420
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

The court ruled that the lower court made a mistake in ruling that the woman, Kate Cox, who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, was entitled to a medical exception.

...

Ms. Cox asked the lower court for approval after she learned that her fetus had a fatal condition, and after several trips to the emergency room.

In short, the life or health exemptions to abortion bans in Republican-controlled states are meaningless.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Veedem@lemmy.world 155 points 10 months ago

Women are screwed in states like Texas. This woman isn’t someone who was careless and doesn’t want to live with consequences. This is as clear cut and in line with the supposed exceptions as can be. She’s very fortunate that she can afford to go elsewhere. There are many woman who don’t have that same option. Absolutely horrible.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 61 points 10 months ago

Hopefully, she can afford to stay out of Texas. Her life and safety are at risk, as well as legal jeopardy from these shenanigans.

[-] Bizarroland@kbin.social 40 points 10 months ago

Yeah, if I were her I would never go back to Texas. Who knows if some jackass is going to try to make their career off of imprisoning her for getting an out of state abortion?

[-] Naja_Kaouthia@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago

She’s welcome in Colorado. The right to an abortion is a state law and we have some upcoming ballot initiatives to make abortion access a right in the state constitution.

[-] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Sadly that's still a win for texas. One less vote against them.

[-] TwoGems@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

It's not like we could get anyone to vote anyway. They had the opportunity to show up and didn't.

Just 45.7% of 17.7 million voters showed up.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 146 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I predict the same shenanigans for exceptions for rape. "You were raped? Ok let's wait for the conviction. It took too long and now you can't get an abortion? Teehee."

[-] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 41 points 10 months ago

Fuck, it can even be a struggle for a woman to even be believed that she was raped. Especially in right leaning counties/cities/states. And also fight for an exception? I do wonder have any women been given a medical exception?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

I imagine it'll be more like:
"You were raped? Do you have a photo of yourself in the outfit you were wearing when you were raped? We need see if you were asking for it or not before we make that decision"

[-] joyjoy@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago

"Did you orgasm? It's a sin if you were raped and enjoyed it." Wait, that's for church.

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

If there was a line between the church and the state we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

The idea that a woman has to prove to legal satisfaction that she was raped in order to get an abortion is so fucking sickening. There shouldn't be the same standard for a raped woman to get an abortion than there is to convict her rapist.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 76 points 10 months ago

I'm curious how the "but there's exceptions!" Crowd will try to spin this

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 50 points 10 months ago

They won’t, everything is working. Why would they spin “success?”

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Exactly. The same way they're not spinning calls for a national abortion ban after years of "leave it up to the states."

[-] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 57 points 10 months ago

For those wondering, the State’s Supreme Court is hardlining the Legislative language here.

While I don’t know medicine enough to give real percentages, the lower Judge ruled the abortion could continue because there was like a 70% or something chance of dying and the letter of the Texas law requires something along the lines of a 95% chance of death.

Again I don’t think one can attribute hard numbers, but the Supreme Court is saying that the laws indicate that only when death is pretty much assured can an abortion happen, which is a completely insane stance. And in this case death was only mostly going to happen, not absolutely going to happen.

Roughly speaking, the Texas Supreme Court basically said that the person needs to be closer to death than the defendant in this case. How much closer? The Court isn’t super clear, but clearly much more closer to death than this person was.

Because clearly taking pain and suffering into account is just beside the point at this point for Texas.

[-] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 51 points 10 months ago

Because clearly taking pain and suffering into account is just beside the point at this point for Texas.

No, the suffering is the point. The entire "pro-life" "stance" is nothing more than an excuse to indulge in oppression.

[-] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago

Precisely correct. This married woman - who wants more children and is a clear case for an exception - couldn't be allowed an exception, because the whores need to be made to suffer for their poor choices.

We can't be muddying the waters with all this "nuance." The whores are going to pay in the state of Texas, and that will be that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Thanks for the simple to understand summary.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 48 points 10 months ago

This might turn out really funny even though it's horrible right now for a lot of people in Texas. All of the women are going to leave if they can, especially ones with money and an education. Then you're left with the poor people, a bunch of incels and/or white christians fighting over the women that are left. Have fun dumb asses.

Serious note: If you have a woman or family in your life that you care about or just want to help people, get them out of Texas.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 49 points 10 months ago

This case confirms that Republicans will not allow exceptions for the mother's health. Paxton has now put into writing, as the state's legal argument, that the legal system can't go by what doctors consider reasonable. Because then someone could find a doctor who would probably grant it.

Hang this millstone around every Republican's neck. Ask every Republican if they agree with Paxton's death panels; if they agree that it's okay for the government to get involved and throw red tape when there's a >5% chance of death without a procedure. Ask them if they would like to rebuke Paxton. And ask what they'll do to make sure that can't happen in any state, including Texas -- or, if people should vote for a Democrat if they want this fixed.

