Ken Paxton is dirty? NO FUCKING WAY!

[elfenix 34308]

bag of hammered!

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2041]

Paxton is a piece of shit and I hope terrible things happen to him. Fuck that guy

[scottsins 1967]

LOL. The hospital is engaged in shenanigans. She is perfectly entitled to the procedure. There is no legal issue here. The AG's office made very clear, especially in their fourth objection, who is to blame for this idiocy.
 
 

So, you’re saying that she is legally entitled to the procedure, and as proof, cite…
an objection lodged by Paxton explaining why she is NOT legally allowed to get the procedure? What the fuck are you talking about?

That objection clearly states that the plaintiffs do not state a medical basis for a notion that meets the requirements of the current Texas law as written.

What “shenanigans” are you talking about?

[YGIFS 19452]

1 hour ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

Paxton is a piece of shit and I hope terrible things happen to him. Fuck that guy

If you can wait until roughly about the end of this decade, you're going to be pleased.  Very, very pleased.  It'll remain quiet and mysterious for awhile, what happens to him.  For obvious reasons.  But his fate is going to be absolutely brutal and grotesque.  But I think, on some level, he's already accepted it, because he walks around with that shit-eating grin knowing that he should live fast and hard.  Because tomorrow may never come.

[bolverk 29684]

1 hour ago, scottsins said:

So, you’re saying that she is legally entitled to the procedure, and as proof, cite…
an objection lodged by Paxton explaining why she is NOT legally allowed to get the procedure? What the fuck are you talking about?

That objection clearly states that the plaintiffs do not state a medical basis for a notion that meets the requirements of the current Texas law as written.

What “shenanigans” are you talking about?

Do you realize who you're responding to? I don't know why he disappeared from the site for so long, but he had a well-earned reputation before leaving.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

9 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

LOL. The hospital is engaged in shenanigans. She is perfectly entitled to the procedure. There is no legal issue here. The AG's office made very clear, especially in their fourth objection, who is to blame for this idiocy.

 

 

So, you actually think forcing a woman to carry an essentially dead baby to term is perfectly ok as long as her health is not endangered?

Christ on a cracker.

[Satchel 6938]

Do we need a law governing the criminal exposure of women who spontaneously abort and their fetuses end up in the toilet?

[YGIFS 19452]

I have to insert some comic relief here because Ken sucks so bad and 35% of this board would blow him if given half a chance:

 

[sidis 9832]

10 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

LOL. The hospital is engaged in shenanigans. She is perfectly entitled to the procedure. There is no legal issue here. The AG's office made very clear, especially in their fourth objection, who is to blame for this idiocy.

 

 

What are the shenanigans? You’ve disappeared off the thread. Answer the fucking question you moron. 

I seriously hope Paxton suffers greatly for eternity. What an absolutely vile and contemptible piece of trash. He really represents the most awful part of this dumbass state. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, you actually think forcing a woman to carry an essentially dead baby to term is perfectly ok as long as her health is not endangered?

Christ on a cracker.

No. But that is a different set of facts. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Thetexashammer

[Satchel 6938]

27 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

No. But that is a different set of facts. 

Yeah, well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/20/abortion-miscarriage-texas-fetus-stell/

Marlena Stell’s happiness turned to heartbreak after she found out about 9½ weeks into her pregnancy that she had suffered a miscarriage.

After she was told last year that the fetus did not have a heartbeat and she no longer had a viable pregnancy, the Texas woman asked her doctor to perform a dilation and curettage, or D and C — a standard procedure to remove the fetus following a miscarriage to help prevent infection or long-term health problems. Stell had the procedure after her first miscarriage in 2018 in Washington state, when she felt so much pain that she could not walk, and she wanted to go through with it again before trying again for a second child, she told The Washington Post.

But Stell was even more devastated to learn that because the procedure is also used during abortions, which a Texas law had greatly restricted, the doctor did not want to perform a D and C. Stell would be forced to carry her dead fetus for two weeks before she could find a provider to give her the medical intervention that physicians had denied her.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

With the current Texas laws, physicians put their license and potentially their freedom on the line to perform clinical procedures that may be legal.

and even if the doctor has the law on their side, they may go up against Paxton’s interpretation of the law. 

[Pato del Muerto 52524]

Ignorant question here looking for knowledge- could Native Reservations have clinics for non-native people to have abortions, without anyone creating criminal liability?  I am pretty wholly unaware of how US law works on reservations.  Any more or less beneficial than a clinic in another state?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Ignorant question here looking for knowledge- could Native Reservations have clinics for non-native people to have abortions, without anyone creating criminal liability?  I am pretty wholly unaware of how US law works on reservations.  Any more or less beneficial than a clinic in another state?

Seems possible but there are only 3 reservations in Texas (el Paso, del Rio and NE of Houston.)

[Pato del Muerto 52524]

42 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Seems possible but there are only 3 reservations in Texas (el Paso, del Rio and NE of Houston.)

I was also thinking about those in neighboring states as well for those close enough (dfw or panhandle to Oklahoma) to have the same protection for patient and doctor, if such protection exists. 

[Ted Lange 16110]

This is why the MAGAts hate any sort of DEI programs, it keeps them from all white, which is what they want.  

[chainsaw 9870]

Sorry but that screenshot has to be out of date. Who the hell is doing fact checking for Brian Tyler Cohen? Doesn't he know Guzman ran against Paxton last year and stepped down to do so?

[wildcat09 29355]

14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

LOL. The hospital is engaged in shenanigans. She is perfectly entitled to the procedure. There is no legal issue here. The AG's office made very clear, especially in their fourth objection, who is to blame for this idiocy.

 

 

You deserve every agony that woman is forced to endure by your friends.

[YGIFS 19452]

The condescending italics probably look like a regular font to Krooked Ken Paxton.  It's of cold comfort to this unfortunate woman, but I promise her with all my heart...Ken's suffering will make her's pale in comparison.  She is strong and will get through this somehow even I have to personally help her.  But what they're going to do with Ken will make him wish he was an aborted fetus left in a Bucc-ee's toilet.  

This is so fucked up.  We all knew where this was going a couple years ago, but I don't think we knew it would get this fucked up this quickly.  Once again, prize mistake---lack of imagination.

[chainsaw 9870]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

The condescending italics probably look like a regular font to Krooked Ken Paxton.  It's of cold comfort to this unfortunate woman, but I promise her with all my heart...Ken's suffering will make her's pale in comparison.  She is strong and will get through this somehow even I have to personally help her.  But what they're going to do with Ken will make him wish he was an aborted fetus left in a Bucc-ee's toilet.  

This is so fucked up.  We all knew where this was going a couple years ago, but I don't think we knew it would get this fucked up this quickly.  Once again, prize mistake---lack of imagination.

Who is they? The cartels?

[C-Man 27230]

14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

LOL. The hospital is engaged in shenanigans. She is perfectly entitled to the procedure. There is no legal issue here. The AG's office made very clear, especially in their fourth objection, who is to blame for this idiocy.

 

 

The fourth objection says "life threatening" to the woman OR "substantial impairment of a major bodily function." My understanding is that she's a great risk of not being able to get pregnant again without the abortion. I'd say that constitutes the latter part of that objection.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

The fourth objection says "life threatening" to the woman OR "substantial impairment of a major bodily function." My understanding is that she's a great risk of not being able to get pregnant again without the abortion. I'd say that constitutes the latter part of that objection.

And yet they did not claim that in court. This is why they lost their argument. 

[YGIFS 19452]

20 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Who is they? The cartels?

Just one cartel, Vasily.  One cartel only, please. 

[chainsaw 9870]

8 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

And yet they did not claim that in court. This is why they lost their argument. 

Were you there? Did you read all of the filings in the case and listen to the testimony?

[atomheartbevo 89727]

It’s interesting that Paxton is  attacking her and her doctor by name. He’s putting a name and a face on the mothers who need abortions for medicinal reasons and/or the fetus won’t survive.  

[chainsaw 9870]

22 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It’s interesting that Paxton is  attacking her and her doctor by name. He’s putting a name and a face on the mothers who need abortions for medicinal reasons and/or the fetus won’t survive.  

The Biden Campaign ad writes itself.

[tx 3 putt 77060]

57 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It’s interesting that Paxton is  attacking her and her doctor by name. He’s putting a name and a face on the mothers who need abortions for medicinal reasons and/or the fetus won’t survive.  

not that paxton cares, hippa ?

[scottsins 1967]

And yet they did not claim that in court. This is why they lost their argument. 

So, I. Your opinion, the medical providers and plaintiffs can go ahead and perform the abortion? The TRO stuff is kinda irrelevant. I think your point is that she is entitled under the current law to get an abortion and this TRO stuff was just some political ploy. Fine. The TRO being struck means that the laws as written are still there…and from what we know, she is entitled to the exception under those laws.

THEN WHY IS PAXTON THREATENING TO PROSECUTE THEM?

[TwiceHorn 31495]

7 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

No. But that is a different set of facts. 

No, that is exactly the set of facts here that Paxton argues is insufficient to invoke the exception.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, that is exactly the set of facts here that Paxton argues is insufficient to invoke the exception.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, that is exactly the set of facts here that Paxton argues is insufficient to invoke the exception.

Can you show me an example of a doctor who has been prosecuted for doing a D&C after a spontaneous abortion? Because I think that would be horrifying.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Thetexashammer

[Brisketexan 105154]

So….you don’t know the difference between what a LITIGANT (that’s what the AG is here - one side in an adversarial proceeding) says….vs what the pleadings and evidence show. That’s pretty telling.

What you cited is what the AG ARGUES. The actual record showed the specific medical condition (risk to her reproductive system, which surely constitutes serious bodily harm), and the argument that “good faith belief” doesn’t = “reasonable medical judgment,” particularly when offered by a qualified treating position, is some rather silly semantics. For as much as we make fun of the law, it’s usually not so nonsensical as to require specific magic words. If a Dr has a good faith belief that a medical condition requires treatment or else the patient will suffer serious harm…that is exactly what “reasonable medical judgment” is. Paxton is grasping as straws.
But don’t worry…it will work. Because the purpose of the law is to punish women and put them in their place, subjugated as evangelical God intended. The SCOTX will do as required.

[chainsaw 9870]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So….you don’t know the difference between what a LITIGANT (that’s what the AG is here - one side in an adversarial proceeding) says….vs what the pleadings and evidence show. That’s pretty telling.

What you cited is what the AG ARGUES. The actual record showed the specific medical condition (risk to her reproductive system, which surely constitutes serious bodily harm), and the argument that “good faith belief” doesn’t = “reasonable medical judgment,” particularly when offered by a qualified treating position, is some rather silly semantics. For as much as we make fun of the law, it’s usually not so nonsensical as to require specific magic words. If a Dr has a good faith belief that a medical condition requires treatment or else the patient will suffer serious harm…that is exactly what “reasonable medical judgment” is. Paxton is grasping as straws.
But don’t worry…it will work. Because the purpose of the law is to punish women and put them in their place, subjugated as evangelical God intended. The SCOTX will do as required.

It's also worth noting that Paxton had the opportunity to cross examine the doctor, impeach the credibility of the doctor's positions, and bring witnesses who could contradict or undermine the doctor's opinions. The judge found her doctor credible and I don't see what's wrong with that. What's incredibly offensive to me is the notion that it's the judge (and not the Texas Lege) who has somehow exercised some sort of amateur medical judgment here. Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense. His FAFO moment can't come soon enough.

[YGIFS 19452]

20 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

LOL. The hospital is engaged in shenanigans. She is perfectly entitled to the procedure. There is no legal issue here. The AG's office made very clear, especially in their fourth objection, who is to blame for this idiocy.

 

 

You're correct in your discernment of life-threatening complications that mandate a D&C.  I don't doubt that you would take any issue with those necessary procedures.   What we're arranging is an environment where doctors and patients may be tempted to report 'life-threatening' or 'non-viable fetus' in order to perform an otherwise 'typical abortion.'  They're getting out in front of it in cases like this to make sure that anybody with any funny ideas about falsifying medical claims in order to receive an abortion for an otherwise viable pregnancy posing no threat to the mother.  That's what this is about.  They're going to punish a few dozen benchmark mothers to ensure that nobody gets crafty with reports of 'the mother was suddenly in danger' or 'the fetus became non-viable!'  Because that's the work-around from the end-game.  

I don't know you, but you very likely do not lack intelligence.  You are likely not inherently evil.  You do not lack some modicum of morality.  But you have one gaping blindspot.  You lack vision.  You're bumbling about in the dark under the guise of pro-life and semantics.  You're seven steps behind my friend.  You're not even at the kid's table, let alone in the adult conversation.  Wait until you learn about what we have planned for Medicaid and Medicare.  Guess who else cut off medical care to the sickly, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, et. al. as they were drags on the state and the race?  You think it's a coincidence you go out and buy more guns after a mass shooting because we tell you Biden is coming for your 2A rights?  We can monetize your ignorance.  you think this is about embracing and protecting life?  You think that because we sold you on it.  We're going to fix it so that you go to war, not with progressivism or human rights.  It will be arranged that you dumbfucks go to war with one another.  You're supporting ending rights for women, minorities, immigrants, children, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill, the handicapped.  Because they are a drain on the State.  And when that's done, we will take the leftover healthy males and raise an army.  And we will send you to do our bidding.  Because we have always done this and you will smile with pride as we do it.  Our playbook is there to see in plain sight.  And you'll swell up with pride as you read it because we've done this 1000 times before and it works every fucking time because we tell you ahead of time which the most ironic twist of fate.  

And when the dust has settled, we will build a better society for women and children and all peoples because the dustbin of history is due for a refill.  

[TwiceHorn 31495]

2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Can you show me an example of a doctor who has been prosecuted for doing a D&C after a spontaneous abortion? Because I think that would be horrifying.

What the bloody fuck are you talking about?

I made a statement, you posted something that verified my statement, and then went somewhere else altogether.

Also, I don't think this case was really about attempting to satisfy the statute.  I think it was an equitable and/or constitutional invocation of the authority of the court to put a halt to something fucking ghastly.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, that is exactly the set of facts here that Paxton argues is insufficient to invoke the exception.

Paxton alleges that the physician must state that in his or her medical judgment, the facts meet the exception. Paxton made no medical claim at all, and specifically disavows the ability to determine the facts, they merely restate that "reasonable medical judgment" is required.

The claim is that she meets the requirement. As far as I can tell, she can get the procedure tomorrow without issue.

[atomheartbevo 89727]

3 hours ago, scottsins said:

THEN WHY IS PAXTON THREATENING TO PROSECUTE THEM?

26 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The claim is that she meets the requirement. As far as I can tell, she can get the procedure tomorrow without issue.

Then why is Paxton threatening them by name?  Why is he threatening hospitals that would allow her to have it?

This is not some kind of hypothetical thing either - he is literally naming her, her doctor, and the associated hospitals.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Then why is Paxton threatening them by name?  Why is he threatening hospitals that would allow her to have it?

This is not some kind of hypothetical thing either - he is literally naming her, her doctor, and the associated hospitals.

It is explained in the press release.

The hospital is entitled to follow their long held procedures for making the determination. There is nothing stopping them from performing the procedure tomorrow, other than the hospital's own policies perhaps.

It's literally an invitation to perform the procedure.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Thetexashammer

[tx 3 putt 77060]

39 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

 she can get the procedure tomorrow without issue.

