Ken Paxton is dirty? NO FUCKING WAY!

[sheeeit 129]

34 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

We are well into the enforcement part of the law.  We have four counties (good ole Lubbock leading the way) who have laws on the books that encourage private citizens to file lawsuits against anybody using various roads within the counties to transport/assist somebody having an abortion - and the folks behind it are the folks driving the unborn sanctuary city bullshit, tc.

Notably, they can't sue the woman seeking the abortion, so there has to be some self-awareness there, that it's a bad look if they sue a woman whose pregnancy is not viable.

We have Paxton making damned sure that, whether the abortion is technically legal or not, he wants all hospitals on notice that he will go after them with the power and resources of the State of Texas if he so desires.  Paxton and his supporters can claim the abortion was legal and it was simply a matter of her doctor fucking up, but he sure as hell was not acting like it.

This is the canary in the coal mine.  

I'm pretty high and not sure I understand the point you are making.  I thought that you and the other guy were saying that because this case has legs and is getting a lot of national press and that this is an election year that it might actually change the minds of the Texas voters that approved the people in the legislature that put the statute into law.  But then you post above about how truly crazy the people are.  Which leads me to believe that no amount of national pressure is going to shame enough people to actually change the legislature, which was my point. 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

3 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Agreed to a point.  I think you, as a good poster, should be above the crazies.  I would like the law/statute repealed or replaced.  But by bringing these types of cases, it actually gives the AG a defense by pointing out that, legally, the bad outcomes did not have to occur based on the statute.   In order to actually get the statute repealed, hearts and minds are going to need to be changed.  Perhaps they never will.  But they certainly never will when the tactic used to try and change them is based on outcomes that could have been avoided if the current statute was applied correctly.

 

It does somewhat appear that Ms. Cox, with a bit more finessing of the paperwork and testimony, might have put herself within the exception to the statute.

But I think that's wholly lost on people.  The fact is that Texas has a barbaric abortion statute, one of several that theocrats have foisted on their states in the wake of Dobbs.

This kind of thing, like Dobbs, may wake people the fuck up as to what they're letting happen in their states due to voter apathy and disengagement.

Polling shows that people are heavily split on abortion itself, but I don't think a lot of them are really following what's going on here.  That is, there may well be a majority, even nationwide, that favors more restriction on abortion, as a theoretical matter.  But I highly doubt there is anything near a majority that favors outright bans except in the case of lethality to the mother, or what that really means in practical application.

Edited December 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[safe sex 11735]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It does somewhat appear that Ms. Cox, with a bit more finessing of the paperwork and testimony, might have put herself within the exception to the statute.

I mean, no one gives a shit because it's completely beside the point. Even if the paperwork had been fully completed, Paxton would've appealed for some other reason or the Court would have found some other flaw.

You shouldn't have to appeal to a fucking court to get necessary, life-saving healthcare!!

[sheeeit 129]

2 minutes ago, safe sex said:

I mean, no one gives a shit because it's completely beside the point. Even if the paperwork had been fully completed, Paxton would've appealed for some other reason or the Court would have found some other flaw.

You shouldn't have to appeal to a fucking court to get necessary, life-saving healthcare!!

This is the point.  You may very well be right that the AG would have come up with some other method.  But we don't know and we didn't give him the chance.  If minds are going to be changed then there must be a case where the statute was complied with and still the abortion was interfered with.  Then you have a case to fight with.

[safe sex 11735]

It's too late for changing minds, holy shit. Women are having to flee the state to get abortions now. And lmao, even if "minds are changed," like in Ohio (sort of...), the Republican-stacked government is trying to find ways to ignore the will of the votes.

I guess we'll just have to let them try here, too, right? Cause I mean...we wouldn't know if they'd try it or not until they do.

Gimme a break.

[tx 3 putt 77060]

[Chad Fuck 17684]

I mean, no one gives a shit because it's completely beside the point. Even if the paperwork had been fully completed, Paxton would've appealed for some other reason or the Court would have found some other flaw.
You shouldn't have to appeal to a fucking court to get necessary, life-saving healthcare!!

Which tells you it was never about the health of the woman or the baby.

It’s about controlling women’s bodies. Period. Full stop.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

7 hours ago, safe sex said:

I mean, no one gives a shit because it's completely beside the point. Even if the paperwork had been fully completed, Paxton would've appealed for some other reason or the Court would have found some other flaw.

You shouldn't have to appeal to a fucking court to get necessary, life-saving healthcare!!

And, as the scotx just pointed out, Ms. Cox shouldn't have needed to go to court, either.

[Ghost of LL 15539]

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."  Marbury v. Madison (1803).

 

. . . except in Texas, in which it is up to doctors to try to fumble around and figure out whether a particular pregnancy fits within a statutory exception, because the Supreme Court isn't going to say what the law is.

[Pescado_Rojo 19423]

8 hours ago, sheeeit said:

This is the point.  You may very well be right that the AG would have come up with some other method.  But we don't know and we didn't give him the chance.  If minds are going to be changed then there must be a case where the statute was complied with and still the abortion was interfered with.  Then you have a case to fight with.

[wildcat09 29355]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, as the scotx just pointed out, Ms. Cox shouldn't have needed to go to court, either.

That decision was a fucking masterclass in bullshit and you don’t need to be touting it like fucking texashammer as actually enabling any medically reasonable abortion.

[BevoAbyss 2059]

10 hours ago, sheeeit said:

tell the world they don't understand the law.  Shame does not work when people aren't ashamed of what they are doing.

Oh, we know what "the law" is. It's the Bible. Everything else is just legislative details for the MAGA-GQP legislators and judges to impose on the rest of society.

Rather than feel ashamed, they feel holy and virtuous because they believe their God/prophets have ordained them to rule America and purge society of the sinners -- with as much pain and humiliation as possible. The goal is a Bible-ruled theocracy. They have said so. Believe them.

And they're just getting started... more purges and pain coming. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by BevoAbyss

[Ghost of LL 15539]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, as the scotx just pointed out, Ms. Cox shouldn't have needed to go to court, either.

So wait--a person who is uncertain about what her legal rights/obligations are can't go to court to obtain a decision . . . let's call it a "declaratory judgment" . . . declaring what those rights/obligations actually are?

Well fuck, and here I have been citing Chapter 37 of the CPRC for more than two fucking decades.  Silly me.

[C-Man 27230]

10 hours ago, sheeeit said:

This is the point.  You may very well be right that the AG would have come up with some other method.  But we don't know and we didn't give him the chance.  If minds are going to be changed then there must be a case where the statute was complied with and still the abortion was interfered with.  Then you have a case to fight with.

Please re-read what you wrote here. Paxton has a lengthy track record of criminality and cruelty and WE didn't "give him the chance" to do the right thing. "We." Give me a fucking break.

Edited December 12, 2023 by C-Man

[wildcat09 29355]

Why is anyone engaging with sheeeit?

[royiv 9325]

10 hours ago, sheeeit said:

This is the point.  You may very well be right that the AG would have come up with some other method.  But we don't know and we didn't give him the chance.  If minds are going to be changed then there must be a case where the statute was complied with and still the abortion was interfered with.  Then you have a case to fight with.

I'd prefer not to put a woman seeking life saving healthcare through the hell of a medical ordeal to be followed by the hell of a legal ordeal.

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Why is anyone engaging with sheeeit?

[C-Man 27230]

1 minute ago, royiv said:

I'd prefer not to put a woman seeking life saving healthcare through the hell of a medical ordeal to be followed by the hell of a legal ordeal.

Especially when you're racing against the clock.

[YGIFS 19452]

37 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Especially when you're racing against the clock.

Yeah, I'll defer to the more seasoned attorneys on here (I don't practice)...but there has to be some kinda precedence here.  Not necessarily D&C, but those cases where somebody at end of life got some kinda waiver to try out some radical, not yet approved drug because they had little time.  Or certain legal protections afforded to somebody who needed unproven surgery or transplant or what have you.  I mean, it's a little different in the case of a pregnancy, but certainly there's some legal framework/foundation where they can point and say, "there's only a few weeks, we need a ruling to protect the patient." kinda deal, no?  

Edited December 12, 2023 by YGIFS

[CooterBrown 18014]

10 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Do we have enough in the wreath fund to put this up on a billboard outside the airport?

[royiv 9325]

1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

Do we have enough in the wreath fund to put this up on a billboard outside the airport?

Damn. That's a great idea. I'd throw some change at that.

[tx 3 putt 77060]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So wait--a person who is uncertain about what her legal rights/obligations are can't go to court to obtain a decision . . . let's call it a "declaratory judgment" . . . declaring what those rights/obligations actually are?

Well fuck, and here I have been citing Chapter 37 of the CPRC for more than two fucking decades.  Silly me.

If a judge rules ‘no’ on an abortion, paxton is ready to let that decision stand 

[YGIFS 19452]

17 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Do we have enough in the wreath fund to put this up on a billboard outside the airport?

That's a good idea in all sincerity.  Not sure of the legality since it's a public-private enterprise there at Bergstrom.  But it's just a still shot from a TV show at the basic level.  No political positions or endorsements or proper names.  You put that out somewhere by baggage claim or the pickup area, I can't see what would be wrong with it.  City Council/Manager/Airport Director wouldn't have an issue with it but they'd certainly be pressured to remove it toot-sweet.  But with all the older folks traveling here for the holidays to see kids/grandkids, that'd be a very powerful message in the wake of this Cox situation for the next few weeks.  And would get a lot of national airtime.  

I guess the only other hangup would be getting permission from Hulu or the production company or whoever owns the rights to that likeness.  Atwood would be totally for it in a heartbeat.  But there's probably some other legal hoops.  But fuck it, you can get build-a-sign to generate a few of 'em and get permission from the airport rather easily.  But it'd have to be quick between the Cox story running nationally and holiday bumps in air travel.  Shit, most CNN coverage between 12/22-12/26 is just airport stock footage, may as well throw this in the mix and stir some debate.

[atomheartbevo 89727]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

Not sure of the legality since it's a public-private enterprise there at Bergstrom.  But it's just a still shot from a TV show at the basic level.  No political positions or endorsements or proper names.  You put that out somewhere by baggage claim or the pickup area, I can't see what would be wrong with it. 

Don't say "Welcome to Texas", say "Welcome to Gilead" with a very, very small blurb at the bottom saying "Handmaid's Tale, all seasons now streaming on Hulu!" and you can claim it's an advertisement.

[YGIFS 19452]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Don't say "Welcome to Texas", say "Welcome to Gilead" with a very, very small blurb at the bottom saying "Handmaid's Tale, all seasons now streaming on Hulu!" and you can claim it's an advertisement.

Bullshit aside, Atwood would be completely down for this and we have enough attorney power on here with connections to City of Austin/Airport Management, could easily be pulled off while the story is still hot nationwide.  But again, trouble would be with licensing to Hulu and the likeness deal.  I have no idea how that shit works but I know it's a complicated disaster.  But the beauty of it would be, just that one image and most people would immediately get it without any legible prompts.  They may not like it, but they'd get it.  But to get permission from that production of the show, even if they were all for it, would take months not weeks.  But I'd love to be wrong.

[safe sex 11735]

Just make a vector illustration of a nondescript Handmaid

[Foosters 17858]

[YGIFS 19452]

4 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Just make a vector illustration of a nondescript Handmaid

Woman!  I don't understand a word of what you just said.  

So we could do like the head covering white deal and then the robe with the face pointed down so it's nobody in particular?  I still don't think you could put "Gilead" on it because that's somewhat unique to the author/show even though the word was around long before the book/show.  But I think the "Welcome to Texas" with the non-descript face would work and not violate any IP/licensing.  Or shit, just have a dozen people outside baggage claim each day during peak holiday travel on behalf of Ms. Cox and millions like her with a sign of "Welcome to Gilead, Happy Holidays.  Under his Eye" with a picture of Elisabeth Moss in her wardrobe and Paxton's Eye.  If it's not overly political on public grounds and not an FAA safety risk, I can't see the harm in it other than the sign-bearers having to pay $35 for short-term parking.  We could easily get news crews out there to film it.  

You could do it upstairs in the terminal as well.  But the sign would read, "If you are flying out of state for an abortion...safe travels and please take Ken Paxton with you.  Leave him there, have him aborted, your call either way."  

[TexArcher 37977]

12 hours ago, safe sex said:

I mean, no one gives a shit because it's completely beside the point. Even if the paperwork had been fully completed, Paxton would've appealed for some other reason or the Court would have found some other flaw.

You shouldn't have to appeal to a fucking court to get necessary, life-saving healthcare!!

Exactly.  Everyone trying to pin this on a technicality is being really intellectually dishonest.

If it hadn't been this technicality, it would have been a different one.

No one is getting an abortion for any reason in this state.  Got raped by your uncle when you were 13?  You're having that baby.  Ectopic pregnancy with a fetus that can't possibly survive outside of your body?  You're having that baby.  Etc.

[sheeeit 129]

11 hours ago, safe sex said:

It's too late for changing minds, holy shit. Women are having to flee the state to get abortions now. And lmao, even if "minds are changed," like in Ohio (sort of...), the Republican-stacked government is trying to find ways to ignore the will of the votes.

I guess we'll just have to let them try here, too, right? Cause I mean...we wouldn't know if they'd try it or not until they do.

Gimme a break.

So what is your solution?  You and others seem pretty emotional about this and rightfully so.  I am sure the women this law affects are happy that you are screaming about it on a message board but I don't see how that actually helps them.

Let's assume that the federal SCOTUS is not likely to change their stance on abortion anytime in the near future.  SCOTUS said abortion needs to be defined by the states.  As a result if you really want a change to the Texas law then it is going to have to come from Texas voters and by their proxy the Texas state legislatureor through SCOTX.  I assme we can all agree on that?

If your stance is that a majority of Texas minds will never be changed on this subject and further that even if the majority of Texans favor change, that the legislature is going to somehow ignore the will of the people and then insulate themselves from having to be re-elected so that the current statute/law will never face repeal or change then why are you even discussing it? 

You and so many others keep saying that you KNOW how the issue is going to be decided in a hypothetical scenario.  That isn't knowing, that is speculating.  You could be 100% correct in your speculation but you don't know it and it isn't fact until it happens.  And, more importantly, your speculation does not have the power to change anything.  Only allowing the actions to actually happen has the potential to change things.  I would like the actual statute/law changed.  I am advocating for a path forward that might actually produce a change.  But what is happening now with the current cases isn't going to work imo.  I haven't read every single scenario in the current suit but I have read most of them.  Again, imo, those cases are going to lose because in those instances the plaintiffs are saying they want an abortion for a specific circumstance with their prgnancy and SCOTX has said that based on their reading of the statute all of the women are/were entitled to a leal abortion under the statute.  So there is no case.  What the plaintiffs are saying is that they do not want any restrictions on the abortions and that they do not want to go through the procedures required to get a legal abortion under the statute.  That isn't goling to fly imo.

I think a much better case would be a woman that has a viable prgenancy and did not realize she was pregnant until after the reporting timeline based on the statute but would have opted for an abortion if she knew.  I think the statute is very shaky on this issue.  It has been written in such a way to make it almost impossible for anyone in this scenario to get an abortion.  I think a challenge on the vagueness of the statute and the hypocritical nature of the wording has a chance to win at SCOTX. 

[safe sex 11735]

We've got the case we've got. 

[sheeeit 129]

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

Please re-read what you wrote here. Paxton has a lengthy track record of criminality and cruelty and WE didn't "give him the chance" to do the right thing. "We." Give me a fucking break.

You missed the point.  The staute will never be changed or repealed based on someone's belief that something might happen.  Have a woman get an abortion based on the exceptions to the statute that clearly exist and then if the AG tries to interfere, a suit can be brought that has a chance of winning.

[YGIFS 19452]

they're empowering this case against Ms. Cox, not because they have issue with the hospital protocol or don't recognize that her life, fetal viability, and future fertility are very much at stake.  They completely know that.  What they are doing is laying a groundwork so that down the road if any physicians or their patients get any funny ideas about claiming "mother's life is in danger" or "fetus will not be viable after month 3" or whatever, they can use this as a base claim that she has to carry to term anyways.  They know the harm here, but the idea is that later on doctors and women will start using the exceptions as a rationale for more abortions.  And they can't abide that.  So they have to make some early examples and that's what you're seeing unfold here.  Next will be interstate travel, then menstruation tracking, and then contraception.  They're already getting on the interstate while we're still pulling out of the garage.  

Edited December 12, 2023 by YGIFS

[safe sex 11735]

Let's also not forget that with Kate Cox, the state is arguing that the fetus has rights that trump the mother's while simultaneously arguing that fetuses don't have rights so they don't have to pay a settlement for denying a state prison guard leave to go get her unborn baby checked out (that baby is dead af now, btw).

[CTC2 2797]

2 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Let's also not forget that with Kate Cox, the state is arguing that the fetus has rights that trump the mother's while simultaneously arguing that fetuses don't have rights so they don't have to pay a settlement for denying a state prison guard leave to go get her unborn baby checked out (that baby is dead af now, btw).

Or if a pregnant woman loses her baby in a car wreck. 

[Brisketexan 105154]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I haven't read every single scenario in the current suit but I have read most of them.  Again, imo, those cases are going to lose because in those instances the plaintiffs are saying they want an abortion for a specific circumstance with their prgnancy and SCOTX has said that based on their reading of the statute all of the women are/were entitled to a leal abortion under the statute.  So there is no case. 

They kinda say that...for now.

The legal standard is an impossible one for a physician to follow with certainty.  Dr. Jones thinks it's plainly within his reasonable medical judgment that Jane Doe needs an abortion to save her life and/or avoid destroying her uterus.  So, he performs the abortion.  Ken Paxton and/or another zealous Republican prosecutor solicits the opinion of Dr. Smith, member of the board of Jesus Hates Women Bible Fundamentalist church, to opine that Dr. Jones opinion was NOT a reasonable medical opinion.  Case submitted to grand jury, with only Dr. Smith's opinion presented.  Grand Jury indicts Dr. Jones.  Dr. Jones is now in the fight of his life, with literally his freedom FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE on the line.

The standard is impossible to know with certainty, and can be opposed/refuted by the offer of an opinion from a "friendly" Dr. on the side of the prosecution.  "Reasonable" is a matter of opinion.  So, that means there is always, 100% of the time, a risk of prosecution of a Dr. for performing a life-saving or health-saving abortion.  Which is how the GQP wants it.  There is no fixing this because they do not think it's broken.

[Brisketexan 105154]

8 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Have a woman get an abortion based on the exceptions to the statute that clearly exist and then if the AG tries to interfere, a suit can be brought that has a chance of winning.

The "interference" will be a prosecution of a Dr. to sentence him to life in prison.  Hey doc....you willing to take that risk?

There are no abortion procedures that can be provided by a Dr. in the state of Texas for which there is zero risk of him being sentenced to life in prison.  That is purposeful, by design.

[YGIFS 19452]

Remember a time when we'd read Amicus briefs with a modicum of curiosity and even a hint of admiration?  You'd think to yourself, "Well, they're no experts...but they're championing property rights or easements or right-of-way or some other real estate bullshit.  Bravo to the little guy!"  But now we're watching it unfold in real time, people with zero medical training or public health experience targeting individual physicians on behalf of baby Jesus and Moms for Guns & Reverse Mullets.  Somebody can essentially de-license and imprison an OB/GYN because they just sorta "feel like his diagnosis of the mom and/or baby is against the word of the Lord."  

[wildcat09 29355]

God damnit people, stop engaging with sheeeit. Don't you even recognize the long-time trolls that've been here forever?

[Brisketexan 105154]

Just now, YGIFS said:

Somebody can essentially de-license and imprison an OB/GYN because they just sorta "feel like his diagnosis of the mom and/or baby is against the word of the Lord."  

And....NOW you understand the model.  This is just the start.  The legislative model going forward is 1) vague prohibitions with brutal punishments, that 2) can be invoked by an after-the-fact faith-based position that "nope, what you just did is the work of the devil and therefore violates the law and you should be sentenced to life in prison."  The law will be what a star-chamber of fundamentalist freaks says it is after-the-fact.

[TexArcher 37977]

20 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Let's also not forget that with Kate Cox, the state is arguing that the fetus has rights that trump the mother's

A dying fetus has more rights than its living mother.

This is how much the GOP hates women.

This is not a civilized society anymore.

Edited December 12, 2023 by TexArcher

[Hookah Horns 3083]

4 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Oh, we know what "the law" is. It's the Bible. Everything else is just legislative details for the MAGA-GQP legislators and judges to impose on the rest of society.

Rather than feel ashamed, they feel holy and virtuous because they believe their God/prophets have ordained them to rule America and purge society of the sinners -- with as much pain and humiliation as possible. The goal is a Bible-ruled theocracy. They have said so. Believe them.

And they're just getting started... more purges and pain coming. 

It's more like their favorite parts and interpretations of the Bible. None of these assholes would want, nor could they withstand, a literal, fundamentalist enforcement of all of it, even the new testament. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Hookah Horns

[sheeeit 129]

4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

they're empowering this case against Ms. Cox, not because they have issue with the hospital protocol or don't recognize that her life, fetal liability, and future fertility are very much at stake.  They completely know that.  What they are doing is laying a groundwork so that down the road if any physicians or their patients get any funny ideas about claiming "mother's life is in danger" or "fetus will not be viable after month 3" or whatever, they can use this as a base claim that she has to carry to term anyways.  They know the harm here, but the idea is that later on doctors and women will start using the exceptions as a rationale for more abortions.  And they can't abide that.  So they have to make some early examples and that's what you're seeing unfold here.  Next will be interstate travel, then menstruation tracking, and then contraception.  They're already getting on the interstate while we're still pulling out of the garage.  

This is just not true or accurate.  SCOTX as well as the AG's office have all agreed that Ms Cox is entitled to an abortion under the law.  What SCOTX and the AG's office are saying is that she and the doctor and the hospital have to follow the requirements for the abortion as defined under the law.  This case sets no precedent on dealing with exceptions to the rule because the plaintiffs admit they didn't follow the rule.

I agree with you that the intent of the statute is to make it difficult to get an exception.  That was by design.  Possibly a case can be made that the requirements are too onerous but that is not the case they are bringing. 

[YGIFS 19452]

Oh, so it's just responsible policing of hospital policy?  Okay, remember that when their Covid protocols come up in the next election cycle.  

[TwiceHorn 31495]

6 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

That decision was a fucking masterclass in bullshit and you don’t need to be touting it like fucking texashammer as actually enabling any medically reasonable abortion.

Who's touting it?  

To a very large extent, scotx is bound by the laws that the lege passes.  Within that context, there's nothing really bullshit pointing out that nothing about the statute requires a doctor to "preclear" an abortion decision with the courts.

Which is not really a defense of scotx or that decision, it's just a statement of the obvious.

Edited December 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29355]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Who's touting it?  

To a very large extent, scotx is bound by the laws that the lege passes.  Within that context, there's nothing really bullshit pointing out that nothing about the statute requires a doctor to "preclear" an abortion decision with the courts.

Which is not really a defense of scotx or that decision, it's just a statement of the obvious.

Sorry man, but this is an all-timer forest from the trees post right here. It's not fucking obvious at all that she was free to get an abortion in Texas without judicial clearance! There's three fucking intentionally ambiguous laws against it!

[Brisketexan 105154]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Within that context, there's nothing really bullshit pointing out that nothing about the statute requires a doctor to "preclear" an abortion decision with the courts.

Which, again, is the ENTIRE POINT of the statute.  There's no way to preclear that medical decision in the context of ANY pregnancy.  If any doctor in the state of Texas takes any action that has the effect of terminating a pregnancy, that Dr. is at risk of going to prison for life.  There's no way of knowing whether the State will go after you and try to send you away forever.  Which is how they want it.

The law is in all practical effect a complete bar on any abortion, including to save the life of the mother, because no sane Dr. would risk his life and liberty to perform such a procedure.  I sure as fuck wouldn't, and wouldn't advise any who came to me to do so.

[sheeeit 129]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They kinda say that...for now.

The legal standard is an impossible one for a physician to follow with certainty.  Dr. Jones thinks it's plainly within his reasonable medical judgment that Jane Doe needs an abortion to save her life and/or avoid destroying her uterus.  So, he performs the abortion.  Ken Paxton and/or another zealous Republican prosecutor solicits the opinion of Dr. Smith, member of the board of Jesus Hates Women Bible Fundamentalist church, to opine that Dr. Jones opinion was NOT a reasonable medical opinion.  Case submitted to grand jury, with only Dr. Smith's opinion presented.  Grand Jury indicts Dr. Jones.  Dr. Jones is now in the fight of his life, with literally his freedom FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE on the line.

The standard is impossible to know with certainty, and can be opposed/refuted by the offer of an opinion from a "friendly" Dr. on the side of the prosecution.  "Reasonable" is a matter of opinion.  So, that means there is always, 100% of the time, a risk of prosecution of a Dr. for performing a life-saving or health-saving abortion.  Which is how the GQP wants it.  There is no fixing this because they do not think it's broken.

You use your typical histrionics but I don't disagree with the sentiment.  There are certainly things the hospitals and doctors can do to insulate them from this.  In house medical panels that review, rigorous documentation etc.  And if you read the statute jail time is only for doctors or others that "wantonly" violate the statute.  But your point stands that there is risk.  From a purely legal standpoint, I don't think this particular line of thinking is a winning strategy. 

Obviously getting the law repealed is ideal.  Short of that, I think a woman is going to have to sue a doctor or hospital for denying her an abortion under the vagueness of the statute and force the courts to put in language that removes the ambiguity.   We already have laws that deal with medical reasonableness and things like experimental drugs and procedures.  These are not, at all, issues that the medical world hasn't dealt with before.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Sorry man, but this is an all-timer forest from the trees post right here. It's not fucking obvious at all that she was free to get an abortion in Texas without judicial clearance! There's three fucking intentionally ambiguous laws against it!

What I meant was obvious is that the Supreme Court of Texas is mostly limited by the laws the lege drafts and passes.

I am unaware that Cox raised a state constitutional question or an equitable question about non-statutory exceptions to the abortion ban, which might have given scotx a way around the statute, not that they would have taken it.

 

[chainsaw 9870]

None of the women on the court dissented either.

[YGIFS 19452]

You know what'll happen in this state which already has a marked shortage of doctors and nurses, right?  The legislature, executive branch, and bench come at them from one side.  Then you start getting women suing doctors for failure to provide necessary procedures.  Pretty soon, even general practicioners start leaving the state.  We're gonna be proper fucked in a decade or so.