Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
"in your opinion." OK. Don't know how to change that and don't want to so there's that. As for being relevant, I'm willing to let the mods decide that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pro-Life = Pro-death
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
Let's not bother them with decisions
that aren't about moderation.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Do whatever you want, I don't care.
I'll continue later.
Heading out to lunch.
I'll let you know what I have when I return.
BrightShadow
Active Member
Third woman dies under Texas’ abortion ban as doctors use riskier miscarriage treatments
Wrapping his wife in a blanket as she mourned the loss of her pregnancy at 11 weeks, Hope Ngumezi wondered why no obstetrician was coming to see her. Over the course of six hours on June 11, 2023, Porsha Ngumezi had bled so much in the emergency department at Houston Methodist Sugar Land that...www.rawstory.com
One more TX death for the books. Thanks SCOTUS.
There is room for adjustments. Law-makers should educate themselves and realize when lifesaving treatment should be provided. They need to let the doctors make the call.
When a pregnant patient did not come for abortion - the doctor should have the final say with impunity and 100% immunity; especially when life of the host is at risk.
No host = no future baby (especially a pregnant mother who is only 11 months pregnant).
The doctor should be able to make the lifesaving decisions.
Anybody really read the entire article?
First problem I see with this article is that - Porsha (the lady who died) had not had a prenatal visit to confirm how old her pregnancy really was. It was just an estimation that it was 11 weeks. So, the doctors had to consider that it could be just a couple of weeks.
Second problem was - Porsha held off blood transfusion until her husband arrived and convinced her. Not sure if one should be allowed to decide to hold off something they need at a time like that. Obviously she didn't want to lose the pregnancy.
Following is quoted from the article:
"All Porsha talked about was her devastation of losing the pregnancy. She was cold, crying and in extreme pain. She wanted to be at home with her boys. Unsure what to say, Hope leaned his chest over the cot, passing his body heat to her."
Sound like she didn't want the abortion. Doesn't sound like someone who is a willing participant and certainly doesn't sound like she wanted D & C (vacuuming out everything that is in there). So, there is more to the story.
The Doctor did a poor job by being fearful of the law. Doctor also didn't explain properly to the patient in question. But that is the version of the husband. Not sure about the true version of events.
In either case - Doctors should have the final say when life is at risk.
Fight for that! Let the doctors do their job when life could be saved.
But don't fight for pregnant mothers who just want a free pass to avoid responsibility and consequences.
BrightShadow
Active Member
You won’t like it since you both are extremists. But the constitution doesn’t observe rights until birth.
That doesn’t mean laws can’t be written to assign rights to a late stage fetus. I have no problem with that as long as there are exceptions for fatal conditions.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think it's the height of condescending arrogance that someone other than the woman involved is supposedly the one who should make the decision with that which is inside her. Is the government going to tell her next what operations she must have, what she must eat or not eat, etc?
BrightShadow
Active Member
PureX
Veteran Member
Texans have never cared about wrongful deaths. They like to "hang 'em high" whether they're guilty or not.Third woman dies under Texas’ abortion ban as doctors use riskier miscarriage treatments
Wrapping his wife in a blanket as she mourned the loss of her pregnancy at 11 weeks, Hope Ngumezi wondered why no obstetrician was coming to see her. Over the course of six hours on June 11, 2023, Porsha Ngumezi had bled so much in the emergency department at Houston Methodist Sugar Land that...
One more TX death for the books. Thanks SCOTUS.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
A good friend of mine who lived most of his life here in Michigan moved down to Texas for 7 years for his job, and he said what goes on down there with how people of color are treated was literally shocking to him.
Texas AG Ken Paxton has said he will prosecute doctors who perform abortions on women with non-viable pregnancies:There is room for adjustments. Law-makers should educate themselves and realize when lifesaving treatment should be provided. They need to let the doctors make the call.
When a pregnant patient did not come for abortion - the doctor should have the final say with impunity and 100% immunity; especially when life of the host is at risk.
No host = no future baby (especially a pregnant mother who is only 11 months pregnant).
The doctor should be able to make the lifesaving decisions.
Anybody really read the entire article?
First problem I see with this article is that - Porsha (the lady who died) had not had a prenatal visit to confirm how old her pregnancy really was. It was just an estimation that it was 11 weeks. So, the doctors had to consider that it could be just a couple of weeks.
Second problem was - Porsha held off blood transfusion until her husband arrived and convinced her. Not sure if one should be allowed to decide to hold off something they need at a time like that. Obviously she didn't want to lose the pregnancy.
Following is quoted from the article:
"All Porsha talked about was her devastation of losing the pregnancy. She was cold, crying and in extreme pain. She wanted to be at home with her boys. Unsure what to say, Hope leaned his chest over the cot, passing his body heat to her."