[Captainant 27680]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

I don't know you, but you very likely do not lack intelligence.  You are likely not inherently evil.  You do not lack some modicum of morality.  But you have one gaping blindspot.  You lack vision.

He's fucking trolling you and reveling in finally putting women back in their place. He does not lack vision, this outcome is exactly what he fucking votes for. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21907]

My niece, the daughter of my ultra MAGA QAnon sister, was pregnant and the fetus died.  She had a D&C. When my sister told the family this, I felt like asking her if the doctor who did it was going to be prosecuted.  However, I held my tongue and told her I was sorry, and I was.

[wildcat09 29355]

Hammer is trolling. He loves that Paxton is threatening to prosecute and he loves trolling people with actual humanity by pretending that’s not exactly what is happening here. He is a broken person devoid of whatever humanity he may once have had and deserves to experience every horrible agony he’s gleefully cheering for his political representatives to inflict on others.

[DDD Dad 14339]

12 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Paxton alleges that the physician must state that in his or her medical judgment, the facts meet the exception. Paxton made no medical claim at all, and specifically disavows the ability to determine the facts, they merely restate that "reasonable medical judgment" is required.

The claim is that she meets the requirement. As far as I can tell, she can get the procedure tomorrow without issue.

 

[DDD Dad 14339]

17 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

not that paxton cares, hippa ?

(It’s HIPAA). Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

This thread confuses me. Is someone arguing this woman can legally get an abortion in Texas today? Thats 100% not true. The Texas Supreme Court has temporarily halted that option which another judge allowed.

whats sad is that the Texas Supreme Court has refused to state when they will issue a final opinion. I would hope they don’t take 6 months to rule so that they can state their ruling isn’t necessary but who knows. However I guess they will issue their final ruling within a few days.

[tchookem 3900]

This thread confuses me. Is someone arguing this woman can legally get an abortion in Texas today? Thats 100% not true. The Texas Supreme Court has temporarily halted that option which another judge allowed.
whats sad is that the Texas Supreme Court has refused to state when they will issue a final opinion. I would hope they don’t take 6 months to rule so that they can state their ruling isn’t necessary but who knows. However I guess they will issue their final ruling within a few days.

Don't be confused. One of the bad faith trolls crawled into the sunlight to spew bullshit. He'll crawl back to the Daily Texan echo chamber once he's done.

[elfenix 34308]

On 12/9/2023 at 5:38 PM, Brisketexan said:

So….you don’t know the difference between what a LITIGANT (that’s what the AG is here - one side in an adversarial proceeding) says….vs what the pleadings and evidence show. That’s pretty telling.

What you cited is what the AG ARGUES. The actual record showed the specific medical condition (risk to her reproductive system, which surely constitutes serious bodily harm), and the argument that “good faith belief” doesn’t = “reasonable medical judgment,” particularly when offered by a qualified treating position, is some rather silly semantics. For as much as we make fun of the law, it’s usually not so nonsensical as to require specific magic words. If a Dr has a good faith belief that a medical condition requires treatment or else the patient will suffer serious harm…that is exactly what “reasonable medical judgment” is. Paxton is grasping as straws.
But don’t worry…it will work. Because the purpose of the law is to punish women and put them in their place, subjugated as evangelical God intended. The SCOTX will do as required.

good faith is subjective.  reasonable is objective.  as you well know, one of those is much more readily second guessed than the other. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

@TwiceHorn

Twicehorn, aren't you a lawyer?

[TwiceHorn 31495]

19 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

@TwiceHorn

Twicehorn, aren't you a lawyer?

Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures. 

And this whole thing is fucking nasty. They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. 

Humanly indefensible. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures. 

And this whole thing is fucking nasty. They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. 

Humanly indefensible. 

The AG is saying that the procedure is legal, but the hospital is not following their own procedures. All they have to do is follow their existing procedures.

The mediaite story claimed the patient was told that she was at risk for uterine rupture which would damage her fertility, so there appears to be no issue with meeting the requirements to make it legal.

Is that correct?

Edited December 11, 2023 by Thetexashammer