1. #7201
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The lawsuit is a big deal. Texas' law calls for “reasonable medical judgment” and permits abortion if the patient could die or if they’re at “serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” Health care providers argue this language is too vague and dangerous for pregnant people and providers. Lawmakers' response was that the providers exaggerate the issue.

    You would think that Mrs. Cox's pregnancy would fit perfectly into the exemption. Yet, the state of Texas fought the exemption all the way to the state's Supreme Court. Giving credence to the health care providers argument that the exemption language is too thin and vague. Likely designed to be that way on purpose.
    Pretty much just there so they can point and say they're decent human beings for providing an exemption.

    But also vague enough that they can fight them all anyway.

  2. #7202
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The lawsuit is a big deal. Texas' law calls for “reasonable medical judgment” and permits abortion if the patient could die or if they’re at “serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” Health care providers argue this language is too vague and dangerous for pregnant people and providers. Lawmakers' response was that the providers exaggerate the issue.

    You would think that Mrs. Cox's pregnancy would fit perfectly into the exemption. Yet, the state of Texas fought the exemption all the way to the state's Supreme Court. Giving credence to the health care providers argument that the exemption language is too thin and vague. Likely designed to be that way on purpose.
    "The language was too vague"
    Use your judgement.
    "I did, and you fuckers sued me."
    Use better judgement.
    "Like what?"
    Not performing the abortion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  3. #7203
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,394
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    I know, it absolutely sucks
    For some it's also not feasible. I know you didn't intend it in this way but just a reminder not everyone has the means to move or have extenuating circumstances that don't make this a viable solution.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    So much freedom that apparently pregnant women need to flee the state to receive the care they actually need because the state of Texas will not allow them to receive it or doctors to provide it within the borders of the state.
    One of the many unfortunate consequences of this is if she gets the abortion before the state supreme court makes a ruling they may dismiss the case as moot which will leave the legal question unanswered - which leaves the door open to make future women miserable as they try to receive healthcare, which I have no doubt Republicans will love.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  4. #7204
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    One of the many unfortunate consequences of this is if she gets the abortion before the state supreme court makes a ruling they may dismiss the case as moot which will leave the legal question unanswered - which leaves the door open to make future women miserable as they try to receive healthcare, which I have no doubt Republicans will love.
    I doubt that matters. The fast actions of the Texas Supreme Court are clear enough, IMO.

    Becoming pregnant and carrying that pregnancy to term in southern/red states has always been a riskier endeavor compared to other states, and TX Republicans are sure seeking to run the score up as if the number of women who have suffered or died due to avoidable complications in pregnancies is the kind of thing you want to have high numbers on.

  5. #7205
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I doubt that matters. The fast actions of the Texas Supreme Court are clear enough, IMO
    Its kind of sad how republicans are accusing all the various states sueing trump that they should be "dealing with their own violent crime" and other issues isntead of going after the orange man.

    But apparently making sure this woman carries this dead baby to term is more important than dealing with crime in the 11th most dangerous state to be in.

  6. #7206
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I doubt that matters.
    Except it does....doesn't it? I'm no legal expert but this was basically the state trying to set the bar for what a medical exception to the abortion ban should be. Without a ruling from the top court it remains unresolved.

    I don't know that we can assume what the top court would have ruled - the stay could have been "well this can't exactly be undone so let's rule first" rather than "we're definitely going to uphold the state's right to play doctor here".

    Maybe @cubby has insight from a legal perspective?
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  7. #7207
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Except it does....doesn't it? I'm no legal expert but this was basically the state trying to set the bar for what a medical exception to the abortion ban should be. Without a ruling from the top court it remains unresolved.

    I don't know that we can assume what the top court would have ruled - the stay could have been "well this can't exactly be undone so let's rule first" rather than "we're definitely going to uphold the state's right to play doctor here".

    Maybe @cubby has insight from a legal perspective?
    Not really: This was a case about this specific situation for this individual and it's very unlikely it would have had broader ramifications based on my read. Especially given that the Supreme Court sided with the state here initially and would have likely continued to side with them.

    In terms of precedent, likely for this narrow case, there may have been some established. But again, it'd probably be super narrow and not really useful outside her specific situation. But ultimately in terms of what it tells girls and women in the state, the initial ruling does all of that talking.

  8. #7208
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    One of the many unfortunate consequences of this is if she gets the abortion before the state supreme court makes a ruling they may dismiss the case as moot which will leave the legal question unanswered - which leaves the door open to make future women miserable as they try to receive healthcare, which I have no doubt Republicans will love.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I doubt that matters. The fast actions of the Texas Supreme Court are clear enough, IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Except it does....doesn't it? I'm no legal expert but this was basically the state trying to set the bar for what a medical exception to the abortion ban should be. Without a ruling from the top court it remains unresolved.

    I don't know that we can assume what the top court would have ruled - the stay could have been "well this can't exactly be undone so let's rule first" rather than "we're definitely going to uphold the state's right to play doctor here".

