Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

I think this was a sentence for a violation of the law prior to SCOTUS overturning Roe, right?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/us/texas-abortion-ruling-exception.html

I think this is an interesting case. A woman with a nonviable pregnancy asked the court for an order that would allow it to get an abortion, and it was granted. Might this be the new model in pro life states, where judges will have to / need to / get to pre-approve each abortion?

Also, I really don't understand the AG opposing this woman's petition. The pregnancy is not viable. The baby's life is not protected by insisting his mother carry him to stillbirth. And given that the biggest political vulnerability of the law against abortion is the perception that it is callous towards women facing medical complications, you would think they would want to demonstrate that the exceptions in the law actually work. But, in this and every other case I've heard about, it seems like Texas just wants to make women as miserable as possible even when there is no benefit to the life they are supposedly saving.

 

How f'd up is it that judges have to make a ruling for a woman to receive appropriate healthcare. And the state is opposing it. It really sucks.

 

Imagine having to go through this and having the state of Texas make this even more horrible. Also imagine the time needed to do this and costs required to afford to go through.

 

who is "it" referring to?

 

Sorry, typing on my phone. "Her."

 

God decides if it’s viable or not. There is a non-zero chance for a miracle.

The point that needs to be reiterated is that doctors will not risk jail time (on exceptions), as Texas officials have the authority to decide whether to prosecute or not, and they clearly disagree with medical professionals. A judge’s order is needed.

 

It seems crazy to me to say the longest of longshots at some kind of life for a baby, even if brief, somehow justifies forcing the mother to shoulder almost any risk burden. But yeah, that's Texas.

Meanwhile, is it really scalable to take the court's time every time a woman feels an abortion is advisable?

 

Not just in Texas. After Roe was overturned, in ‘pro-life’ states, doctors have no say, and it’s up to the government- prosecutors, and judges.

 

Delusional beliefs repeatedly prove themselves incompatible with objective truths.

How we've gotten as far as we've gotten as a society (not to mention as a species), juggling those two euphemisms around and somehow living long enough to quibble over them does kinda leave open the possibility of some kind of higher power at play.

...God or Allah or whoever else needs to laugh every once in a while, right?

 

My gosh, paxton and abbott are beyond cruel and despicable...

 

I suspect that the AG opposes this because making exceptions erodes the principle behind the law. It potentially weakens the argument that abortion is fundamentally wrong.

 

‘Anytime a doctor (and the patient) feels an abortion is advisable’

The default is that doctors will be too fearful to do anything and will have to simply risk a woman’s health.

Keep the government out of the doctor-patient relationship. There is nothing good about a bunch of religious zealots deciding the health of patient.

 

I don't think exceptions erodes the principle, but they probably expect any exception would be abused by killer moms and their sympathetic doctors. But people are going to reject abortion laws altogether if they become too draconian.

 

...

What part of it don't you understand? Do you think Ken Paxton cares about abortion, or people in general?

 

Many pro-life politicians and others have strongly argued against exceptions. They’ve cited things like under rape and incest that the “baby” is innocent and have argued that the health of the mother exception would lead to an expansion of abortion based upon mental health.

 

They have argued that because that has been exactly what has happened.
Abortion ban medical exceptions often exclude mental health conditions (usatoday.com)
Here are doctors decrying abortion restrictions that specifically exclude mental health exceptions. People didn't suddenly decide that they should oppose exceptions for mental health because theoretically some devious doctor or mother might stretch a "health of the mother" exception to include mental health, it was written directly in the language of Roe and has been advocated by the pro-Choice crowd.

 

I understand and am even somewhat sympathetic to the argument against rape and incest exceptions. I can also appreciate the argument that moderate risks (like preeclampsia or something) could be made to be borne by mothers for the sake of the life of a healthy baby. But the cases we're seeing coming up now mostly have this theme in common -- the baby isn't viable, but the state insists the mother takes the risk anyway. That just blows my mind. This isn't practical at all.

Heard this morning that after the judge's order, Paxton wrote to the hospitals threatening them with legal action if they provide the abortion even with judge's order in hand. A hospital could defy him and do it anyway figuring they'll win in court, but I know they aren't going to do that. They're going to hide like little b****es and that woman will go out of state and get her abortion, and this whole issue will get kicked down the road again. Texas is not on a path of any workable abortion policy.