A Texas Woman Died After Waiting 40 Hours for Miscarriage Care

1000%. So long as right-wing equates to racist, seditious, traitorous bastards, then yeah...you're not welcome here or anywhere else in this country. Go find Jesus or something.

Most right wingers think their views are legitimate because the right wing exists as the direct opposition to the left. But i think that view is warped.

We need to start considering right wingers as extremists and not the opposition. They should be outliers on a spectrum where the left is much more central and the right is much more to the extreme right

|----------------------------------------left wing----‐-----center----------------------------------------right wing--------|

Like that

They think their views are as right as ours are left. If they were, they would likely be welcome here.

Reality has a left-wing bias

"non-fascist conservatives" have spent the last 40 years obstructing and cozying up to fascists rather than play well with others. They knew what they were doing.

This is how it works though, right? They keep ostracizing groups until they run out of out-groups to attack and the next round begins. The old inner circle is now the circle and a new inner circle is proclaimed, the new outgroup(s) are revealed, and the feeding frenzy continues.

This is what always baffles me about minorities that are staunchly Republican. They're actually voting for themselves to be put on the chopping block (just not right away)

I have been sharpening my guillotine ... It could fix some things

The fetus was nonviable, it might be tragic but it was not and could never have been a person.

Win the WH, win both houses of Congress, blow up the filibuster and enact national protections for abortion.

Will it work? Probably not. It definitely won't happen if Trump wins, though.

Plus if Trump wins, Alito and Thomas retire and get replaced by 25 year old fascists and things get even worse for decades.

I dunno if you were being sincere or intentionally obtuse, but it's kind of straightforward that we have to win.

I’m sorry but humans refusing to save the life of another human because of an obtuse law is unconscionable. They should have done what needed to be done and let the lawyers sort it out later.

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

I don't give a flying fuck why they didn't help her or what the law says.

They're monstrous torturers and murderers, regardless of their reasons or lack thereof.

You don't let someone suffer and die when you have the means to save them, regardless of the consequences, except possibly if those consequences would lead to greater suffering and death (trolley problem). Especially if you call yourself a doctor. (And no, the possibility of going to prison does not count as greater suffering and death, no matter how much of a sociopath you are).

The law is perfectly clear in allowing this. I'm not going to guess why they didn't do it, but your point is like arguing a cop watching a mass shooting happen right in front of him would be right to blame the law against excessive use of force if he chose not to kill the mass shooter even though there was an explicit clause saying it would have been permitted.

The physician believed that a medical emergency had taken place, and therefore it would have been legal. And would you rather face legal consequences, or watch someone die in front of you because you could help them but didn't?

From the article:

At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

This would mean it was legal to perform an abortion. They should have known about this risk.

The definition of emergency is absurdly specific though. The corpse inside you can't just be dead, it can't just be decomposing, the fragments of putrefying corpse matter must be coursing through your blood at a sufficient concentration before anything can legally be done.

There's already been at least one doctor in Texas who risked legal consequences for performing an abortion, and he won out. And given that twelve other physicians stated a premature delivery should have been done, it's plain that something should have been done. Now she's dead, because apparently the hospital staff misunderstood a rather clearly-written law.

She died, so that's an emergency. If someone is having a stroke and somehow doesn't die until three days later, that doesn't make it any less an emergency.

Can you please tell me how this is a legal minefield:

Sec. 171.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(3) "Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

...

Sec. 171.0124. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY. A physician may perform an abortion without obtaining informed consent under this subchapter in a medical emergency. A physician who performs an abortion in a medical emergency shall:

(1) include in the patient's medical records a statement signed by the physician certifying the nature of the medical emergency; and

(2) not later than the 30th day after the date the abortion is performed, certify to the department the specific medical condition that constituted the emergency.

You do know that medical errors happens, right? People die from them all the time. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of it.

[Can you point to which law before this happened prohibits abortions in cases of medical emergency?(https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/history-of-abortion-laws#s-lg-box-wrapper-34155545) Let's go through the list:

• The 1925 laws were found unconstitutional.
• Roe v. Wade happened in 1973.
• In 1992, the "viability" standard was introduced. This baby was clearly unviable.
• The 1999 law is specific to minors, and the victim here wasn't a minor.
• The Woman's Right to Know Act didn't prohibit abortions.
• The 2011 law stated that a sonogram must be performed. Because the baby was suffering from an irreversible medical condition, though, this wouldn't apply.
• The only part of the 2013 law that was upheld was the ban after 20 weeks "with some exceptions." The rest were overtuned in 2016, and this event occurred before the 20th week.
• The 2017 law was found unconstitutional in 2018, well before this happened.
• The 2021 law went into effect on September 1, 2021. However, in Sec. 171.205, it states that the prohibition of abortions on a fetus with a detectable heartbeat "do[es] not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter." This was a medical emergency.

"Life-threatening condition" is a fairly wide umbrella. Given the number of people who die of sepsis every year, that sounds like a life-threatening condition to me. A substantial impairment is defined under federal law. Sepsis would likely also count there, too - it messes you up real badly, after all.