Meanwhile, the ‘pro-family’ sadists make sure it’s going to be as difficult as possible for those babies to get proper care:
Pretty much just like they are trying to do with access to gender affirming care - go after the kids, and then expand it to everyone.
Elections have consequences. It will take a hell of a lot of them to correct this shit show, though. Throw the bastiches out wherever they have found a place to fester!
More complex and wide-ranging an article than the headline makes it seem.
Some women are suing Texas to get some clear guidelines on what counts as an exception to the abortion ban. The plaintiffs are arguing that because the law is so vague, it puts all doctors in fear and makes them wait for too long when the pregnant person’s life is in danger or to say no entirely in the cases of fetal anomalies. Which then puts the pregnant person’s life in jeopardy and also can have serious impacts for their long-term health and future fertility.
Well, the attorney general’s office essentially argued the women who had to leave the state in order to get vital health care or who almost died because they could not get vital health care have no standing because they are not seeking an abortion right now, some cannot get pregnant again because their uterus was removed, or have said they likely won’t get pregnant in the future because they are terrified or were harmed in some other way.
The high court heard arguments in the case Nov. 28, including the state’s claim that the plaintiffs do not have the legal right to sue, since none of the 20 are currently seeking abortions.
Texas Supreme Court Justice Jeff Boyd asked Assistant Attorney General Beth Klusmann if there was ever a circumstance in which a woman would be able to bring a lawsuit seeking to clarify the law. Klusmann replied that a woman actively seeking an abortion for a lethal fetal anomaly would arguably have standing to sue the attorney general for her specific case.
“And then the defense would be whether or not they intended to enforce it in that circumstance or not, so through the ultra vires, sovereign immunity process, we’d probably hash out some of the merits,” she said. While Klusmann acknowledged that it was likely “impractical” for a woman to file a lawsuit while dealing with a complicated pregnancy, “we don’t bend the rules of standing for practicality.”
Well, guess what, you cruel fucks:
As those arguments were happening in Austin, Cox was in the Dallas area, learning her much-wanted pregnancy was unlikely to result in a live baby. In researching her options, she learned about the lawsuit and reached out the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed both suits. Tuesday’s lawsuit follows the model Klusmann laid out before the justices last week, bringing an ultra vires challenge to the state’s abortion law as it applies to her specific lethal fetal diagnosis.
The lawsuit says that Cox cannot wait for the Supreme Court to rule and asks the judge to grant a temporary restraining order, prohibiting enforcement of Texas’ abortion bans against Cox and her husband, as well as Dr. Damla Karsan, an OB/GYN who has agreed to perform the abortion, and her employees. Karsan is a plaintiff in Zurawski v. Texas as well. Cox’s lawsuit also asks for a declaratory judgement that finds the state’s abortion bans do not apply to patients with emergent medical conditions.
I hope this woman is able to get the abortion she needs. I salute her bravery and willingness to take this on. Thank you, Kate Cox.
AUSTIN – The Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws. This includes first degree felony prosecutions, Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.004, and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation, Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 170A.005, 171.207-211. And, while the TRO purports to temporarily enjoin actions brought by the OAG and TMB against Dr. Karsan and her staff, it does not enjoin actions brought by private citizens. Tex. Health & Safety Code § ¬¬171.207. Nor does it prohibit a district or county attorney from enforcing Texas’ pre-Roe abortion laws against Dr. Karsan or anyone else. The TRO will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.
Ken Paxton’s response to this…
Him, of course.
Doctors and hundreds of hospital lawyers cannot figure out what does and does not qualify under the so-called exceptions but Paxton can?
I wonder if this will impact the case before the Texas Supreme Court. I hate Texas so much sometimes
I hope Kate Cox is able to stay safe
I think men in that state should have to go before a female judge to determine if they are allowed to terminate prostate cancer tumors when diagnosed.
I don’t know the actual stats, but if you include the fact that the number one most lethal danger to a pregnant person is the man in their life killing them, I’m wondering if a diagnosis of prostate cancer is actually more dangerous or not than pregnancy in a state that doesn’t allow proper prenatal medical care.
Oh no, it’s quite simple, really:
If she dies, then it was a reasonable medical opinion that it was life-threatening condition, and an abortion would have been allowed.
If she doesn’t die, then any opinion that it was a life-threatening condition was clearly hysterical and ideological (possibly even woke), and any abortion procedure or preparation for same, including investigating whether it may be a possible treatment, will be
persecutprosecuted to the full extent of the AGs whim.
I repeat: if she drowns, she was innocent. If she floats, she’s a witch and will be executed alongside anyone who ever tried to help her.
Yup, that is a pretty accurate summary of how this damned law works. Of course, the whole idea is to never actually enforce it. The threat of it will keep docs from providing the needed care, and the most conscientious to leave the state all together. As intended.