Doctors' worst fears about the Texas abortion law are coming true

I am pro life, but this law is pretty darn stupid and a pure result of the RW culture wars.

Doctors' worst fears about the Texas abortion law are coming true
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months
Doctors in Texas have been warning that SB 8 would make it harder for them to treat medical crises and would endanger their patients. Six months in, many say those predictions are coming true.
.
.
"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' "

 

Tragic...but if you expect understanding or sympathy from the Right it ain't gonna happen....their standard grunt reply would be "DUH, she shoulda kept her legs together"...

 

This seems like an article designed just to try to elicit sympathy.

Yes, that specific situation is a bit of a difficult grey zone. Many babies might have a high chance of surviving in these sorts of situations and the risk to the mother is low. This type of justification could easily get turned into an excuse to perform an abortion - when the real reason it's being performed isn't actually due to health reasons. The question is where exactly do you draw the line.

It does sound like this law could have been written better.

Anyway, this woman will not have too much problem. She can hop over the state border. Like to New Mexico, which is the Wild West when it comes to Abortions. It's just designed to make it a little more difficult, in the hopes that women won't get abortions out of easy convenience.

 

"...Abortion has been illegal in Texas after six weeks gestation, with one exception: If a doctor determines that a patient will face a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues, they can perform an abortion later on without breaking the law.
But Texas’s medical exception is narrower, and less defined, than others found in gestational bans across the country... The language of the exception has created confusion and fear for some doctors in the state, who say it is unclear how at risk a patient has to be before they can step in."

In the Texas abortion bill, the medical exception leaves out many high-risk pregnancies - The Lily

In other words the doctor did not believe it could actually be justified as "an emergency".

Indeed, I suspect the doctor may likely have not recommended an abortion in this case, if the fetus was going to have a high chance of survival.
Which is why he did not feel comfortable performing the abortion under the law.

So the issue seems to be that the law does not simultaneously take both the health of the fetus and the health of the woman into account, which I believe it logically should. This would be the mathematical approach, but the law seems to be written with simplicity in mind.

 

You have no sympathy for women who die that that situation?

They are waging a culture war so they wanted to pass something, - anything so they can say they did it.

It did not sound like she was in any condition to hop anywhere.

They are afraid to rule it as such, because they can be sued. Its better to let the patient die than risk breaking the law, or maybe they'll get sued for letting them die. It leaves the doctors in a pretty bad situation. - a "darn if you do and darn if you don't" kind of situation.

This is what happens when the government gets involved in everything, and TX and FL are slipping and sliding down that hill very fast.

The doctor said there was zero chance.

 

First, everyone knows trying to elicit sympathy for women is a "no-go" from the start with Anti-Choicers.



Second, are you contending that the article isn't true? That there was no woman in need? No doctors?

No, there was no grey zone, the article spells out the situation in detail.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

It's not a law and it shouldn't have come into existence at all.....it will kill women.

May I see your medical degree?

She was in no position to "hop" anywhere...a delay could have killed her....and no, I'm not silly enough to expect sympathy in that situation.

What does that mean?????

Did you think the abortion considered in the OP was just for "convenience"?

AND, why shouldn't abortions be performed if kids aren't convenient for the woman??

That is WHY woman get abortions.... Oh, and sometimes they can also DIE if they don't get one

but I don't expect sympathy...

 

There is no lawsuit that can happen for the doctor doing the procedure since ethe baby isn't likely to survive but I tell you, that this woman should sue the doctor for refusing to perform a life saving procedure. That's illegal for sure.

 

The woman did not absolutely "need" an abortion, except for the fact the fetus had virtually no chance of survival and so therefore her health risk was not worth trying to save the fetus.

The word "need" can have a little bit of a different meaning in different contexts - it doesn't always quite mean the same thing.

If the doctor felt the circumstances were such that it was obvious the woman was going to have a medical emergency if she didn't get an abortion, then he wouldn't have been worried about getting in trouble for performing one. That tells us there was only a CHANCE she might have had a medical emergency.

(And I bet there was a very small CHANCE the fetus might have been able to survive if she didn't get an abortion, so there's something else for you to consider)

Am I defending what the law ended up doing here in this specific situation? No. I'm just saying it's not quite as extremely bad as the way that news article makes it sound.

 

Again you had to cherry pick my post so once again I'll ask you May I see your medical degree?

Your proof they consulted with you??

Your definition of "need" should rule over anyone else's ?? NO, it has nothing to do with other people's lives...



Oh, and try not to contradict YOURSELF in the same post

YOU: """except for the fact the fetus had virtually no chance of survival""

YOU:""I bet there was a very small CHANCE the fetus might have been able to survive""


Doesn't matter what you think....the doctors know more that you do ....really, they do....

 

The way the law was written, it wasn't written to consider the woman's risks to health when the fetus has nearly no chance of survival.

If she had a medical condition that was probably going to cause an emergency later, then there would be no issue, because the law clearly says that an abortion can be done in that situation.

 

The UNCHERRY -PICKED POST :''Again you had to cherry pick my post so once again I'll ask you May I see your medical degree?

Your proof they consulted with you??

Your definition of "need" should rule over anyone else's ?? NO, it has nothing to do with other people's lives...



Oh, and try not to contradict YOURSELF in the same post

YOU: """except for the fact the fetus had virtually no chance of survival""

YOU:""I bet there was a very small CHANCE the fetus might have been able to survive""


Doesn't matter what you think....the doctors know more that you do ....really, they do....

LOL, you're just squirming, dodging, and wiggling....and must have read the OP with your eyes wide SHUT....

 

You do realize that sometimes articles can make a perception that exaggerates the reality. They don't literally have to say something that is definitively false to give a false impression.

Just admit this pro-choice article, although it raised a perfectly valid point, was a little bit sensationalistic.

 

You don't realize that this happened, no reason to lie, and may happen to other women...

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PROVE IT'S FALSE....


The UNCHERRY -PICKED POST :''Again you had to cherry pick my post so once again I'll ask you May I see your medical degree?

Your proof they consulted with you??

Your definition of "need" should rule over anyone else's ?? NO, it has nothing to do with other people's lives...



Oh, and try not to contradict YOURSELF in the same post

YOU: """except for the fact the fetus had virtually no chance of survival""

YOU:""I bet there was a very small CHANCE the fetus might have been able to survive""


Doesn't matter what you think....the doctors know more that you do ....really, they do....

 

Prove anything bad actually happened to this woman because of this law.

It MIGHT, but you have no evidence this has happened to any other women.

 

Does that mean you are willing to listen to Pro-Life doctors, or former Abortion doctors who are now part of the Pro-Life movement?
I didn't think so.


see thread here if you're interested
former abortionist gives lecture

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Doesn't matter what you think....the doctors know more that you do ....really, they do...

LOL, that has nothing to do with """.the doctors know more that you do """

"Pro-Life" (Anti-Choice) doctors are biased.....Pro-Choice doctors actually care about their patients....the OP article did not indicate how these doctors felt.

Nope, not interested in reading about people who think women are nothing more than animals...

 

You do realize most abortion doctors view women as money-generating cows?

(Let's be realistic here, it's not exactly the sort of field you enter if you're interested in "helping people")

 

I don't necessarily expect understanding or sympathy from people against abortion (they aren't all on the right) but a little forethought would be nice. This law is just perfect for a bunch of rich doctors to open up practice one inch over the state line for any women in need of qualified medical assistance to obtain information and abortion services.

And, I believe it would help if anti-abortionists were required to do community service in various parts of society where most unwanted babies and children end up if they get arrested. Maybe if they actually had an ounce of real exposure to "those precious little lives"...well, you know the deal.

 

Let me guess. You are under the impression that you are?

Don't bother. I know the <censoring myself> you'll start to spew.

 

How many little girls if asked say "When I grow up, I want to be an abortion doctor and help women!"


Oh, I actually started a thread about how interesting it was that so few abortion doctors were women, even though abortion is considered a field of Ob-Gyn and 70% of doctors entering Ob-Gyn now are female. But a moderator deleted it, because they felt the title of the thread was too provocative, for asking why women doctors didn't seem to want to do this line of work, and implying that the dirty work of killing was more of something only a man would be willing to do.


But let's be totally fair here. The abortion doctors in hospitals that do abortions for health reasons are mostly a totally different breed of doctors from the ones who operate in clinics and do mostly elective abortions.

 

TOPIC :
Doctors' worst fears about the Texas abortion law are coming true



HILARIOUS...YOU are so Off Topic ...and YOU so often claim others are

BUT


It seems to be all you have....OH, the flailing and scrambling and squirming and making specious claims with NO PROOF when one has NOTHING...

 

you say this as though abortion doctors are special & other medical fields aren't this way lol.

 

Well... there is a little bit of half truth in this. Doctors at least in other fields are little bit more likely to say "helping people" is on their list of reasons for doing that job, even though it might be farther down on that list of reasons.
When you get to the doctors running clinics that specialize in late-terms, "helping people" definitely doesn't have anything to do with it. Maybe they tell themselves they are helping women to rationalize what they are doing and sleep better at night.

I think if you listen to most late-term abortion doctors who have been willing to openly talk about this subject, they are very cynical.
Even admitting there are some bad women out there, who keep coming back to their clinic over and over again but there's nothing they can do, and they don't want to be lectured about birth control.

Anyway, we're getting off topic. We can start a separate thread about this.

 

YOU don't know what doctors would say.

There aren't any clinics dealing in late term abortions. They are illegal.

Women aren't people? Here's news for Anti-Choicers...women are people.

If they're doing legal abortions why should they need anything to help them sleep better?

If they're doing something illegal why would they need something to help them sleep better at night.?

So?

THERE IT IS....women who have abortions are "bad" according to Anti-Choicers who never look in a mirror..

Where do you get this ridiculous crap? From your science fiction movies?

LOL, YOU go off topic....and then suggest not going off topic

 

I realize that Anti-Choicers view women as actual cows...