OB/GYNs &nurses leaving Texas or leaving practice

2,965 Views | 57 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"You know what? I'm not doing this any more."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/texas-abortion-law-doctors-nurses-care-supreme-court.html

or three days last fall, Leah Wilson entered her pregnant patient's hospital room and checked the fetus for a heartbeat. She was waiting for it to stop. The woman's water had broken at just 19 weeks of pregnancy, well before viability, causing an infection in her uterus. The fetus would not survive, but until it died, or the woman's condition worsened, there was little the hospital would do, said Wilson, who was her nurse at the time.
Typically in this kind of situation, doctors would terminate the pregnancy to prevent a life-threatening infection or other serious complication. But this patient was in Texas, where abortion is no longer legal.

So they waited. The smell of the infection filled the room, Wilson said. She tried to help the patient stay clean. She watched her vitals and monitored her for sepsisif the infection got bad enough, if it spread through her body, then the doctors would finally intervene, to save her life. Wilson struggled to explain to the woman slowly losing her pregnancy why they weren't doing anything else to help. Finally, on the third day, she said, the heartbeat stopped.

By the time Wilson cared for this patient, she had been working as a labor and delivery nurse at the San Antonio hospital for about a year and a half. She decided to go into nursing after seven years at home raising her young kids, inspired by the complicated birth of her own son and the impact her nurses at the time had on both their recoveries. At the hospital, which sees a large number of high-risk pregnant patients from across the region, Wilson said she often volunteered to work on difficult cases involving fetal loss. Several of her friends had miscarried, and she wanted to be the nurse who supported other patients through it: "It's always hard, but usually, you know, you go and you cry for your five minutes in the closet once things are over, and then you move on."

By September 2021, though, caring for these patients became much scarier in Texas. That's when Senate Bill 8 went into effect, banning nearly all abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, and allowing virtually any person to sue anyone they suspected of "aiding and abetting" the procedure. The most restrictive abortion law in the country at the time, S.B. 8 included only an ambiguous exception for "medical emergencies," resulting in hospitals delaying or denying care to people with pregnancy complications for fear of liability, and leaving providers worried they could be sued for tasks they had previously been doing without a second thought in their day-to-day work, including miscarriage management. By last summer, things had become even harder at Wilson's hospital and across the state: Following the Supreme Court's June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Texas banned all abortions, with only narrow yet vague exceptions to save the life of the pregnant person and a potential penalty of life in prison for physicians. "It meant no longer providing the standard of care that we would have prior to Dobbs," Wilson said. "It meant patients sitting there for days, actively losing nonviable pregnancies, and us waiting for something to go bad enough that we could help them."

Wilson left her job soon after. "There were a couple of cases just within a few weeks of each other that I really, really, really struggled with," she told me, including the patient who miscarried at 19 weeks pregnant. "And it was enough to say, You know what? I'm not doing this anymore."

Almost every provider I spoke with has thought about leaving their practice or leaving Texas in the wake of S.B. 8 and Dobbs.

She's not the only one. More than a year and a half after Texas implemented its six-week abortion ban, and months after Dobbs, medical providers say they are facing impossible situations that pit their ethical obligation to patients who are dealing with traumatic and dangerous pregnancy complications against the fear of lawsuits, loss of their medical licenses, and incarceration. The problem is encapsulated by a lawsuit filed this month in Texas, in which five women and two OB-GYNs sued the state over the abortion bans that they say have created so much confusion and fear among providers that it has affected women's health and even threatened their lives. Unsure of how to comply with the new rules, hospitals have interpreted them differently, with some requiring approval from attorneys or ethics boards for physicians to provide abortion care in medical emergencies, and others leaving it up to individual doctors, with little guidance or support. This has meant that some physicians wait until patients are near death to intervene in medical emergencies, according to recent research, court filings, news reports, and interviews. "I'll get consults from another doctor asking me what to do in a particular casea mother bleeding, or a pregnancy where there's an infection in the womb before the baby can survive outside the womb. I have doctors calling me, hesitating, not quite knowing what to do because the baby has a heartbeat, when clearly the mother's life is at risk," John Visintine, a maternal fetal medicine specialist in McAllen, Texas, told me. "These are things that I haven't seen in, you know, 20 years of practicing OB, 14 years of practicing high-risk OBI've never run into these situations where people are wondering what to do."

The inability to provide what they say is the standard of care to pregnant patients is taking a toll, personally and professionally, according to interviews with more than a dozen doctors and nurses across Texas. And it's causing many, like Wilson, to reconsider the future of their career in the state. Almost every provider I spoke with for this story has thought about leaving their practice or leaving Texas in the wake of S.B. 8 and Dobbs. Several have already moved or stopped seeing patients here, at least in large part because of the abortion bans. "If I was ever touch a patient again, it won't be in the state of Texas," said Charles Brown, chair of the Texas district of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), who stopped seeing patients last year after decades working as a maternal fetal medicine specialist. Many asked that their hospital affiliation not be included in this story, in some cases because they feared consequences from their employer or the public for speaking out about these laws, even though they're not breaking them. Some worry about what will happen to their own kids if they are targeted. Several cried through the interviews. Many of those I spoke with who haven't left yet are still thinking about it regularlypeople who have family and homes and lives in Texas and would not otherwise have considered moving.

Brown put the stakes bluntly: "Are people quitting? … The answer is yes," he said. "I hope I'm 100 percent wrong about this, but I think it's a much bigger trend that's going to become obvious pretty quickly."

After she finished her OB-GYN residency in Chicago in 2020, Yue Guan took a job in Fort Worth to be close to her family and support system in Texas. But the past year and a half has put in stark relief the differences in basic maternity care between Illinois, where abortions are legal up to about 24 weeks, and where she now practices.

This is especially true for patients at her hospital, many of whom are uninsured and don't have access to preventive health care or early prenatal care. "For some of them, an issue with the pregnancy, like a fetal anomaly that wouldn't be compatible with life, would not be discovered until much later," she said. "So it's so many more degrees more difficult for them." At that point, if they wanted to terminate a nonviable pregnancy, their options for traveling out of state would be even more limited, and would require financial resources that many don't have. The current abortion bans do not include any exception for severe fetal anomalies. Since the six-week ban went into effect, Guan said she's had patients carry and deliver babies that they knew wouldn't survive, because they didn't have another option: "This definitely hits this population in a different, much more malicious way."

In one case, she said a patient came to the hospital with a premature rupture of membranes, then found out the fetus had a severe anomaly that it likely would not survive. Generally, when a patient's water breaks early and they are close to viability, they may be given antibiotics to try to prolong the pregnancy, Guan said. "This patient told us she wanted to decline the antibiotics so she could get sick enough so that we would offer her an abortion. And eventually she did get infected, and was delivered for that reason."

Guan said she questions her future practicing in Texas each time she sees a case like this. "It doesn't feel very sustainable for me in the long run, to feel like I'm not allowed to be a doctor," she said. Most of her friends stayed in Chicago where they trained, or moved to other states that aren't subject to abortion bans. "A lot of them feel like, If this is the toll that it's going to take on me, I should just move, or find some other kind of position where I'm not going to be exposed to these patient cases. But I also feel like if anything, that makes the problem worse, right? If every OBlet's say every OB you talk to who felt similarlydecides to leave the state, we just have fewer OBs here, even less access for these patients. And that doesn't feel like a viable solution."

This is all happening as Texans can't afford to lose more access to medical care. In 2022, 15 percent of the state's 254 counties had no doctor, according to data from the state health department, and about two-thirds had no OB-GYN. Texas has one of the most significant physician shortages in the country, with a shortfall that is expected to increase by more than 50 percent over the next decade, according to the state's projections. The shortage of registered nurses, around 30,000, is expected to nearly double over the same period. Already, Texans in large swaths of the state must drive hours for medical care, including to give birth. According to recent research from the nonprofit March of Dimes, it is among the worst states for maternity care access, which has decreased in a dozen Texas counties in the past two years, mostly due to a loss of obstetrics providers.

This doesn't yet take into account the effects of increased criminalization of abortion care, which is further compounded by dramatic pandemic-induced burnout among clinicians. As physicians retire, hospitals are struggling to replace them; as nurses burn out or leave for more lucrative travel nursing roles, their positions are sitting open. There have been a string of policies and factors that have stretched providers in Texas for many years, from having the highest uninsured rate in the country to low Medicaid reimbursement rates to the demonization of science to attacks on transgender health care, and now the abortion bans, according to Tom Banning, the CEO of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians. "The first rule of holes, when you're trying to get out of the hole, is to stop digging," he said. "We just continue to dig the hole that we're in deeper."

"It's crisis-level staffing for the majority of rural Texas hospitals."
John Henderson

This is an issue for both urban and rural areas, but it's felt most acutely outside major metros, where one retirement or move can be the difference between having access to medical care near home or having to drive an extra several hours. The state has experienced the most rural hospital closures in the country in recent years. Less than half of rural hospitals nationwide still have labor and delivery services, according to recent research from the Chartis Center for Rural Health; in Texas, that number is just 40 percent. John Henderson, the president and CEO of the Texas Organization of Rural and Community Hospitals, said he gave a presentation this fall for a group of representatives from about 100 rural Texas hospitals where he asked them to raise their hand if they don't currently have openings for registered nurses. "There were three out of 100 that were fully staffed, and I was actually surprised that there were three," he said. "It's crisis-level staffing for the majority of rural Texas hospitals." Maternity wards have long been the sacrificial lamb for cash-strapped rural hospitals trying to save money and keep their doors open, but more recently, it's short staffing that has forced closures and cuts to services in Texas and across the country.

For more than a year during the pandemic, for example, Big Bend Regional Medical Center in Alpine, the only hospital for 12,000 square miles, regularly closed its labor and delivery unit for days at a time after most of the unit's nurses quit. Hereford Regional Medical Center, in the Texas Panhandle, sometimes sent patients 50 miles northeast to Amarillo when the hospital didn't have enough nurses to deliver babies. Doctors spanning from Huntsville, in East Texas, to the Permian Basin told me they've had to fill in more and more as their hospitals have struggled to recruit new physicians after others retired.

In Sweetwater, 40 miles west of Abilene, Rolling Plains Memorial Hospital's labor and delivery unit lost at least four nurses who left for higher-paying travel nurse positions during the pandemic, according to Jennifer Liedtke, a family medicine physician and the unit's director. The hospital has been actively trying to hire a full-time OB-GYN for more than two years. Even under normal circumstances, in an overstretched hospital like hers, she said, "You're not just the postpartum nurse, you're not just the laboring nurse, you're not just the newborn nurse, you're all of those things."

And when there isn't a fully staffed hospital nearby, it can be harrowing for patients. After one local hospital, about 30 miles from Sweetwater, closed its maternity ward years ago, it started sending patients in need to Liedtke's unit. Recently, a patient was transferred to her care who was hemorrhaging and needed a common procedure to stop the bleedingbut because no one at the other hospital could do the surgery, she had to instruct the nurse over the phone on how to slow the bleeding and tell her to get the patient to Sweetwater as fast as possible.

Liedtke and others are concerned these gaps will only grow now that new doctors training in obstetrics are unable to learn the full scope of pregnancy and abortion care in Texas. Already, residencies and recruiters are reporting a hesitancy among new and seasoned doctors to practice in states with abortion bans, and some programs are sending current residents out of state for training rotations where available so they can meet medical standards. Guan, who works with residents at her hospital, said she reminds them that certain ways pregnancy complications are now managed in Texas are not the standard of carethat this is not the way these situations are treated everywhere. The scarcity also raises the stakes: When there are limited providers, the importance of each one knowing how to deal with complicated situations is higher, Banning said: "There's no safety net."

Unlike what she's heard from physicians at some larger hospitals, Liedtke said she hasn't yet had a problem treating pregnancy complications under the abortion bans. It's not that she's not getting these patients, but each time she does, she's able to call up her boss on the hospital's administrative team to get permission to intervene, which thus far has been granted.

Still, she's felt the impact of the new laws on her practice. On the day we spoke in November, Liedtke said she had gone to three different pharmacies in town to try to get a prescription filled for methotrexate. The drug can be used to end a pregnancy, and Liedtke needed it for a patient who came to the emergency room with an ectopic pregnancy, which is nonviable and life-threatening if left untreated. Despite an explicit exception for ectopic pregnancies in Texas abortion law, Liedtke said the physician who first saw the patient didn't want to prescribe the drug, and the big pharmacies in town won't fill it anymore. Eventually, her neighbor, who's a pharmacist, agreed, provided she fax over the ultrasound. The personal relationships are critical, she said: "My neighbor knows that I don't do elective abortions, I only do them when there's medical indication. And we go to church together, and he knows that."

Across Texas, physicians and nurses described a sense of being pulled between the individual stress of trying to navigate care in this environment and broader concerns about who will fill in the gap if they leave. In the Rio Grande Valley, on the Texas-Mexico border, John Visintine, the McAllen OB-GYN, said he is one of just a few maternal fetal medicine specialists who provide care for people with high-risk pregnancies, complications, and fetal anomalies in a region of about 1.5 million people. The population is predominantly poor, with one of the highest uninsured rates in the country, and many people can't travel out of the region because of their immigration status. Visintine said he's been told by attorneys not to even discuss the option of going out of state for an abortion with patients, including when the fetus has such severe birth defects that it will not survive. He's not the only one receiving this message. But withholding that information feels so unethical that he, too, has contemplated leaving his practice. "To be left with the option of either potentially breaking the law and putting myself, my family, at risk, or not offering the options to a patient and not meeting her needs and providing careI think it's a tragic, horrible situation to be in," he said. "And then if you leave, you know, there's so many women that need care in this area. Do we just abandon the women of South Texas?"

Some providers have moved to states like New Mexico and Colorado following S.B. 8 and Dobbs to continue to care for Texans now traveling out of state. Alireza Shamshirsaz, an OB-GYN and fetal surgeon who for more than a decade worked at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston and saw patients from Texas and across the South, told me that the new restrictions prompted him to accept another job offer after years of declining them. Last summer, he left his home in Houston and moved with his family across the country for a position at Boston Children's Hospital. For Lee Bar-Eli, a family medicine physician in Houston and board member of Doctors in Politics, the abortion ban was the latest in a slew of factorsincluding feeling unsupported and disillusioned during the pandemic as a doctor and later as a long-COVID patientthat led her to take a break from practicing medicine, beginning last January.

"So far I haven't left. You think, Well, if this happens, then I'm leaving. You know, I said the same thing before the Dobbs case was decided."
Shanna Combs, OB-GYN in Fort Worth

Others are considering what their breaking point would be. "We talk about what we take on as health care providers," said Shanna Combs, an OB-GYN in Fort Worth. "Something happens, just throw it in the bag, just throw it in the bag. So you have this constant weight, being weighted down by this heavy backpack of burdens, and this has just continued to add to that," she said of the abortion ban. "At the end of the day, I just want to take care of my patients and provide the best care for them. And this is just another layer that makes you question what you're doing." In November, Combs, who is president-elect of the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told me that if contraception is further restricted, that would be the final straw for her to move. When we spoke again early this year, I mentioned a recent court ruling that bans Texas teens from getting birth control from federally funded clinics without their parents' consent. So, has anything changed? "So far I haven't left," she said, laughing. "You think, Well, if this happens, then I'm leaving. You know, I said the same thing before the Dobbs case was decided."

The Texas lawsuit filed this month, the first of its kind, does not seek to block the abortion bans, just to clarify the scope of the medical exceptions and affirm that doctors have discretion to provide abortion care when the pregnant person's health is at risk. At the Texas Capitol, Democrats have filed bills in the current legislative sessionthe first time the state Legislature has met since 2021that also seek to clarify current exemptions, and widen them slightly to include lethal fetal anomalies, rape, and incest. But supporters of the restrictive laws have generally shown little appetite for even these changes, instead blaming doctors for denying care to pregnant patients and medical associations for not giving clear guidance. They've instead pushed measures to further criminalize abortion access.

Charles Brown, the ACOG chair, worries that absent clarity and changes from state leaders, a mass exodus could soon occur. "We have not had the front-page photo of the doctor in handcuffs yet. When that happens, I think that will be the napalm," he said. "Once that first arrest is on the front page of the paper, that will be a defining moment for a lot of people." For Combs, who recently traveled to Austin to meet with legislators about changes to the abortion laws, the question of whether to leave Texas is "something that sits in the back of my mindprobably not a day that goes by where I don't think, Huh, is this where I really want to be?" she said. "I like to say, 'I choose every day to stay.' "

The precariousness of this moment informs every conversation: What if Liedtke's neighbor wasn't a pharmacist? What if a patient sent home to wait for sepsis lived just a few minutes too far from the hospital to make it back in time? (Has this happened already?) What is the breaking point for so many doctors and nurses who are already thinking about leavinghow much heavier can the backpack get before it rips? How much deeper can we dig this hole before we can't get back out?

Providers in Texas have been navigating care under a near-total abortion ban for the longest time of any state in America. But this conflict over whether to stay or go is also playing out across the dozen other states that have banned abortion care following Dobbs. And while those working in reproductive health care are most directly affected by these abortion bans, doctors I've spoken to warned it doesn't end with them. Cancer doctors are wondering if they can treat pregnant patients. Some providers who can become or want to become pregnant are considering moving away or are hesitating to come to states with abortion bans for their own safety, physicians told me. Others with kids already are making similar calculations. "It's everything," Brown said. "They don't want to live in a state where their children can't get health care."

