue the doctors in this case?

---

Late term abortion were allowed under Roe. Not sure how else to say it. They are still allowed in several states.

I am okay with the doctors being sued if they are not following the law.

---

Roe allowed states to ban late term abortions.

---

Right. But Roe didn't ban them. They were and are still done.

---

Late terms were and are exceedingly rare.

---

Baseless. Even if it were true, the fact that a single child is allowed to be killed in the final trimester is pure evil. The point is that it's a mainstream position within the Democrat party. That would be the law of the land if Dems were in total control. One child, or a million. Murder is murder.

The late term abortion "thing" is an increasingly common red herring and obfuscating response to those who believe Roe was appropriate or that, as was originally said, "out right bans" are unwise. That's the point I and the other poster was making earlier in that chain of posts.

This is a great point.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

The late term abortion "thing" is an increasingly common red herring and obfuscating response to those who believe Roe was appropriate or that, as was originally said, "out right bans" are unwise. That's the point I and the other poster was making earlier in that chain of posts.

---

This is what I replying to.

Quote:

---

When were they allowed under Roe and when are they allowed now. Can't wait to hear your answer You ok with the Texas AG threatening to sue the doctors in this case?

---

I answered a simple question. Your beef is with someone else.

So pointing out legislation thats on the books in numerous Dem states, seven by last count, is now a red herring. LOL, ok.

Mary Bailey said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

The late term abortion "thing" is an increasingly common red herring and obfuscating response to those who believe Roe was appropriate or that, as was originally said, "out right bans" are unwise. That's the point I and the other poster was making earlier in that chain of posts.

---

This is what I replying to.

Quote:

---

When were they allowed under Roe and when are they allowed now. Can't wait to hear your answer You ok with the Texas AG threatening to sue the doctors in this case?

---

I answered a simple question. Your beef is with someone else.

---

My post in response to you earlier was merely made to clarify what Roe says. It "allowed" for insofar as it largely denied any right to have one and that it is up to the states.

The above comment is a more general comment not "aimed" at anything you 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.

---

The question should be whether there's a medical reason. If the answer is yes then it's absurd to tell them to go out of state. Not every person is in a financial position to travel out of state for medical care, unless your proposal is to have the State of Texas to pay for that trip.

I do wonder what kind of lawsuit is coming when a person is denied a waiver for medical reasons and then ultimately dies. Even if not a lawsuit that's going to be a huge political loss for republicans. If you're not willing to compromise at all then you invite the exception to the rule to galvanize opposition.

MaxPower said:

---

I do wonder what kind of lawsuit is coming when a person is denied a waiver for medical reasons and then ultimately dies. Even if not a lawsuit that's going to be a huge political loss for republicans. If you're not willing to compromise at all then you invite the exception to the rule to galvanize opposition.

---

That would of course blow up the issue on the national stage. And hospital systems and the collective medical providing community would leverage their resources to push for changes to the law.


At any rate, Paxton should have waited until after the Texas Supreme Court responded to the state's petition for a stay and appeal before deciding whether to send out that letter, certainly before pasting it on social media

Texas Supreme Court issues a temporary stay to prevent this abortion

Not ruling on the merits, just giving itself the time to review the case.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Pylon Cam said:

---

Ken Paxton is a sick individual, and the fact that Texas Republicans allowed this criminal to remain in power tells me everything I need to know about them.

---

The Republican Party of Texas is pure evil.

---

Generally speaking, those who are fighting for the life of innocent babies aren't the evil ones. Molech worshipping, on the othe hand, is by definition, evil.

HTH.

---

They aren't fighting for innocent babies. That's been demonstrated already. Instead they made a false, made up exception for "life of the mother" and knowingly lied about that to the people, never intending for it to actually be triggered. This woman runs significant health risks in carrying the pregnancy any further and Ken Paxton and his death squad are fighting tooth and nail to stop the woman from getting medically necessary healthcare.

You don't actually believe they are fighting so an innocent baby can have the opportunity at life. No one does. A woman is trying to trigger the one exception to the abortion ban and, simply put, that makes those in power angry.

Completely unacceptable that SCOTX is even considering this given the emergency circumstances the woman is facing at a 20 week pregnancy.

This is as clear as a litmus test as there ever was for anything. Forcing this woman to go through this just to satisfy the republicans' sick obsession with power is pure evil.

Edit: ask yourself this. What if Paxton wins here? The woman is forced to carry the pregnancy. The baby is either stillborn or suffers in agony for hours or days then dies an awful death. Woman's health suffers more, possibly becomes infertile. She and her husband are forced to go through more of this gut wrenching situation. Then what? Are paxton and Abbott going to hi five each other and gloat about how much they fight for life?

There are no winners here. This is unabashed cruelty.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Pylon Cam said:

---

Ken Paxton is a sick individual, and the fact that Texas Republicans allowed this criminal to remain in power tells me everything I need to know about them.

---

The Republican Party of Texas is pure evil.

---

Generally speaking, those who are fighting for the life of innocent babies aren't the evil ones. Molech worshipping, on the othe hand, is by definition, evil.

HTH.

---

They aren't fighting for innocent babies. That's been demonstrated already. Instead they made a false, made up exception for "life of the mother" and knowingly lied about that to the people, never intending for it to actually be triggered. This woman runs significant health risks in carrying the pregnancy any further and Ken Paxton and his death squad are fighting tooth and nail to stop the woman from getting medically necessary healthcare.

You don't actually believe they are fighting so an innocent baby can have the opportunity at life. No one does. A woman is trying to trigger the one exception to the abortion ban and, simply put, that makes those in power angry.

Completely unacceptable that SCOTX is even considering this given the emergency circumstances the woman is facing at a 20 week pregnancy.

This is as clear as a litmus test as there ever was for anything. Forcing this woman to go through this just to satisfy the republicans' sick obsession with power is pure evil.

---

Your sick obsession with killing children is noted and ALSO pure evil.

See how that works?

You're entitled to your opinion. But I have actual data and reasons for my views. You and other forced birthers always go back to the same old appeals to emotion and are completely incapable of seeing the nuances in every different situation. Your argument is only "but muh baby killer!"

barbacoa taco said:

---

You're entitled to your opinion. But I have actual data and reasons for my views. You and other forced birthers always go back to the same old appeals to emotion and are completely incapable of seeing the nuances in every different situation

---

You have as much "actual data" of "republicans' sick obsession with power" as I have data of your sick obsession with killing children.

barbacoa taco said:

---

You're entitled to your opinion. But I have actual data and reasons for my views. You and other forced birthers always go back to the same old appeals to emotion and are completely incapable of seeing the nuances in every different situation

---

All I've seen in this thread from you is a bunch of lies that staff allows you to post.

Since you have data, at what day does life begin in the womb. The point at which terminating that life would be murder?

The very fact that this legal battle was necessary and is still on going is evidence enough for that.

And "sick obsession with killing children" is more emotional nonsense. Grow up and try to look at this situation with some more maturity and objectivity.

barbacoa taco said:

---

The very fact that this legal battle was necessary and is still on going is evidence enough for that.

---

No. It is not.

Just stating your opinion on why someone does something and then claiming that as fact (or "actual data" in this case), does not make it true.

Or, are you saying that when I stated you have an obsession with killing children that it IS a fact? You really DO like to kill children?

Again answer my question, if Paxton wins and both the baby and the mom later die, is that a win?

Ag with kids said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

You're entitled to your opinion. But I have actual data and reasons for my views. You and other forced birthers always go back to the same old appeals to emotion and are completely incapable of seeing the nuances in every different situation

---

You have as much "actual data" of "republicans' sick obsession with power" as I have data of your sick obsession with killing children.

---

Unlike you and me, he's not expressing an opinion, he's simply delivering "facts" based on data and his reasons. LOL

Go read up on this case then come back. It's evident you have not. This obviously isn't a typical abortion case. Actually think about the effects the law is having on this woman, and reconsider what you're saying. Until then I'm not interested in having an emotional discussion with you.

barbacoa taco said:

---

The very fact that this legal battle was necessary and is still on going is evidence enough for that.

And "sick obsession with killing children" is more emotional nonsense. Grow up and try to look at this situation with some more maturity and objectivity.

---

When you lead with "sick obsession with power" it's pretty amusing that you then pivot to accuse others of "emotional nonsense".

Perhaps you should take your own advice about how to look at this situation...

barbacoa taco said:

---

Go read up on this case then come back. It's evident you have not. This obviously isn't a typical abortion case. Actually think about the effects the law is having on this woman, and reconsider what you're saying. Until then I'm not interested in having an emotional discussion with you.

---

I haven't even addressed the case. I've addressed YOUR comments.

Stop throwing out emotional molotov cocktails and maybe you could have a decent exchange on here.