    Maybe @cubby has insight from a legal perspective?
    It just might, unfortunately. Court cases at all levels rely on something called "Standing", the legal term for having a stake in the outcome. The courts have consistently ruled that someone needs Standing in order to bring suit (there are, of course, exceptions). The reason behind Standing is to prevent people from "testing" legal rules willy nilly. So it doesn't clog the court, create bad law, create unnecessary law, etc.

    Because the woman in question is leaving to get an abortion in another state, the GOP could successfully argue that they have no standing in the case any more, and therefore it becomes unnecessary to rule. It would be unfortunate if the Court decided to deny cert based on standing, as it would be a drum that the GOP could beat on continually, using delays to force the interested parties to seek abortions out of state in a timely medical need.

    We shall see how the court handles it. Don't get your hopes up. This court has not been favorable to women's rights, one Justice was literally a Handmaid, and another doesn't believe women have a right to tampons.
    Last edited by cubby; 2023-12-12 at 12:23 AM.

  9. #7209
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    It just might, unfortunately. Court cases at all levels rely on something called "Standing", the legal term for having a stake in the outcome. The courts have consistently ruled that someone needs Standing in order to bring suit (there are, of course, exceptions). The reason behind Standing is to prevent people from "testing" legal rules willy nilly. So it doesn't clog the court, create bad law, create unnecessary law, etc.

    Because the woman in question is leaving to get an abortion in another state, the GOP could successfully argue that they have no standing in the case any more, and therefore it becomes unnecessary to rule. It would be unfortunate if the Court decided to deny cert based on standing, as it would be a drum that the GOP could beat on continually, using delays to force the interested parties to seek abortions out of state in a timely medical need.

    We shall see how the court handles it. Don't get your hopes up. This court has not been favorable to women's rights, one Justice was literally a Handmaid, and another doesn't believe women have a right to tampons.
    I am sure they are aware of the implication of Mrs. Cox having abortion performed in another state had on their case. Even if she had stayed, the chance of them getting a favorable ruling is pretty slim. As you said, the Texas court is pretty lopsided. I think they are trying to make political statement with this case. The whole fiasco made the pro-life movement looks pretty bad. There is no possible outcome where Mrs. Cox will be able to go home with a healthy baby. Yet, the state is forcing her to go through with her pregnancy. The optic is so bad that pretty much every GOP politicians pretend as if they have never heard of this case.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-12-12 at 12:50 AM.

  10. #7210
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    I am sure they are aware of the implication of Mrs. Cox having abortion performed in another state had on their case. Even if she had stayed, the chance of them getting a favorable ruling is pretty slim. As you said, the Texas court is pretty lopsided. I think they are trying to make political statement with this case. The whole fiasco made the pro-life movement looks pretty bad. There is no possible outcome where Mrs. Cox will be able to go home with a healthy baby. Yet, the state is forcing her to go through with her pregnancy. The optic is so bad that pretty much every GOP politicians pretend as if they have never heard of this case.
    And that's what the GOP will do, pretend the case never happened and never comment on it. The GOP's war on women's rights will continue until the party implodes (and it might not implode). We are already seeing "first amendment" cases come forth that challenge the rights of anyone else, on any other basis. And the GOP's war on women is partially a religious war, making it a first amendment issue.

  11. #7211
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,329
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    And that's what the GOP will do, pretend the case never happened and never comment on it. The GOP's war on women's rights will continue until the party implodes (and it might not implode). We are already seeing "first amendment" cases come forth that challenge the rights of anyone else, on any other basis. And the GOP's war on women is partially a religious war, making it a first amendment issue.
    Just like the case with that 11 year old girl. The major players of the party will pretend it never happened, and the local level troglodytes will probably do everything in their power to try and punish everyone else who helped her.

    Like I can't imagine Ken Paxton gives a shit about bad optics, the man's morally bankrupt to a degree I can't even come up with a funny metaphor for. And I love coming up with funny metaphors!

  12. #7212
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Like I can't imagine Ken Paxton gives a shit about bad optics, the man's morally bankrupt to a degree I can't even come up with a funny metaphor for. And I love coming up with funny metaphors!
    Dude's been under federal indictment for like a decade and just survived an impeachment attempt by House Republicans. He has no fucks left to give and he wants fights now.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/u...;smid=re-share

    BTW court said nah. This should be a gift link, I believe. Either way, this line jumps out at me -

    “These laws reflect the policy choice that the Legislature has made, and the courts must respect that choice,” the court wrote.
    In no small part because we've been repeating it here every time someone comes in to argue that Republicans in these states actually do care about the pregnant girls and women in their state.