Hold their feet to hot fucking coals until there's sear marks.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nah, we'll just talk about how Biden is three years older than Trump for the next 11 months.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Or his stance on Palestine, or how he isn't just allowing Russia to steal Ukraine, or Hunter's dong, or any other fucking thing the media thinks they can use to turn the election into a horse race.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 21 points 10 months ago

When this sort of thing happened in Kansas, Kansas enshrined abortion rights in their constitution.

When this sort of thing happened in Ohio, Ohio enshrined abortion rights in their constitution.

Texas politicians want to fuck around, they will find out.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 13 points 10 months ago

Only states which were controlled by progressives in the early 20th century have the ability for voters to use a ballot initiative to override the Legislature like that. Much of the country has no such safety mechanism.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

That's what they want, so they can solidify Texas as a red state for the next 20 years for voting purposes. Nothing else matters bcz this is all just a game to them.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

That's probably true, but why should anyone put their wives, their kids or themselves at risk for voting purposes? This can be la life/death situation and isn't an ephemeral issue.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Then you're left with the poor people, a bunch of incels and/or white christians fighting over the women that are left.

Did you mean to describe all of the south?

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

Any state that is doing this bs, there are some midwest states in there too.

[-] mkwt@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago

Breaking news is that she has decided to secure her own health in another state.

[-] nakal@kbin.social 16 points 10 months ago

The system is broken when you have to discuss your health with judges instead of a doctor.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 16 points 10 months ago

That happened several hours ago, prior to the ruling.

[-] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Well hadn’t they already blocked the lower courts ruling?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 8 points 10 months ago

Yes, but courts will do that kind d of thing on a temporary basis to prevent something irreversible from happening before they rule. Temporary blocks like that don't guarantee a particular final decision.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mereo@lemmy.ca 27 points 10 months ago
[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 19 points 10 months ago

The Texas Supreme Court is adding a blue tinge to Texas, whether they realize it or not.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 15 points 10 months ago

Could also go the other way, if large numbers of women leave the state seeking better odds of surviving pregnancy.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

It's worth pointing out that Texas already has really high infant and pregnancy mortality rates too.

Either Republicans get fucked in the polls, or Texas gets fucked. All the companies there will have to relocate if they want to attract and retain their professional employees. Or, they could have policies to aid people seeking an abortion, and dare the state to sue them for it.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Was that before the flight of any doctor whose practice could even touch on abortion? Because doctors are fleeing Texas and I don't blame them. If my state ruled that I could go to prison for 10 years and become a felon just for doing my job, I'd get out and go to a more welcoming state.

Sadly, this means that a lot of poorer people won't be able to get decent healthcare. Hopefully, before it gets too bad (relatively speaking) there's a political backlash that kicks the Republicans out of office.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

As an outsider, it is absolutely wild that we're seeing refugees within the same allegedly developed country. I'm more convinced everyday the United states is a just a bunch of countries in a trench coat.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 10 months ago

It's not really a new phenomenon. The book Albion's Seed goes into detail about how the country was put together by different groups of people with very different ideas about what it should be. Those fundamental disagreements define a lot of modern political conflict within the US.

[-] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago

It says it on the tin. United States. However, as with any group of entities all striving for power and being driven apart by outside forces, not so united these days.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

That image for this post sure looks like a death panel to me

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Misread it as "Toxic" instead of "Texas." Still accurate.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Seems like cons want Texas to be part of the Republic of Gilead.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


“Kate desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family,” Nancy Northup, the chief executive for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which was representing Ms. Cox in her case, said in a statement.

The case was believed to be the first to seek a court-ordered exception since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, clearing the way for Republican-controlled states like Texas to enact near-total bans on abortions.

It marked a new chapter in the legal history of abortion in the United States, with pregnant women now going to court seeking permission for their doctors to do what they determine to be medically necessary without fear of severe criminal or civil penalties.

That case, Zurawski v. Texas, involves women who said they were forced to continue pregnancies, despite dangers to their health, because the vagueness of the state’s exemptions made doctors extremely cautious about when a medical condition was serious enough to allow for an abortion.

The judge issued a temporary restraining order barring Mr. Paxton and others from enforcing the state bans against Dr. Karsan, Ms. Cox’s husband, and any medical staff members who assisted an abortion in her case.

Lawyers for Mr. Paxton’s office argued that the standard for determining what constitutes a serious threat was clear: a doctor’s “reasonable medical judgment” that a pregnancy posed such a risk; they said Ms. Cox did not meet that threshold.


The original article contains 1,070 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
420 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19082 readers
3505 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS