Five Women Sue Texas Over the State's Narrow Abortion Exception
The law allows abortions when there is a "medical emergency"—but what qualifies as an emergency?

Five women are suing Texas over the state's strict abortion ban, hoping to clarify the law's narrow exception for abortions in the case of a "medical emergency." The women—all of whom were denied abortions despite life-threatening complications or significant fetal abnormalities—say the statute is vague, leaving hospitals and doctors with "widespread fear and confusion," and thus is likely to deny women lifesaving care out of fear of prosecution.
"Abortion bans are preventing pregnant people from receiving the standard of care from their medical professionals in times of crisis," the lawsuit states. "Pervasive fear and uncertainty throughout the medical community regarding the scope of the life and health exceptions have put patients' lives and physicians' liberty at grave risk."
The suit, filed last Monday, seeks a declaratory judgment that doctors may perform abortions when a pregnant woman has a "medical condition that poses a risk of death or a risk to their health," when a pregnancy complication "poses a risk of infection [or] bleeding, or otherwise makes continuing a pregnancy unsafe," when a physical condition "is exacerbated by pregnancy, cannot be effectively treated during pregnancy, or requires recurrent invasive intervention," or when "the fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy and sustain life after birth."
Three of the plaintiffs were told they were carrying fetuses with severe birth defects. (Two had no skulls, and another had an underdeveloped brain and an incomplete abdominal wall, among other conditions.) For these women, continuing their pregnancies carried a substantial risk of hemorrhage or risked harming a second, unaffected, fetus in a twin pregnancy. The other two faced severe complications from a miscarriage.
One of the women, whose water broke at 19 weeks, took a risky flight to Colorado to receive an abortion rather than wait until she developed an infection in Texas. Another plaintiff, Amanda Zurawski—whose story went viral in October—nearly died after going septic when doctors in Texas denied her an abortion as she was miscarrying.
Texas law currently bars abortions except in the case of a "medical emergency," which the statute defines as "a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed." Several of these women certainly seemed to be experiencing such emergencies. Even in the cases where the fetuses, not the women, faced the most imminent danger, the risk of life-threatening complications, such as hemorrhage, was high.
Yet despite these risks, the plaintiffs describe their doctors as beset by fear of prosecution, and thus hesitant to address grave dangers to their patients. According to the suit, one woman's doctors were too scared even to talk with her about abortion. Instead "one of the doctors typed a generic abortion finder resource into her cell phone" and showed the patient the web page.
"With the threat of losing their medical licenses, fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and up to 99 years in prison lingering over their heads," the suit reads, "it is no wonder that doctors and hospitals are turning patients away—even patients in medical emergencies."
It is unclear whether the suit will succeed. While the complaint argues that the current vague language of Texas' abortion law violates the Texas Constitution's guarantee that no "citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges, or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land," the state's conservative-leaning Supreme Court is unlikely to accept such an argument. But even if the suit isn't successful, the plaintiffs hope to publicize the risks that come with vague exceptions to abortion bans.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Yet despite these risks, the plaintiffs describe their doctors as beset by fear of prosecution, and thus hesitant to address grave dangers to their patients."
Seems like they should be suing the doctors for malpractice.
IT's the legislators who put the doctors at risk of criminal prosecution. You can't, or at any rate, shouldn't, put anyone in a position where if they do X they can be prosecuted but if they decline to do X, they can be sued.
I’ve profited $17,000 in just four weeks by working from home comfortably part-time. I was devastated when I lost my previous business dec right away, but happily, I found this project, which has allowed me to get thousands of dollars from the comfort cfs06 of my home. Each person may definitely complete this simple task and earn extra money online by
visiting the next article———>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
"..which the statute defines as 'a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.'"
The statute is pretty clear- medical emergencies, as certified by a physician, are exempt from the ban. All of the above cases are clearly medical emergencies and no one would question whether they are.
You underestimate religious nuts.
You mean the religious fervor and duplicity of pro-abortion activists? Yeah since these cases are them maliciously putting women at risk for their cause.
https://reason.com/2022/10/20/a-texas-woman-claims-that-she-nearly-died-of-sepsis-after-being-denied-an-abortion/?comments=true#comments
Here we go, chasing our tail again as the same arguments are put forth and debunked over and over.
44
Are the religious nuts the ones who believe it's alright to kill kids until the magical Birth Canal Fairy turns them into real people, or the ones who think that's retarded and evil?
All of the above cases are clearly medical emergencies and no one would question whether they are.
Yeah, no. Is the doctor’s written declaration that it’s a medical emergency all that is required to prevent a prosecution? Or does a DA have discretion to charge a doctor when the doctor claims it's an emergency? If the latter, then you’re assuming a degree of good faith in Texas DAs that is utterly unjustified.
I note thishttps://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/09/01/some-abortion-bans-put-patients-doctors-at-risk-in-emergencies
For exampleProviders there [Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota and Tennessee] are allowed to offer evidence that the procedure was necessary to save the patient’s life only after they’re charged.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
Click the link—————————————>>> GOOGLE WORK
You can’t, or at any rate, shouldn’t, put anyone in a position where if they do X they can be prosecuted but if they decline to do X, they can be sued.
You mean like “If you perform an abortion, you’ll be prosecuted, but if you have a religious objection, or not, and refer them to someone who will, you’re fine.”?
WTF planet are you living on?
"Fear not doctors! As long as your judgement and medical expertise doesn't contradict whatever thoughts I have going through my head moment to moment, general ignorance about medicine, and need to placate my medically illiterate voter base then I promise you will be safe."
As long as your judgement and medical expertise doesn’t contradict whatever thoughts I have going through my head moment to moment,
^When the anit-religious zealot side forsake their own logic and becomes more obsessive than the religious zealots.
The point isn't about abortion either way. The point is about the logic and clarity of the law. He proposes it as a catch-22 when it's not. It's got nothing to do with the thoughts in anyone's head, it's the plainly-worded letter of the law. You or I may not like it, but it's plainly worded and straightforward.
Further, by your own metric, people get sued for all kinds of things all the time.
OMG! I MIGHT GET SUED FOR BAKING A CAKE! EVERYBODY WHO SUPPORTS ABORTION SHOULD BE MORALLY PANICKING RIGHT NOW AT THE LOSS OF CHOICE! ALSO, I MIGHT GET SUED FOR MURDERING SOMEONE! WE SHOULD DIAL BACK LAWS AGAINST MURDER BECAUSE I MIGHT GET SUED!
You guys are nuttier than the Christian fundies you rail against.
^^Upvoting this one
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article———————————–>> http://www.join.hiring9.com
Someone should be suing Politicians for willfully violating the US Constitution.
I would say so. It appears to me the doctors are deliberately misconstruing the law to produce a test case.
It's up the Doctor to decide what a medical emergency is, and yet they're suing the government for what the Doctor decided isn't a medical emergency.
Ok.
Now to be fair, Doctor's can indeed make bad decisions out of fear for what the government will do to them but that's a rather poor excuse. Since these women are alive to sue, one assumes perhaps the Doctor's were right.
Also, I can't help but notice this bit:
"Abortion bans are preventing pregnant people from receiving the standard of care from their medical professionals in times of crisis,"
The use of 'pregnant people' tells you the politics of this lawsuit. Doesn't matter, really, but amusing that these people are becoming so easy to identify.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://autoincome66.pages.dev
It’s up the Doctor to decide what a medical emergency is, and yet they’re suing the government for what the Doctor decided isn’t a medical emergency.
Alternatively, the doctors decided that while it was in their professional opinion it was a medical emergency, they were of the opinion that there was a significant risk of a prosecution nonetheless, from a rabid Texas DA (bitten by Mad.Casual, perhaps) who didn't give a shit about what the doctors thought.
Five women are suing Texas over the state's strict abortion ban, hoping to clarify the law's narrow exception for abortions in the case of a "medical emergency.
Lol, the fuck they are. Who do you guys think you're kidding?
Some women have this issue with acknowledging that, after so many exceptions, it's like tossing sausages down a hallway.
Maybe legislating "parts" of people wasn't such a great idea after all?
Do you mean "People shouldn't be cut up into parts and sold." or "Your vagina is the magic line that confers citizenship."?
Because "Your vagina, arms, legs, penis, whatever is yours to freely do what you want with until you confine someone with it/them. We won't necessarily deprive you of those parts for that action, but we have a fundamentally equal obligation to you* and the person* you confine." seems pretty straightforwardly liberal/libertarian to me.
*Whether we regard you both as clumps of cells with heartbeats and brainwaves or not.
Elect Ron DeSatan! I am SURE that HE will personally decide for ALL of these types of women, USA-wide, what is, and what is not, a medical emergency! And Ron DeSatan can be TRUSTED to NEVER -EVER use His God-Given Awesome Powers (like this, and MANY many MORE powers) to punish enemies and reward friends! He wouldn't DO that; just TRUST in Him!
Trust in Me, Kaa, Jungle Book https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDs57R6MYsY SOOOO Dreamy!!!!
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Medical emergency is defined by very specific language, so the Courts will have no problem upholding its language. Amanda Zurawski is a malpractice case that should go before a jury and possibly a review by a medical Board of Inquiry. Nothing in the law allowed that doctor to ignore her condition and implementing the obvious solution. The lawsuit is asking a Court to write a law that it has no authority to write.
we have seen this problem in several states that have tried to go this way. the problem is that there is nothing clearly defining the urgency needed to call something an emergency. we have seen doctors in several cases where it was a forgone conclusion that the fetus was not going to survive and would need to be aborted, waited until the woman was sick enough from it to qualify as "immediate risk to life."
the even bigger problem is the three women in this case where the big problem was the fetus itself. these were not children that would have lived, but we have a state that would force them to carry those soon to be dead fetuses to term, with all the potential complications of an abnormal pregnancy.
and, here is the real kicker...... these are the people anti-abortion zealots have always been trying to deny access to abortion, whether they know it or not. this is what the dreaded "late term abortion" has always been. women who just want an abortion do not wait 20weeks to do it. they do it that late because they wanted to have a baby, but something went terribly wrong that they could not see earlier. these women who you want to dismiss as "obviously we didn't mean cases like that," were always the only cases where what you want to ban was ever happening in the first place. that is probably part of what creates the confusion by doctors, because the evil women who just want to kill babies that the law was made to stop never existed. this is what late term abortion has always looked like to them.
Foo_dd, thanks for adding your SANE (and benevolent) voice here! This is ALL too rare around here!
You wouldn't know sanity if it teabagged you, Sqrlsy, and trust you to think lazy sluts killing their offspring is "sane".
>>always the only cases where what you want to ban was ever happening in the first place
even if he was a one-off which I do not know either way, Kermit Gosnell did enough solo damage to merit mention.
can't be all that common if you gotta reach back 13yrs for the example.
no idea. just response to the hyperbole
Foo_dd is just another one of Shrike's many socks.
what hyperbole? two of the women had fetuses without fucking skulls...... and the law prevented them from having them aborted. THAT is what abortion bans do.
always the only cases
was ever happening
hyperbole.
but it was. women who do not want to be pregnant do not wait 20 or 30 weeks to get an abortion. there is no reason for them to not do it earlier. the only reason women wait that long is because they are hoping to actually have a baby.... late term abortions have always been because of severe birth defect or life threatening complications. that is just a reality, and the reason only 1% of abortions ever fell into that category.
hyperbole is the fantasy that anti-abortion activists have been pretending was the norm.... evil women gleefully waiting until the last possible minute to kill something as close to a baby as possible. the position you are trying to defend is the one that requires ignoring reality and common sense in favor of hyperbole. you are trying to argue that you think a significant number of women who get late term abortions are just evil and have no good reason for it.... and that is absurd hyperbole.
Given that the biggest reason he did the damage was his state refused to actually enforce any regulations on abortion...no, it is not terribly easy to find examples. Any time a state tried to simply add regulations, these same people sued over it.
I've pointed to a clinic in DC that says they'll do late term elective abortions, come on in, we don't care why you want one. Hell, even the Guttmacher institute doesn't pretend late term elective abortions aren't a thing!
the vast majority are not "just because." a clinic saying they don't care why you want one is not an indication that people are doing it "just because," it is an indication that they are not going to put you through hell to prove you need it when you are already going through hell because you need it. it is acknowledging something you brainwashed idiots don't understand..... it isn't any of your business and you don't know all the details behind that hard choice. in the case of late term abortions, they are pretty much all women who would rather of had the kid.
late term abortions are almost universally because something is wrong. deformed embryos and life threatening complications for the mother are why women get them. weight gain, shifting hips, morning sickness, hormonal imbalances, shame as you begin to show..... women who don't want to be pregnant don't decide to go through all of that just to kill something closer to being a fully formed child. the assertion that any significant number do is the most insane aspect of the anti-abortion brain washing.
This is what come of conflating medically necessary terminations of nonviable pregnancies with abortions.
According to this article, it's defined as "a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed."
Yeah, that's fairly specific. There are always going to be cases at the margins, but I don't think this is anywhere near unconstitutionally vague.
Perhaps threatening doctors with life in prison if they make a call to zig while a court later decides after the fact that they should have zagged will discourage them from ever choosing to zig. You can say they are empowered to do that all you want, but the fear of getting it wrong and being put in a cage forever is a powerful disincentive. The absolute worst that can happen is the woman (or her estate) can sue for medical malpractice. That's not necessarily career ending, much less life ending.
The funny thing is, it's obvious that they're activists trying to round up and shoehorn in corner cases to overturn a clear and plainly worded law. Activists in support of a goal that isn't in any way specific or more morally, ethically, or legally justified just the same as if the Climate Change folks said "We have to kill just 100M humans to prevent catastrophic AGW."
But they keep doing it.
Emma...Hold my beer!
(Oooops, forgot you can't get served in MD)
>>even if the suit isn't successful, the plaintiffs hope to publicize
frivolous by statute.
"Two had no skulls, and another had an underdeveloped brain"
Ancephaly fits within the statutory exception for a fetus unlikely to sustain life. Per the CDC, "Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth."
But if the fetus with an underdeveloped brain would live, I think the Texas legislature wants the baby to spend a lifetime hooked up to life support equipment rather than be aborted.
Not sure why they want more progressives.
That is, you know, the reason for that medical exemption. Amazing that the same people who could read a right to gay marriage in the Constitution cannot figure out how medical exemptions work.
Exactly; Ironically flip-sided. There is no ‘right’ to a government granted symbol. There is a right to be secure in one’s person.
The only thing worse than some political busybody trying to tell people what to do is a religious busybody doing the same because they threw some voodoo chicken bones or something and swear that their invisible sky friend told them what YOU should be made to do.
The sooner you can throw religious hacks out of office the better.
the only 'busybody' issue where this isn't true is ... abortion. The question of achieving personhood is irrelevant to religion.
Apparently not since the whole point in throwing out Roe v Wade was to legislate before *Individual* (separate) person-hood could be achieved.
http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc117957741
QUESTIONS THAT THE FANATICS WON’T EVER ANSWER: What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape... A monkey... A rat... An insect... If your Righteous Punishments From on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?
Never, ever, have I gotten any serious answers, when I pose these questions, about what the PUNISHMENTS should be! (Could it be that the fanatics don’t want us to focus on THEIR obsession, which is their smug and self-righteous “punishment boners”?). Also, the unwillingness to answer questions is strongly indicative of authoritarianism. At the root here is the unmistakable attitude of “Because I said so, peons! Do NOT question your Rulers!”
Try killing a bald eagle embryo and see if that doesn't get you federal prison.
Yes, throw out the progressive cultists and the worshipers of Moloch. Maybe you and the rest of the feminist 304s should learn to deal with the consequences of your actions rather than seeing murder as a viable solution to you being inconvenienced.
I see someone has been reading the Lockdown Files on Spiked-Online.
Good summary.
But who will boss us around once all the democrats are gone?
Reason is employing fallacy #4, that the law of self-defense was not applied judiciously, is not the fault of the law.
Now, is it?
The women—all of whom were denied abortions despite life-threatening complications or significant fetal abnormalities
I do not believe this.
Your disbelief should give YOU the power to rule over their bodies? Why is this? Have you talked to them, and given the TINIEST effort towards reaching mutual understanding? WITHOUT self-righteous yelling and screaming?
You make your choice when you choose to fuck without a condom, diaphragm, pill, IUD, sponge, cervical cap, vasectomy, tubal ligation or a billion other ways to stop the natural result and purpose of fucking.
If you had even the briefest smattering of knowledge about reproductive biology, or even glanced at a sonogram or medical textbook, you'd realize that a fetus is just as human as a seventy-two year old piece of shit like you.
There's no such thing as a birth canal fairy, Shillsy.
Yes, Mother Nature and-or God have designed nature and our bodies such that too much sugar-eating (and then not brushing your teeth) causes cavities, bearing living bacteria! So the wanton killing of teeth bacteria caused by YOUR irresponsibility should be PUNISHED by denying you access to dentists, and possibly also meting out “capital punishment” to murderous dentists!!! Ye have SINNED, by eating TOO much sugar!!!
So, at least, say those with near-infinite LUSTS for PUNISHMENTS!!!
Murdering plants and animals DELIBERATELY in order to EAT them stops beating hearts and flowing sap!!! STOPPING this utter MADNESS remains essential to establishing the universality of living-being rights!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism … Jain vegetarianism is the Truth and The Way!!! Eat ONLY fruits that have fallen from the tree, lest ye HURT the tree during the picking of the fruit! And do NOT eat the seeds! Eating seeds prevents new plants from being born!
(All of this deep disrespect for universal LIFE inherent in ALL belief systems excluding strict Jain vegetarianism is the root cause of ALL human evils, including genocide, bad haircuts, torture-rape, sloppy housekeeping, and necrophilia!)
NOTHING will get us there (to PROPER life-respect), short of the absolute worshit, not only of recently-fartilized egg smells, but also, of ALL living beings!!! From the cited article about the Jains and their MUCH higher standards than the rest of us, see…
“Strict Jains do not consume food that has been stored overnight, as it possesses a higher concentration of micro-organisms (for example, bacteria, yeast etc.) as compared to food prepared and consumed the same day.”
Bacteria have feelings and rights too, ya know!!!
Reading comprehension problem Mother. These cases are not about women who do not want children, and have neglected their birth control. (By the way birth control can fail- which is why you should get a vasectomy). These cases are about women whose lives are endangered because their pregnancy is going haywire and killing them. In other cases it's when the pregnancy they wanted results in a fetus which cannot survive outside the womb and is endangering them.
The hell they are.
They list eclampsia, pre-eclampsia and ectopic pregnancy as conditions that doctors are worried about treating. But the treatment for ectopic pregnancies are salpingectomy or salpingostomy, not abortion, and the fix for eclampsia and pre-eclampsia is anticonvulsants, blood pressure drugs and inducement, never abortion.
They're flat out lying.
Do you know what salpingectomy or salpingostomy are? Two ways of surgically removing the fetus from the fallopian tube, which has a 100% chance of killing it. (Not that it could have grown large enough to have any chance of survival.) How is that different from an abortion?
By the way, surgery isn't the first choice for an ectopic pregnancy. If it's detected early enough, doctors use the abortifacient (abortion-inducing) drug methotrexate and hope it works and the dead "baby" is reabsorbed.
What they are, is not an abortion. And Planned Parenthood used to admit that, before they recently decided confusing people was politically useful:
Planned Parenthood website removes distinction between ectopic pregnancy and abortion
"Planned Parenthood changed the language on its national webpage last week explaining ectopic pregnancy and abortion, removing one sentence that distinguished treatment of the condition from an abortion.