  13. #7213
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    In no small part because we've been repeating it here every time someone comes in to argue that Republicans in these states actually do care about the pregnant girls and women in their state.
    Also fondly remembering the number of cyclical conversations we've had in this thread with 'reasonable' Pro-life folks who assured us with all their heart that the laws that Republicans would make wouldn't be so nakedly cruel as they ended up becoming, as clearly the 'exemptions' put into them were enough to stop things like this from happening.

    Turns out they were wrong, because the GOP is nothing if not both cruel -and- violently stubborn when it comes to their pet identity politics. If only we had thirty years of history we could look back on to divine this knowledge from, maybe then we'd not be blindsided by Republicans acting like Republicans.

  14. #7214
    Maybe the resident right-wingers like @tehdang can keep this Texas case in mind when the left doesn't support late term restrictions. It's not because we want viable fetuses to be destroyed (nobody does); it's because leaving what is or isn't 'an exception' up to political rather than medical institutions is an utter shitshow.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  15. #7215
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Like I can't imagine Ken Paxton gives a shit about bad optics, the man's morally bankrupt to a degree I can't even come up with a funny metaphor for. And I love coming up with funny metaphors!
    He doesn't. Apparently, Texas Supreme Court justices don't give a shit either. However, millions of women who will be voting in 2024 do.

    Democrats don't need to come up with abortion scare tactics. The GOP is doing fine on its own.

    Also, there is another case heading to the State Supreme Court. Twenty women sued the state arguing that the medical exceptions in the state's abortion bans are too narrow to protect patients with complicated pregnancies. One had sepsis and almost died. Her uterus was scarred and one of her fallopian tubes is now permanently closed. It is now near impossible for her to have another baby.

    One of the state's defenses was that the State of Texas never told the women not to have an abortion because they never asked for exemption. The hospitals were the ones that refused to perform the abortion. Now we know what the State of Texas would have told every single one of those women if they had asked for exemption. Big fat "NO."
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-12-12 at 05:12 AM.

  16. #7216
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    One of the state's defenses was that the State of Texas never told the women not to have an abortion because they never asked for exemption. The hospitals were the ones that refused to perform the abortion. Now we know what the State of Texas would have told every single one of those women if they had asked for exemption. Big fat "NO."
    In a just world where rules matter, this would shoot the GOP's entire case down and have the courts rule against them. But lord knows what dumb-ass make-believe nonsense the cons on the bench will come up with to justify it.

    Hypocrisy is a feature with fascists; the rules only exist to either keep them in power or keep the people they don't like down.

  17. #7217
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    Maybe the resident right-wingers like @tehdang can keep this Texas case in mind when the left doesn't support late term restrictions. It's not because we want viable fetuses to be destroyed (nobody does); it's because leaving what is or isn't 'an exception' up to political rather than medical institutions is an utter shitshow.
    I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.

    I read that the law's exception is only "life-threatening physical condition" or "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function," and her doctor never confirmed to the court that either of these were the case. So, in your case, you want better and more broad exceptions, but this somehow translates to declaring that all laws look like Texas laws; all exceptions look like Texas exceptions.

    Dr. Karsan asserted that she has a “good faith belief” that Ms. Cox meets the exception’s requirements. Certainly, a doctor cannot exercise “reasonable medical judgment” if she does not hold her judgment in good faith. But the statute requires that judgment be a “reasonable medical” judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her good faith belief” about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard.
    Doctor both said she believed she met the exception, but failed to state that she used her own reasonable medical judgment that she met the exception. The "medical institutions" failed to even pursue an exception in their expertise, prior to anything political being involved. Just so we're operating from a shared understanding of the facts.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  18. #7218
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.
    A forced-birther quoting an "article" by another forced-birther on doctors refusing to compromise with forced birthism, I wonder why nobody is entertaining your bad faith bullshit.


    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I read that the law's exception is only "life-threatening physical condition" or "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function," and her doctor never confirmed to the court that either of these were the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Doctor both said she believed she met the exception, but failed to state that she used her own reasonable medical judgment that she met the exception. The "medical institutions" failed to even pursue an exception in their expertise, prior to anything political being involved. Just so we're operating from a shared understanding of the facts.
    "Her doctor never testified to the court that her patient's life was in danger, except well she did but because I am a bad faith forced-birther I refuse to acknowledge and selectively ignore what was actually presented to the court. Too bad, maybe next time she will cross her heart and hope to die."

    If you and other evil conservatives are actively seeking imaginary loopholes in doctors' expert testimony, you shouldn't be surprised none of them wants to give any of your ilk the time of the day.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  19. #7219
    Feel bad for the woman who had to go through with this. Sorry I'm going to keep it political and the Dems better use this and mention this until elections. The fact that her unborn child was going to die within hours after birth and she even stated that the doctors told her the child would immediately have to go on life support, hospice. I don't know how that is pro-life. I personally keep my argument to right of the individual person and go no further. Yet here, conservatives really showing their cards they just wanted the woman to give birth.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  20. #7220
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.
    It's cute you think the fascist party wants to work with doctors to help people.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •