‘They have no options’: Texas court dims hope of timely abortion care for high-risk patients

Tommy Tainant

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2016
47,622
20,655
2,300
Y Cae Ras

At nearly 17 weeks pregnant, Anaya began experiencing heavy cramping and soon felt her water break. She was rushed to the hospital, where she continued to lose amniotic fluid. She developed a high fever and began shaking so uncontrollably that nurses had difficulty placing an IV. Anaya was in the early stages of sepsis, a potentially life-threatening condition.

Her OB-GYN explained that nothing could be done to save her daughter, whom Anaya had already named Tylee. Adding to Anaya’s shock, the physician informed her that to stop the infection she needed immediate abortion care, but because of Texas laws, she would have to “keep getting sicker” until the doctor could “prove” to the hospital that her life was on the line.

This isnt medieval England, it is modern day Texas. I have looked at this one and cannot see who benefits by this.

Surely once the foetus is non viable then the care of the mother is the sole focus ?

Telling a suffering woman that she needs to get more sick before she is entitled to medical help is something that only a sadist would enjoy.

It seems to me that there are a gang of primitive mentalists in texas have control over womens bodies and are having a party.

Its only women that they have control over. Never men,

Womens Lib didnt go far enough. There is still work to do in these backward shitholes.
 

At nearly 17 weeks pregnant, Anaya began experiencing heavy cramping and soon felt her water break. She was rushed to the hospital, where she continued to lose amniotic fluid. She developed a high fever and began shaking so uncontrollably that nurses had difficulty placing an IV. Anaya was in the early stages of sepsis, a potentially life-threatening condition.

Her OB-GYN explained that nothing could be done to save her daughter, whom Anaya had already named Tylee. Adding to Anaya’s shock, the physician informed her that to stop the infection she needed immediate abortion care, but because of Texas laws, she would have to “keep getting sicker” until the doctor could “prove” to the hospital that her life was on the line.

This isnt medieval England, it is modern day Texas. I have looked at this one and cannot see who benefits by this.

Surely once the foetus is non viable then the care of the mother is the sole focus ?

Telling a suffering woman that she needs to get more sick before she is entitled to medical help is something that only a sadist would enjoy.

It seems to me that there are a gang of primitive mentalists in texas have control over womens bodies and are having a party.

Its only women that they have control over. Never men,

Womens Lib didnt go far enough. There is still work to do in these backward shitholes.
While this is a minority of cases (like less than 2 - 3%-ish -- a majority of abortions are convenience) ... why wouldn't she just travel to neighboring New Mexico or Colorado to have her baby destroyed instead of waiting out for some doctor?

Pretty simple
 
While this is a minority of cases (like less than 2 - 3%-ish -- a majority of abortions are convenience) ... why wouldn't she just travel to neighboring New Mexico or Colorado to have her baby destroyed instead of waiting out for some doctor?

Pretty simple


Bingo. There are no walls between the states here in America. Nothing stops anyone from going from one state to another
 
Bingo. There are no walls between the states here in America. Nothing stops anyone from going from one state to another
It's a meaningless attempt to create a wedge issue. If I can't do something in state A .. there is state B where I can do it, yet ... sheeple attempt to thrive on these political issues instead of getting their personal issue resolved.

Politics is so stupid and I wish people were more educated on how things worked .. instead of knowing more about sports and pop culture and relying on celebrities to tell them how to vote.
 
While this is a minority of cases (like less than 2 - 3%-ish -- a majority of abortions are convenience) ... why wouldn't she just travel to neighboring New Mexico or Colorado to have her baby destroyed instead of waiting out for some doctor?

Pretty simple
She wanted her baby. Texas let her down.
 
It's a meaningless attempt to create a wedge issue. If I can't do something in state A .. there is state B where I can do it, yet ... sheeple attempt to thrive on these political issues instead of getting their personal issue resolved.

Politics is so stupid and I wish people were more educated on how things worked .. instead of knowing more about sports and pop culture and relying on celebrities to tell them how to vote.
Thanks for your pointless comment.At least you havent ignored this thread like the immoral majority.
 
While this is a minority of cases (like less than 2 - 3%-ish -- a majority of abortions are convenience) ... why wouldn't she just travel to neighboring New Mexico or Colorado to have her baby destroyed instead of waiting out for some doctor?

Pretty simple
Did you read the article? How was she supposed to get to NM or Colorado from Dallas?
 
Thanks for your pointless comment.At least you havent ignored this thread like the immoral majority.
It's about as meaningless as ignoring the Texas abortion laws that will allow termination of a baby if there is a direct life, threat to the mother. There is no "get sicker.." it is .. it's life threatening or not.

If that's a problem .. go to another adjacent state that provides killing of an unborn child.
 
Did you read the article? How was she supposed to get to NM or Colorado from Dallas?
I read the brief .. the Guardian tends to exaggerate things .... if the unborn child was a medical emergency threatening the mother .. Texas law allows providers to make this decision.

Was it life threatening or not? .... if so, Texas permits the termination of an unborn child .. if not, New Mexico does. It's not rocket science.
 
It's about as meaningless as ignoring the Texas abortion laws that will allow termination of a baby if there is a direct life, threat to the mother. There is no "get sicker.." it is .. it's life threatening or not.

If that's a problem .. go to another adjacent state that provides killing of an unborn child.
There was, just not enough at that time to meet the threshold.
 

Forum List

Back
Top