Sound like she didn't want the abortion. Doesn't sound like someone who is a willing participant and certainly doesn't sound like she wanted D & C (vacuuming out everything that is in there). So, there is more to the story.
The Doctor did a poor job by being fearful of the law. Doctor also didn't explain properly to the patient in question. But that is the version of the husband. Not sure about the true version of events.
In either case - Doctors should have the final say when life is at risk.
Fight for that! Let the doctors do their job when life could be saved.
But don't fight for pregnant mothers who just want a free pass to avoid responsibility and consequences.
‘Stunning’ threat in Texas abortion case steps up Paxton criminalization crusade
State attorney general threatened to prosecute doctors if they provided abortion care to a woman with a nonviable pregnancy
When a Texas court ruled that a 31-year-old woman with a non-viable pregnancy could have an abortion despite the state’s strict bans, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with a brazen threat to prosecute “hospitals, doctors, or anyone else” who would assist in providing the procedure. The letter he sent Texas hospitals hours after the ruling, threatening first-degree felonies that could result in life in prison, was a “stunning” move indicative of his longstanding crusade to criminalize abortion care, say legal experts and advocates.
Texas AG Ken Paxton has said he will prosecute doctors who perform abortions on women with non-viable pregnancies:
Snippet:‘Stunning’ threat in Texas abortion case steps up Paxton criminalization crusade
State attorney general threatened to prosecute doctors if they provided abortion care to a woman with a nonviable pregnancywww.theguardian.com
When a Texas court ruled that a 31-year-old woman with a non-viable pregnancy could have an abortion despite the state’s strict bans, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with a brazen threat to prosecute “hospitals, doctors, or anyone else” who would assist in providing the procedure. The letter he sent Texas hospitals hours after the ruling, threatening first-degree felonies that could result in life in prison, was a “stunning” move indicative of his longstanding crusade to criminalize abortion care, say legal experts and advocates.
Disgusting
There is room for adjustments. Law-makers should educate themselves and realize when lifesaving treatment should be provided. They need to let the doctors make the call.
When a pregnant patient did not come for abortion - the doctor should have the final say with impunity and 100% immunity; especially when life of the host is at risk.
No host = no future baby (especially a pregnant mother who is only 11 months pregnant).
The doctor should be able to make the lifesaving decisions.
Anybody really read the entire article?
First problem I see with this article is that - Porsha (the lady who died) had not had a prenatal visit to confirm how old her pregnancy really was. It was just an estimation that it was 11 weeks. So, the doctors had to consider that it could be just a couple of weeks.
Second problem was - Porsha held off blood transfusion until her husband arrived and convinced her. Not sure if one should be allowed to decide to hold off something they need at a time like that. Obviously she didn't want to lose the pregnancy.
Following is quoted from the article:
"All Porsha talked about was her devastation of losing the pregnancy. She was cold, crying and in extreme pain. She wanted to be at home with her boys. Unsure what to say, Hope leaned his chest over the cot, passing his body heat to her."
Sound like she didn't want the abortion. Doesn't sound like someone who is a willing participant and certainly doesn't sound like she wanted D & C (vacuuming out everything that is in there). So, there is more to the story.
The Doctor did a poor job by being fearful of the law. Doctor also didn't explain properly to the patient in question. But that is the version of the husband. Not sure about the true version of events.
In either case - Doctors should have the final say when life is at risk.
Fight for that! Let the doctors do their job when life could be saved.
But don't fight for pregnant mothers who just want a free pass to avoid responsibility and consequences.
Texas AG Ken Paxton was impeached for corruption (including taking bribes and abuse of the public trust) by a vote of 121-23 by the Texas House, but was later acquitted by the Texas Senate. Texas also has no public initiative process by which people can vote to allow doctors to treat pregnant women in distress. Women have tried suing the State of Texas through the courts, but Paxton has appealed saying the courts should not be able to rewrite Texas law, then proceeded to threaten doctors with prosecution up to 99 years in jail, $100k fines, and loss of license for proving emergency abortion care. I'm not sure about what else the good folk of Texas can do about this. There are also laws set up where anyone can sue another person for $10k in civil court for even helping a pregnant woman get an abortion--even out of state. So you also have to watch out for the "bounty hunters" looking for cash.Texas AG Ken Paxton has said he will prosecute doctors who perform abortions on women with non-viable pregnancies:
Snippet:‘Stunning’ threat in Texas abortion case steps up Paxton criminalization crusade
State attorney general threatened to prosecute doctors if they provided abortion care to a woman with a nonviable pregnancy
When a Texas court ruled that a 31-year-old woman with a non-viable pregnancy could have an abortion despite the state’s strict bans, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with a brazen threat to prosecute “hospitals, doctors, or anyone else” who would assist in providing the procedure. The letter he sent Texas hospitals hours after the ruling, threatening first-degree felonies that could result in life in prison, was a “stunning” move indicative of his longstanding crusade to criminalize abortion care, say legal experts and advocates.