Before the Dobbs decision, Leah Wilson, the nurse in San Antonio, had the next few yearseven the rest of her careermapped out. She would continue to work at the hospital as a labor and delivery nurse, then get a master's degree in midwifery and become a certified nurse midwife. She and her husband would raise their three kids in the Texas city where she grew up, and where the two of them met at church more than a decade ago.

Now, everything has changed. She and her family are packing up their home to put it on the market. Later this spring, they'll move to Utah, where her husband will be stationed with the Air Force.

In October, Wilson quit working in the hospital in favor of a new job, as a nurse home visitor. She gets to help new mothers that way, and she'll be able to keep that job in Utah. But she's watching as further abortion restrictions now wind their way through the Utah Legislature and courts. At this point, she doubts she'll ever go back to working with patients in a hospital setting. "It's just too uncertain," she said. When her husband retires from the Air Force in three years, they may move the family to Colorado, or perhaps farther west. But they won't return to Texas.

"I loved coming back, being able to share that with my children. And it is hard to leave a place that really does feel like home. But we don't want them growing up here," she said. "I definitely don't want my daughters having kids in Texas. I know that."
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you want to open a casino, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to operate a casino.

If you want to kill babies, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to kill babies.
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Nibh mauris cursus mattis molestie a. Quis varius quam quisque id diam vel quam. Habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque elit ullamcorper dignissim. Tristique nulla aliquet enim tortor at auctor urna nunc id. Vel fringilla est ullamcorper eget nulla facilisi etiam dignissim diam. Eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis. Nibh cras pulvinar mattis nunc sed blandit libero volutpat sed. At ultrices mi tempus imperdiet nulla malesuada pellentesque. Ac ut consequat semper viverra. Est sit amet facilisis magna. Tristique risus nec feugiat in fermentum.
Quam pellentesque nec nam aliquam sem. Ut eu sem integer vitae justo eget. Vulputate odio ut enim blandit volutpat maecenas volutpat blandit. Blandit cursus risus at ultrices mi. Etiam non quam lacus suspendisse. Mauris sit amet massa vitae tortor condimentum. Consequat semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit. Magna ac placerat vestibulum lectus mauris ultrices eros. Semper auctor neque vitae tempus quam pellentesque nec. Et malesuada fames ac turpis. Nulla malesuada pellentesque elit eget gravida cum sociis. Tincidunt dui ut ornare lectus. Egestas fringilla phasellus faucibus scelerisque eleifend donec pretium vulputate sapien. Tellus in hac habitasse platea. Ut eu sem integer vitae justo. Amet luctus venenatis lectus magna fringilla urna porttitor rhoncus dolor. Non diam phasellus vestibulum lorem sed risus ultricies tristique. Varius duis at consectetur lorem donec massa sapien faucibus et.
Eget nunc scelerisque viverra mauris in aliquam sem. Eleifend mi in nulla posuere. Mattis pellentesque id nibh tortor. Egestas dui id ornare arcu odio ut sem nulla. Cursus in hac habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis. Consequat semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit amet cursus. Facilisis volutpat est velit egestas dui. Non odio euismod lacinia at quis risus sed vulputate odio. Dictum fusce ut placerat orci. Imperdiet proin fermentum leo vel. Magnis dis parturient montes nascetur ridiculus. Habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis purus sit amet volutpat consequat. Sapien faucibus et molestie ac feugiat sed lectus vestibulum.
Ultrices eros in cursus turpis massa tincidunt dui ut ornare. Adipiscing enim eu turpis egestas pretium aenean pharetra magna ac. Sed odio morbi quis commodo. Vitae et leo duis ut diam quam nulla. Gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis. Integer feugiat scelerisque varius morbi. Magnis dis parturient montes nascetur ridiculus mus mauris vitae ultricies. Vulputate enim nulla aliquet porttitor lacus luctus accumsan tortor. Est ultricies integer quis auctor elit sed vulputate mi. Gravida dictum fusce ut placerat orci nulla pellentesque dignissim enim. Metus vulputate eu scelerisque felis imperdiet proin fermentum. Commodo ullamcorper a lacus vestibulum sed arcu. Nibh sit amet commodo nulla. Integer enim neque volutpat ac. Risus commodo viverra maecenas accumsan lacus vel facilisis. Et sollicitudin ac orci phasellus egestas tellus rutrum. Sit amet luctus venenatis lectus. Porta lorem mollis aliquam ut porttitor leo a diam sollicitudin. Semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit amet.
Mi bibendum neque egestas congue quisque egestas diam in arcu. Enim sit amet venenatis urna. Elit sed vulputate mi sit amet mauris. Massa sed elementum tempus egestas sed. Ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra accumsan. Vel eros donec ac odio. Elit scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque. Dui id ornare arcu odio ut sem nulla pharetra. Tellus elementum sagittis vitae et leo duis. Ultrices tincidunt arcu non sodales neque sodales ut. Condimentum id venenatis a condimentum vitae sapien pellentesque. Pellentesque id nibh tortor id aliquet. Tortor at auctor urna nunc id cursus metus aliquam. Nulla porttitor massa id neque aliquam vestibulum morbi. Elementum pulvinar etiam non quam.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Long winded cut and paste nonsense..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Long winded cut and paste nonsense..
No kidding! 5 paragraphs of lorem couldn't even match that jinx post. Apparently doesn't know how to summarize and add a link.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The beginning is clear enough. A woman had an infection in her uterus she knew would kill the fetus inside her, and had to wait around until the infection was bad enough to do so. Not everyone wants to possibly die in order to abort a failed pregnancy.

Of course the protectors of babies have no response, just copypastas about their own righteousness.

The first 5 paragraphs are enough to get the idea.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bye?
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whitetrash said:

If you want to open a casino, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to operate a casino.

If you want to kill babies, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to kill babies.
Point out where OB-GYN's in question want to "kill babies."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/us/texas-abortion-ban-suit.amp.html

The women who are bringing the suit contradict stereotypes about who receives abortions and why. Married, and some with children already, the women rejoiced at their pregnancies, only to discover that their fetuses had no chance of survival two had no skulls, and two others were threatening the lives of their twins.

Though they faced the risk of hemorrhage or life-threatening infection from carrying those fetuses, the women were told they could not have abortions, the suit says. Some doctors refused even to suggest the option, or to forward medical records to another provider.

Unlike other suits from abortion rights groups, the Texas suit does not seek to overturn the state bans on abortion. Instead, it asks the court to confirm that Texas law allows physicians to offer abortion if, in their good-faith judgment, the procedure is necessary because the woman has a "physical emergent medical condition" that cannot be treated during pregnancy or that makes continuing the pregnancy unsafe, or the fetus has a condition "where the pregnancy is unlikely to result in the birth of a living child with sustained life."

The women are not suing the medical providers that denied abortions, and the providers are not named in the suit; in most cases, the women say the providers were doing the best they could, but had their hands tied.

Ms. Zurawski became pregnant in early 2022 after 18 months of fertility treatments. In her 17th week of pregnancy, and the day after she made the guest list for her baby shower, a scan found that her cervical membranes had begun to prolapse. Specialists told her that her fetus, which she had begun thinking of as her baby, would not survive.

Doctors told Ms. Zurawski they could perform an abortion only if she became acutely ill or went into labor naturally, or if the fetus's heartbeat stopped. That night at home, her water broke, but when she went to the emergency room, doctors said she was not in labor. Without amniotic fluid, the fetus would die, but it still had a heartbeat. And because Ms. Zurawski's vital signs were stable, they said, she did not qualify for an exception. The hospital sent her home.

Ms. Zurawski and her husband, Josh Zurawski, considered driving 11 hours to New Mexico, but had been told to stay within a 20-minute drive of the hospital in Texas in case she went into labor. She was so worried about being prosecuted, "I didn't even feel safe Googling options," Ms. Zurawski said. "I didn't know what they could and couldn't search."

Three days later, her doctors again told the Zurawskis they could not legally abort the fetus because it still had a heartbeat. At home that night, Ms. Zurawski developed a fever, and her husband called the obstetrician to ask to go to the hospital. "We were in this mind-set of, 'Surely now you'll accept us,'" Mr. Zurawski said. A nurse told them, he said, that doctors would have to receive approval from the hospital's ethics board.

He finally rushed his wife to the emergency room later that night. There her fever spiked to 103.2 degrees. Doctors confirmed that she had a blood infection and said her life was now in danger, so they could induce delivery without violating Texas' abortion ban.

Later that night, she developed a secondary infection. Doctors told Mr. Zurawski that they had to give his wife a blood transfusion to stabilize her enough to move her to the intensive care unit. The couple's families flew in, fearing that she would die.

Ms. Zurawski left intensive care after three days, and the hospital after a week. Two months later, she had an operation to remove scar tissue from her uterus and fallopian tubes, but the doctors were unable to clear one.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
Newsflash - Lawyers, malpractice insurance providers, and hospital admins ARE a big part of medicine in today's world.

You say it's clear, but it's not your livelihood and freedom on the line if someone in authority disagrees with you.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

whitetrash said:

If you want to open a casino, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to operate a casino.

If you want to kill babies, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to kill babies.
Point out where OB-GYN's in question want to "kill babies."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/us/texas-abortion-ban-suit.amp.html

The women who are bringing the suit contradict stereotypes about who receives abortions and why. Married, and some with children already, the women rejoiced at their pregnancies, only to discover that their fetuses had no chance of survival two had no skulls, and two others were threatening the lives of their twins.

Though they faced the risk of hemorrhage or life-threatening infection from carrying those fetuses, the women were told they could not have abortions, the suit says. Some doctors refused even to suggest the option, or to forward medical records to another provider.

Unlike other suits from abortion rights groups, the Texas suit does not seek to overturn the state bans on abortion. Instead, it asks the court to confirm that Texas law allows physicians to offer abortion if, in their good-faith judgment, the procedure is necessary because the woman has a "physical emergent medical condition" that cannot be treated during pregnancy or that makes continuing the pregnancy unsafe, or the fetus has a condition "where the pregnancy is unlikely to result in the birth of a living child with sustained life."

The women are not suing the medical providers that denied abortions, and the providers are not named in the suit; in most cases, the women say the providers were doing the best they could, but had their hands tied.

Ms. Zurawski became pregnant in early 2022 after 18 months of fertility treatments. In her 17th week of pregnancy, and the day after she made the guest list for her baby shower, a scan found that her cervical membranes had begun to prolapse. Specialists told her that her fetus, which she had begun thinking of as her baby, would not survive.

Doctors told Ms. Zurawski they could perform an abortion only if she became acutely ill or went into labor naturally, or if the fetus's heartbeat stopped. That night at home, her water broke, but when she went to the emergency room, doctors said she was not in labor. Without amniotic fluid, the fetus would die, but it still had a heartbeat. And because Ms. Zurawski's vital signs were stable, they said, she did not qualify for an exception. The hospital sent her home.

Ms. Zurawski and her husband, Josh Zurawski, considered driving 11 hours to New Mexico, but had been told to stay within a 20-minute drive of the hospital in Texas in case she went into labor. She was so worried about being prosecuted, "I didn't even feel safe Googling options," Ms. Zurawski said. "I didn't know what they could and couldn't search."

Three days later, her doctors again told the Zurawskis they could not legally abort the fetus because it still had a heartbeat. At home that night, Ms. Zurawski developed a fever, and her husband called the obstetrician to ask to go to the hospital. "We were in this mind-set of, 'Surely now you'll accept us,'" Mr. Zurawski said. A nurse told them, he said, that doctors would have to receive approval from the hospital's ethics board.

He finally rushed his wife to the emergency room later that night. There her fever spiked to 103.2 degrees. Doctors confirmed that she had a blood infection and said her life was now in danger, so they could induce delivery without violating Texas' abortion ban.

Later that night, she developed a secondary infection. Doctors told Mr. Zurawski that they had to give his wife a blood transfusion to stabilize her enough to move her to the intensive care unit. The couple's families flew in, fearing that she would die.

Ms. Zurawski left intensive care after three days, and the hospital after a week. Two months later, she had an operation to remove scar tissue from her uterus and fallopian tubes, but the doctors were unable to clear one.
thats a good law suit because I strongly believe the hospital innapprotiately applied the law.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
Newsflash - Lawyers, malpractice insurance providers, and hospital admins ARE a big part of medicine in today's world.

You say it's clear, but it's not your livelihood and freedom on the line if someone in authority disagrees with you.
what someone in Authority can disagree with a Doctors/Hospitals determination of clinical need? No sensible DA would take that case without having a healthcare professional to testify that the pregnancy was viable which you would find zero who would do that..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
Newsflash - Lawyers, malpractice insurance providers, and hospital admins ARE a big part of medicine in today's world.

You say it's clear, but it's not your livelihood and freedom on the line if someone in authority disagrees with you.
what someone in Authority can disagree with a Doctors/Hospitals determination of clinical need? No sensible DA would take that case without having a healthcare professional to testify that the pregnancy was viable which you would find zero who would do that..
Again, not your medical license, your hospital's liability, or your freedom on the line.

Take something that is an unfortunate but necessary part of your job. Now make it a potential life sentence and your company could be held liable and lose millions if you don't follow the rules that aren't necessarily clear. What do you think would happen at your company? How much freedom would you have to perform that task and how willing would you be to do it?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
Newsflash - Lawyers, malpractice insurance providers, and hospital admins ARE a big part of medicine in today's world.

You say it's clear, but it's not your livelihood and freedom on the line if someone in authority disagrees with you.
what someone in Authority can disagree with a Doctors/Hospitals determination of clinical need? No sensible DA would take that case without having a healthcare professional to testify that the pregnancy was viable which you would find zero who would do that..
Well, that's your first problem right there. Viability is completely irrelevant under this law.
midgett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
Miscarriages are a topic that puzzles me.

Libs want abortions on demand. "We're not killing babies. It's just fetal tissue."

If a loved one or friend has a miscarriage, they want to mourn with the mother who lost her BABY. Wouldn't they just say, "hey I heard you lost some fetal tissue. No biggie."

So is it a baby or is it fetal tissue?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
midgett said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
Miscarriages are a topic that puzzles me.

Libs want abortions on demand. "We're not killing babies. It's just fetal tissue."

If a loved one or friend has a miscarriage, they want to mourn with the mother who lost her BABY. Wouldn't they just say, "hey I heard you lost some fetal tissue. No biggie."

So is it a baby or is it fetal tissue?
Ours was a baby. But I still like having my wife around.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
Newsflash - Lawyers, malpractice insurance providers, and hospital admins ARE a big part of medicine in today's world.

You say it's clear, but it's not your livelihood and freedom on the line if someone in authority disagrees with you.
what someone in Authority can disagree with a Doctors/Hospitals determination of clinical need? No sensible DA would take that case without having a healthcare professional to testify that the pregnancy was viable which you would find zero who would do that..
Well, that's your first problem right there. Viability is completely irrelevant under this law.
removal of an unviable pregnancy should be a part of reasonable medical judgement. The only question is what makes the unborn child living or dead..

170A.002 (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive..

With zero chance of survival, the reasonable medical judgement is to perform the procedure to maintain the health of the woman as it is known that the womans health deteriorates rapidly with an unviable pregnancy like in the mews article.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
midgett said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
Miscarriages are a topic that puzzles me.

Libs want abortions on demand. "We're not killing babies. It's just fetal tissue."

If a loved one or friend has a miscarriage, they want to mourn with the mother who lost her BABY. Wouldn't they just say, "hey I heard you lost some fetal tissue. No biggie."

So is it a baby or is it fetal tissue?
miscarriages happen alot. Many women have them without realizing they were pregnant.

Sometimes the process doesnt work like it is supposed to.. miscarriages, still borns, and even failures of the body to fully eject the unviable baby as in the case in the lady at 19 weeks. That is in the standard window of miscarriages. Drs need to be free to finish the process for the health of the woman.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

midgett said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
Miscarriages are a topic that puzzles me.

Libs want abortions on demand. "We're not killing babies. It's just fetal tissue."

If a loved one or friend has a miscarriage, they want to mourn with the mother who lost her BABY. Wouldn't they just say, "hey I heard you lost some fetal tissue. No biggie."

So is it a baby or is it fetal tissue?
miscarriages happen alot. Many women have them without realizing they were pregnant.

Sometimes the process doesnt work like it is supposed to.. miscarriages, still borns, and even failures of the body to fully eject the unviable baby as in the case in the lady at 19 weeks. That is in the standard window of miscarriages. Drs need to be free to finish the process for the health of the woman.

It seems it wasn't the law in the way but the admins
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

midgett said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
Miscarriages are a topic that puzzles me.

Libs want abortions on demand. "We're not killing babies. It's just fetal tissue."

If a loved one or friend has a miscarriage, they want to mourn with the mother who lost her BABY. Wouldn't they just say, "hey I heard you lost some fetal tissue. No biggie."

So is it a baby or is it fetal tissue?
miscarriages happen alot. Many women have them without realizing they were pregnant.

Sometimes the process doesnt work like it is supposed to.. miscarriages, still borns, and even failures of the body to fully eject the unviable baby as in the case in the lady at 19 weeks. That is in the standard window of miscarriages. Drs need to be free to finish the process for the health of the woman.
And to do that, they need to be able to kill viable fetuses?
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Without actually looking into it, I would be very surprised if the Texas abortion law really prohibited treating the woman in the article.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
Newsflash - Lawyers, malpractice insurance providers, and hospital admins ARE a big part of medicine in today's world.