...
Planned Parenthood also altered a sentence on the webpage that previously said: “The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.”"
https://reason.com/2022/07/19/idaho-state-gop-says-abortion-should-be-illegal-even-when-used-to-save-a-womans-life/
Mammary-Fuhrer and “Team R” fanatics: “Just TRUST IN US! WE can be trusted to NOT call it an abortion… When you are our FRIENDS and SUPPORTERS!” (If you’re NOT a friend of ours, all bets are off, butt we’re not going to say that.)
https://www.ekathimerini.com/opinion/1156932/for-my-friends-everything-for-my-enemies-the-law/
‘For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law’
The song of dictators and authoritarians EVERYWHERE!!!
I dont believe when they present horror stories about these medical emergencies that are denied. I believe they are fabricated news stories to further a narrative, 99% of the time.
facts that don't fit my desired narrative...... i don't believe it....
One of the women, whose water broke at 19 weeks, took a risky flight to Colorado to receive an abortion rather than wait until she developed an infection in Texas.
She waited until the 19th week? Why?
Yes, this! If we are gonna have our water break, we should have this happen within a VERY few moments after conception! Just a WEE tad of FORETHOUGHT and FORESKIN here and there and fair-and-square-hair, there, people! Penny saved and pound foolish, egg-smelled-ghoulish-goulash, slosh; slosh it RIGHT down the ol' toilet BEFORE the Womb-Police come a-knockin'-at-yer-door, with a thousand million questions, about hate and death and war, and SOOOO much more, about that them thar souls of Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells! (In summary, be ye NOT penny-wise and pound foolish, lest YE be hauled off to the pound, and hounded, and impounded, by the WOMB POLICE!)
(And then we should coax that fartilized egg smell OUT of our wombs, using Purina fartilized-egg-smell Chow ass bait, RIGHT AWAY, and flush it-and-shit RIGHT down our drain RIGHT AWAY!!! The fear of FLUSHING YER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE DOWN THE TOILET is ENOUGH to invoke "emergency powers", so that the Womb Police will BYPASS such niceties ass "warrants", and break your doors down RIGHT AWAY! So ye must preempt them, and flush shit down QUICKLY! Warrant, schmarrant! Do it NOW!!!)
it's a valid questions. if you want to have an abortion, how is it clear to you before 19 fucking weeks in. I get the arguments for or against but it's also not the most unreasonable thing on earth to require you figure it out in the first few months.
Water breaking, or genetic testing (and-or ultra-sonic testing) revealing HORRIBLE things to us, can be TOTALLY out of our control or ability to foresee! Hello?!?!
And what about her ability to detect "Lying Lothario" ahead of time? What about THAT?
http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc117957741
THE “LYING LOTHARIO” PROBLEM: Well, a lot of pro-lifers are men, and I would bet that even those pro-lifers who are women? Very few of them have found themselves in the following shoes: Lying Lothario endlessly says “Love ya, babe, Love-ya, Love-ya, Love-ya, NOW can I get down your pants?” After she falls for him and he gets her pregnant, the abuse (from him) begins, and she finds out that he has 7 other “Love-ya, Babe, my One and Only” babes on the side, 4 of them also pregnant by him! So abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket men. If these behavioral genes get passed on and on, humans will evolve into something like elephant seals, where the men most skilled at lying and fighting off the other lying men, get a harem of 40 babes, and the rest of the men get nothing (other than caring for the resulting babies)! So abortion is empowering women to fight off this sort of thing… And reserve their baby-making powers for men who are less lying scum, and will actually make good fathers to the children.
So they want to “capitally punish” the “offenders” (abortion-providing doctors, so as to “dry up” the sources for safe abortions), while they have never been in the above-described (lied-to female) shoes! Willfully blind self-righteousness, basically…
Or maybe some of the anti-abortion men fantasize and lust after being the elephant-seal-like men who can gather the baby-making powers of a harem of 40 lied-to women, under the new scheme of things?