BrightShadow
Active Member
Texas AG Ken Paxton has said he will prosecute doctors who perform abortions on women with non-viable pregnancies:
Snippet:‘Stunning’ threat in Texas abortion case steps up Paxton criminalization crusade
State attorney general threatened to prosecute doctors if they provided abortion care to a woman with a nonviable pregnancy
When a Texas court ruled that a 31-year-old woman with a non-viable pregnancy could have an abortion despite the state’s strict bans, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with a brazen threat to prosecute “hospitals, doctors, or anyone else” who would assist in providing the procedure. The letter he sent Texas hospitals hours after the ruling, threatening first-degree felonies that could result in life in prison, was a “stunning” move indicative of his longstanding crusade to criminalize abortion care, say legal experts and advocates.
Like I said in my last post - they should allow Doctors to make the call.
If life of the host is in danger then doctors should have total discretion.
But it seems the AG decided Kate Cox's life wasn't in danger because she was trying to get an abortion procedure because her fetus had a fetal condition.
She was 5 months into her pregnancy.
Not all non-variable pregnancies are the same. However Doctors should have the right to make decisions in all cases where the pregnant patients are not seeking an abortive procedure just for the fun of it. I mean - the doctors should make the call - not the patients who are trying to get out of their responsibilities.
It seems the AG doesn't trust the doctors in Texas to be honest. This is usually the case when he himself could be dishonest. It is also possible the AG is trying to stop the flood gate from opening! Dishonest doctors could take advantage of having the immunity - just like the opioid crisis where some doctors overprescribe the painkillers for personal gain.
The solution to this is simple but may cost the state some dough:
Since they made their doctors so handicapped - they should create a special SDM (like a task force) with total immunity (as a weapon of defense) to make the final call.
This SDM should come in aid (on an emergency basis) and make urgent decisions for the doctor who contacts them.
The SDM team (support decision makers) should consist of at least 3 doctors (experts) in each panel and they should be available 24/7 (at the least) via Zoom.
Problem solved!
Last edited:
Do you think Paxton would actually agree to this?Like I said in my last post - they should allow Doctors to make the call.
If life of the host is in danger then doctors should have total discretion.
But it seems the AG decided Kate Cox's life wasn't in danger because she was trying to get an abortion procedure because her fetus had a fetal condition.
She was 5 months into her pregnancy.
Not all non-variable pregnancies are the same. However Doctors should have the right to make decisions in all cases where the pregnant patients are not seeking an abortive procedure just for the fun of it. I mean - the doctors should make the call - not the patients who are trying to get out of their responsibilities.
It seems the AG doesn't trust the doctors in Texas to be honest. This is usually the case when he himself could be dishonest. It is also possible the AG is trying to stop the flood gate from opening! Dishonest doctors could take advantage of having the immunity - just like the opioid crisis where some doctors overprescribe the painkillers for personal gain.
The solution to this is simple but may cost the state some dough:
Since they made their doctors so handicapped - they should create a special SDM (like a task force) with total immunity (as a weapon of defense) to make the final call.
This SDM should come in aid (on an emergency basis) and make urgent decisions for the doctor who contacts them.
The SDM team (support decision makers) should consist of at least 3 doctors (experts) in each panel and they should be available 24/7 (at the least) via Zoom.
Problem solved!
BrightShadow
Active Member
A short answer is - Yes!
The way the conservatives (in a State like Texas) work is - they get a bit 'fidgety' when they get badly treated by the Dems in power in the White House. They hold a stronger stance to their key positions than they normally would.
However, they tone down - when the Conservatives are in the the White House.
Now they have to worry about preserving their 'name'.
Dems don't do that - they act like fanatics. Dems have no shame. They are horses with no name!
They push whatever the 'establishment' wants them to push. They put the carts in front of them and push and push and push until they go overboard.
So, since conservatives are going to take over in January - you may see something acceptable even by your standards (assuming you are an all out pro-choicer).
Nikki Haley could have convinced him (the AG) but I am yet to look into why she hasn't been invited to offer her services. I know Ramaswamy and Nikki went at each other a bit harshly. So it could be hard to incorporate both of them at the same time and attend the same meetings but 4 years term is a long time and you may see Nikki at some point and at some capacity.
If one thing Nikki can do - that would be - find some sort of middle ground on this particular issue.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Thankfully? Women have died due to their unwillingness to perform these procedures since Roe vs. Wade was overturned.
Conservative "values" cost liberty and lives. It's shameful.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
States' "rights" to deny individuals' rights. Conservatives hate freedom.