You say it's clear, but it's not your livelihood and freedom on the line if someone in authority disagrees with you.
what someone in Authority can disagree with a Doctors/Hospitals determination of clinical need? No sensible DA would take that case without having a healthcare professional to testify that the pregnancy was viable which you would find zero who would do that..
Well, that's your first problem right there. Viability is completely irrelevant under this law.
removal of an unviable pregnancy should be a part of reasonable medical judgement. The only question is what makes the unborn child living or dead..

170A.002 (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive..

With zero chance of survival, the reasonable medical judgement is to perform the procedure to maintain the health of the woman as it is known that the womans health deteriorates rapidly with an unviable pregnancy like in the mews article.
Again as Sam has already stated, only fetal heartbeat is mentioned in the law. Nothing regarding viability. The statement on "Medical Emergencies" is vague.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008F.pdf#navpanes=0

Sec.A171.204.AA PROHIBITED ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD WITH DETECTABLE FETAL HEARTBEAT; EFFECT. (a) AAExcept as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child

Sec.A171.205.AA EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a)AASections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JXL said:

Without actually looking into it, I would be very surprised if the Texas abortion law really prohibited treating the woman in the article.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008F.pdf#navpanes=0

Sec.A171.204.AA PROHIBITED ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD WITH DETECTABLE FETAL HEARTBEAT; EFFECT. (a) AAExcept as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child

Sec.A171.205.AA EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a)AASections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.

This is exactly what happened to the woman in the article. She had a nonviable unborn child with a heartbeat. She could not be treated until she was in what the doctors could consider a medical emergency.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.


It actually is the law. When you allow ANYONE to sue then it's only a matter on time before a provider during the right thing faces someone else's judgement.

The admins and lawyers being cautious are doing so for their protection.

There are some who's see the mother's death as Gods will.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

JXL said:

Without actually looking into it, I would be very surprised if the Texas abortion law really prohibited treating the woman in the article.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008F.pdf#navpanes=0

Sec.A171.204.AA PROHIBITED ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD WITH DETECTABLE FETAL HEARTBEAT; EFFECT. (a) AAExcept as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child

Sec.A171.205.AA EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a)AASections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.

This is exactly what happened to the woman in the article. She had a nonviable unborn child with a heartbeat. She could not be treated until she was in what the doctors could consider a medical emergency.
well, I hope the lawsuit judgement clears up the poorly written wording of lawyers.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is no room for common sense in a litigious society. You throw in a group of people that want to kill viable fetuses (PP) and it really makes things bad.

I'm sure PP has lawyers chomping at the bit for a woman to die, wanting a woman to die, so they can get more ammo against Texas.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
Newsflash - Lawyers, malpractice insurance providers, and hospital admins ARE a big part of medicine in today's world.

You say it's clear, but it's not your livelihood and freedom on the line if someone in authority disagrees with you.
what someone in Authority can disagree with a Doctors/Hospitals determination of clinical need? No sensible DA would take that case without having a healthcare professional to testify that the pregnancy was viable which you would find zero who would do that..
Well, that's your first problem right there. Viability is completely irrelevant under this law.
removal of an unviable pregnancy should be a part of reasonable medical judgement. The only question is what makes the unborn child living or dead..

170A.002 (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive..

With zero chance of survival, the reasonable medical judgement is to perform the procedure to maintain the health of the woman as it is known that the womans health deteriorates rapidly with an unviable pregnancy like in the mews article.
That's the problem. The poorly written law is deterring doctors from using reasonable medical judgment.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

whitetrash said:

If you want to open a casino, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to operate a casino.

If you want to kill babies, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to kill babies.

Unlike other suits from abortion rights groups, the Texas suit does not seek to overturn the state bans on abortion. Instead, it asks the court to confirm that Texas law allows physicians to offer abortion if, in their good-faith judgment, the procedure is necessary because the woman has a "physical emergent medical condition" that cannot be treated during pregnancy or that makes continuing the pregnancy unsafe, or the fetus has a condition "where the pregnancy is unlikely to result in the birth of a living child with sustained life."
Here is the slippery slope in all of this. We all know this will be abused by doctors, whose "good-faith judgment" at times cannot be trusted.

I recognize the issues this presents, and I am not sure of the answer.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is Slate generally a center or right-of-center publication?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

90sBear said:

whitetrash said:

If you want to open a casino, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to operate a casino.

If you want to kill babies, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to kill babies.
Point out where OB-GYN's in question want to "kill babies."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/us/texas-abortion-ban-suit.amp.html

The women who are bringing the suit contradict stereotypes about who receives abortions and why. Married, and some with children already, the women rejoiced at their pregnancies, only to discover that their fetuses had no chance of survival two had no skulls, and two others were threatening the lives of their twins.

Though they faced the risk of hemorrhage or life-threatening infection from carrying those fetuses, the women were told they could not have abortions, the suit says. Some doctors refused even to suggest the option, or to forward medical records to another provider.

Unlike other suits from abortion rights groups, the Texas suit does not seek to overturn the state bans on abortion. Instead, it asks the court to confirm that Texas law allows physicians to offer abortion if, in their good-faith judgment, the procedure is necessary because the woman has a "physical emergent medical condition" that cannot be treated during pregnancy or that makes continuing the pregnancy unsafe, or the fetus has a condition "where the pregnancy is unlikely to result in the birth of a living child with sustained life."

The women are not suing the medical providers that denied abortions, and the providers are not named in the suit; in most cases, the women say the providers were doing the best they could, but had their hands tied.

Ms. Zurawski became pregnant in early 2022 after 18 months of fertility treatments. In her 17th week of pregnancy, and the day after she made the guest list for her baby shower, a scan found that her cervical membranes had begun to prolapse. Specialists told her that her fetus, which she had begun thinking of as her baby, would not survive.

Doctors told Ms. Zurawski they could perform an abortion only if she became acutely ill or went into labor naturally, or if the fetus's heartbeat stopped. That night at home, her water broke, but when she went to the emergency room, doctors said she was not in labor. Without amniotic fluid, the fetus would die, but it still had a heartbeat. And because Ms. Zurawski's vital signs were stable, they said, she did not qualify for an exception. The hospital sent her home.

Ms. Zurawski and her husband, Josh Zurawski, considered driving 11 hours to New Mexico, but had been told to stay within a 20-minute drive of the hospital in Texas in case she went into labor. She was so worried about being prosecuted, "I didn't even feel safe Googling options," Ms. Zurawski said. "I didn't know what they could and couldn't search."

Three days later, her doctors again told the Zurawskis they could not legally abort the fetus because it still had a heartbeat. At home that night, Ms. Zurawski developed a fever, and her husband called the obstetrician to ask to go to the hospital. "We were in this mind-set of, 'Surely now you'll accept us,'" Mr. Zurawski said. A nurse told them, he said, that doctors would have to receive approval from the hospital's ethics board.

He finally rushed his wife to the emergency room later that night. There her fever spiked to 103.2 degrees. Doctors confirmed that she had a blood infection and said her life was now in danger, so they could induce delivery without violating Texas' abortion ban.

Later that night, she developed a secondary infection. Doctors told Mr. Zurawski that they had to give his wife a blood transfusion to stabilize her enough to move her to the intensive care unit. The couple's families flew in, fearing that she would die.

Ms. Zurawski left intensive care after three days, and the hospital after a week. Two months later, she had an operation to remove scar tissue from her uterus and fallopian tubes, but the doctors were unable to clear one.
thats a good law suit because I strongly believe the hospital innapprotiately applied the law.
Perhaps purposely so.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

midgett said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
Miscarriages are a topic that puzzles me.

Libs want abortions on demand. "We're not killing babies. It's just fetal tissue."

If a loved one or friend has a miscarriage, they want to mourn with the mother who lost her BABY. Wouldn't they just say, "hey I heard you lost some fetal tissue. No biggie."

So is it a baby or is it fetal tissue?
Ours was a baby. But I still like having my wife around.
So your wife had a procedure to avoid her death?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.

There are some who's see the mother's death as Gods will.
There are nuts out there. Pointing out there are nuts who subscribe to nutty views typically isn't a strong argument.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

4th and Inches said:

90sBear said:

whitetrash said:

If you want to open a casino, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to operate a casino.

If you want to kill babies, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to kill babies.
Point out where OB-GYN's in question want to "kill babies."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/us/texas-abortion-ban-suit.amp.html

The women who are bringing the suit contradict stereotypes about who receives abortions and why. Married, and some with children already, the women rejoiced at their pregnancies, only to discover that their fetuses had no chance of survival two had no skulls, and two others were threatening the lives of their twins.

Though they faced the risk of hemorrhage or life-threatening infection from carrying those fetuses, the women were told they could not have abortions, the suit says. Some doctors refused even to suggest the option, or to forward medical records to another provider.

Unlike other suits from abortion rights groups, the Texas suit does not seek to overturn the state bans on abortion. Instead, it asks the court to confirm that Texas law allows physicians to offer abortion if, in their good-faith judgment, the procedure is necessary because the woman has a "physical emergent medical condition" that cannot be treated during pregnancy or that makes continuing the pregnancy unsafe, or the fetus has a condition "where the pregnancy is unlikely to result in the birth of a living child with sustained life."

The women are not suing the medical providers that denied abortions, and the providers are not named in the suit; in most cases, the women say the providers were doing the best they could, but had their hands tied.

Ms. Zurawski became pregnant in early 2022 after 18 months of fertility treatments. In her 17th week of pregnancy, and the day after she made the guest list for her baby shower, a scan found that her cervical membranes had begun to prolapse. Specialists told her that her fetus, which she had begun thinking of as her baby, would not survive.

Doctors told Ms. Zurawski they could perform an abortion only if she became acutely ill or went into labor naturally, or if the fetus's heartbeat stopped. That night at home, her water broke, but when she went to the emergency room, doctors said she was not in labor. Without amniotic fluid, the fetus would die, but it still had a heartbeat. And because Ms. Zurawski's vital signs were stable, they said, she did not qualify for an exception. The hospital sent her home.

Ms. Zurawski and her husband, Josh Zurawski, considered driving 11 hours to New Mexico, but had been told to stay within a 20-minute drive of the hospital in Texas in case she went into labor. She was so worried about being prosecuted, "I didn't even feel safe Googling options," Ms. Zurawski said. "I didn't know what they could and couldn't search."

Three days later, her doctors again told the Zurawskis they could not legally abort the fetus because it still had a heartbeat. At home that night, Ms. Zurawski developed a fever, and her husband called the obstetrician to ask to go to the hospital. "We were in this mind-set of, 'Surely now you'll accept us,'" Mr. Zurawski said. A nurse told them, he said, that doctors would have to receive approval from the hospital's ethics board.

He finally rushed his wife to the emergency room later that night. There her fever spiked to 103.2 degrees. Doctors confirmed that she had a blood infection and said her life was now in danger, so they could induce delivery without violating Texas' abortion ban.

Later that night, she developed a secondary infection. Doctors told Mr. Zurawski that they had to give his wife a blood transfusion to stabilize her enough to move her to the intensive care unit. The couple's families flew in, fearing that she would die.

Ms. Zurawski left intensive care after three days, and the hospital after a week. Two months later, she had an operation to remove scar tissue from her uterus and fallopian tubes, but the doctors were unable to clear one.
thats a good law suit because I strongly believe the hospital innapprotiately applied the law.
Perhaps purposely so.
The hospital applied the law exactly as it is written. The non viable unborn child had a heartbeat. The law says the doctor can't touch her unless "a medical emergency exists" so they had to wait until the mothers life was in danger and perform emergency surgery after she had a blood infection. She then had to have follow up surgery.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.