I am glad that SOME you oppose theft. Theft by deception is also theft; I hope you can see that! When a severely lying Lothario-type dude (as described above) appropriates the baby-making powers of a deceived young woman, that, too, is theft! Abortion is anti-theft, when a deceived woman no longer wants to rent out her womb to a deceptive scumbag, prospective god-awful supposed "father" of a sperm donor!
Those who are anti-abortion unmarried men should be out there desperately courting women who have already been deceived by scumbucket men, and volunteering to raise these unborn children (who are NOT your biological offspring), to fend off a HUGE root cause of abortion, and to put your money where your mouth is! And married anti-abortion men? Check with your wives; see if they mind you donating all of your spare time and money to helping out these future unmarried moms! THESE actions will relieve the pressures towards abortions!
Helping out pregnant women till the give birth, and then abandoning the support of said women (immediately or near-immediately post-birth), scarcely substitutes at ALL, for the loving support of a husband or father for 18 years, by the way!
Yes, there ARE fathers who magnanimously raise not-their-children, and do it well! God, Government Almighty, Allah, Zeus, Buddha, Jesus, etc., all please BLESS them, really and truly! And hopefully these fathers will teach their children NOT to be, or to welcome, “Lying Lothario”! Cultural as well as biological evolution can fend OFF the “Lying Lothario” problem! ALL methods need to be brought to bear; this is a SERIOUS problem here!
Abortions outlawed is a "pro-Lying-Lothario" measure, intended (or effectively intended) to turn humans into harem-fighting elephant seals! He who lies the BEST, and deceives the MOST women, into getting pregnant, WINS the genetic lottery! Meek and mild, honest men who would make good fathers? Well, WHO CARES about THEM?!?! (Or their interests in passing on their genes, which affect the behaviors of future generations?)
Are we not men? We are devolving! Devolving (especially if we ban abortions as “veto power” for lied-to mothers) into elephant-seal-like beasts, trampling the already-born babies underfoot and underfin, while fighting over mating rights, rather than looking to perform our duties as fathers!
TLDR
WHY do you want us to be devolving!??!! Devolving (especially if we ban abortions as “veto power” for lied-to mothers) into elephant-seal-like beasts, trampling the already-born babies underfoot and underfin, while fighting over mating rights, rather than looking to perform our duties as fathers?!?!? WHY, Santa, WHY??!?!
(He who lies the best, and fights off the other males the best, should leave the most-moist offspring. It is God's Plan! Let the rest be trampled and Trumpled underfoot, and underfin! Gotcha!)
Fuck off, babykiller.
TSQLRYDR: Too Squirrely, Didn't Read.
O M G. The stupidity in this comment section. She didn't wait 19 weeks to decide to have an abortion , you cro-magnon. Her water broke ! It's like a heart-attack ... you don't plan or decide to do it ... it just happens. Do you even know how pregnancy works ?
LOL she waited until her water broke to have an abortion? wtf
https://reason.com/2022/07/19/idaho-state-gop-says-abortion-should-be-illegal-even-when-used-to-save-a-womans-life/
Mammary-Fuhrer and “Team R” fanatics: “Just TRUST IN US! WE can be trusted to NOT call it an abortion… When you are our FRIENDS and SUPPORTERS!” (If you’re NOT a friend of ours, all bets are off, butt we’re not going to say that.)
https://www.ekathimerini.com/opinion/1156932/for-my-friends-everything-for-my-enemies-the-law/
‘For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law’
The song of dictators and authoritarians EVERYWHERE!!!
Fuck off, babykiller.
"Do you even know how pregnancy works"
Apparently you don't if you think abortion is necessary when someone's water breaks.
And if the amniotic sac breaks prematurely, can't be repaired and the kid is dead, it's a miscarriage. Abortion is only done to living, viable embryos and fetuses.
When the water breaks, the baby has to come out soon one way or another, and it isn't going to survive at 19 or 20 weeks. Waiting for it to die so removing it is "not an abortion" will most likely cause a very dangerous infection in the mother.
She waited until the 19th week because she wanted to have a baby duh...The water breaking early is very dangerous to her and it means the fetus cannot survive either.
Amniotic sac repair
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58ryt0/eli5_after_fetal_surgery_how_do_doctors_seal_up/
so, you don't have even a basic understanding of how pregnancy and childbirth work..... but you want to force your ignorance on others.
She waited until the 19th week? Why?
Uh, you actually quoted the answer to your question. “One of the women, whose water broke at 19 weeks…”
Mother’s Lament found a response to a question on reddit that she seemed to think means that everything could have been okay, but that was about fetal surgery not ruptures of the amniotic sac outside of a hospital.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/labor-and-delivery/in-depth/water-breaking/art-20044142
As that Mayo Clinic article says, water breaking prior to 24 weeks will carry risks that a doctor would discuss with a patient taking into account the specifics of the case. This woman wanted to have a baby, so if it the risk seemed manageable, she likely wouldn’t have sought to terminate the pregnancy.
It is as if you think a woman must take on substantial risk to herself in order to carry that fetus to term and have a baby, rather than it being something she gets to decide. I wonder what sorts of physical risks you would accept the government forcing upon you in order to help someone else. I’ve asked the question before, and I’ve never gotten a response: Where else in American law can a person be legally required to take a significant physical risk to benefit another person? And by legally required, I mean the person would be criminally punished for failing to take that risk to help another.
It seems that only an embryo or fetus has enough value as a human life to require such a thing to those that are anti-abortion.
The law allows abortions when there is a "medical emergency"—but what qualifies as an emergency?
If I look to the last three years for guidance, pretty much anything.
If we're going to get all litigious about parsing, I'm going to have to ask you to start over a "Five women" and pause right there until *everyone* finishes mentally unpacking.
Hey Emma, is there a reason why you link to the court documents but then leave out "DAMLA KARSAN, M.D. on behalf of herself and her patients; and JUDY LEVISON, M.D., M.P.H. on behalf of herself
and her patients"? Leave out the fact that none of the named women were these Dr.s patients and that these Dr.'s patients are not named?
Would it be because their inclusion would make this suit seem like the obvious and typical female pile on/bullshit Medical Activism that it is?
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Because that's not 'Your' body; That's [OUR] body!!!
Wonder what will be next? All organ ?donors? please report your bodies to the State-Slave organ mandatory donation lines.. Your bodies are just TOOLS of the state to save life.
Get over it puritan freak-jobs. A pre-viable fetus has NO inherent right to life. Rights that aren't inherent are not rights at all; they're *entitlements*.
Wonder what will be next?
Vaccine mandates. The “Your body, your choice.” people don’t give a shit. The Christian bigots are the ones saying it’s your body, your choice pretty much from conception. Where have you been for the last 4 yrs.?
A pre-viable fetus has NO inherent right to life. Rights that aren’t inherent are not rights at all; they’re *entitlements*.
Oh, I see, quasi-permanent mental vacation because there is, of course, a myriad of other possibilities including the notion that The Right or Rights don't exist at all.
It's funny. In the last 2 decades, the number of physicians around the Western World willing to provide puberty blockers to minors based on no law or medical science and even oblique to parental knowledge and consent has skyrocketed. In the last 4 yrs. the number of doctors giving people [checks CDC website] over 600M doses of a "vaccine" of a generally failed technology to a previously unknown virus has *beyond* skyrocketed. Beyond skyrocketed to the point that the doctors in favor of vaccinating people turned to shouting down their peers and trying to pass laws mandating the "vaccine".
But, somehow, on procedures that doctors have been performing for between decades and millennia, procedures that have been controversial for at least half a century if not longer, every single one of them, timid field mice who apparently wanted to get into medicine and not make a decision or a difference. All more saintly than any given nut-job Catholic you know as evidenced by the whiteness of their labcoats.
That, or the same old group of shills are using the same old, selectively stupid BOAF SIDEZ! arguments and dressing themselves in the same old garments of moral purity and righteousness in order to conceal the immoral and illogical underpinnings of their religious zealotry every bit as much as Torquemada or any Pope advocating Holy Crusade.