• Birdie@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mean, it’s in the article. This pregnancy, which will not survive, has a significant chance of destroying any chance that she can ever carry another pregnancy if allowed to come to term.

    To preserve her ability to carry another healthy pregnancy to term, this one must be terminated.

    Doctors do things every day to prevent serious harm later and this should not be a situation that demands a woman and her doctor to freaking BEG a judge for permission to be able to follow the medical recommendation.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      It’s Texas, they literally don’t care about this poor woman and the crap situation their philosophy has put her in, in fact they don’t even really care about the baby, despite their claims to the country, they just like having power to impose their oppressive worldview on everyone else. They couldn’t give a flying rat about the consequences.

  • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    “The idea that Ms. Cox wants so desperately to be a parent and this law may have her lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” Gamble said.

    I can’t decide if that’s a clever choice of words, or a really poor choice of words.

  • Birdie@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Texas judge grants permission for woman to access healthcare.

    That’s what really happened.

      • IanSomnia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, being specific is more specific. I assume you’re implying that more specific = better. The point of the comenter you replied to is that the specifics of the type of healthcare they are receiving is unnecessary. You shouldn’t need a judge to give your doctor permission to provide you with healthcare. It doesn’t matter what kind it is.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          the specifics of the type of healthcare they are receiving is unnecessary.

          To you, maybe. But you don’t get to deem what’s necessary for everyone else.

          You’re arguing in bad faith when you try to hide your stance behind vagueness. Both sides do it, and I never take either of you seriously when you do.

          • IanSomnia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Hide our stance? The original commenter summarized the article in a way that made their stance clear. They believe the procedure in the article is medical care. They don’t have to state what procedure they’re talking about because it’s in the article.

            Your accusation that they’re trying to hide what the procedure is leads me to believe you don’t agree that it is healthcare. So in the interest of having a productive discussion about the topic of this article I will make an argument and ask you what you think.

            1. What is considered healthcare should be decided by medical professional consensus.

            2. Your access to healthcare should not be dependent on a judges approval.

            3. The procedure we are discussing detailed in the article is considered healthcare by medical professional consensus.

            Conclusion. Access to the procedure we are discussing detailed in the article should not be dependent on a judges approval.

            What do you think?

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              I think you assumed an argument that is not mine and then proceeded to argue against it as though you were arguing against me.

              I was very clear from the beginning, and my position has not changed nor have you invalidated it.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    “There are no facts pled which demonstrate that Ms. Cox is at any more of a risk, let alone life-threatening, than the countless women who give birth every day with similar medical histories,” the state wrote

    Wow. They really don’t get it, do they?

    • tygerprints@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Of course they don’t. They’re men. If THEY were the ones who could get pregnant, you bet your damn life that there’d be “Get Your Free Abortion Here” clinics on every corner of every street in every city around the globe.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    So, tomorrow we should be seeing tons of articles about all the death threats he’s receiving from the cowardly conservatives then?

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      No need, the TX supreme Court just issued a temporary injunction blocking this decision pending scrutiny. Subjecting medical decisions to the court system is what Texas does because they love freedom and small government.

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Can I go to court and get their permission to jerk off since it’s killing a couple trillion babies?

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    That decision is likely to be appealed by the state, which argued that Cox does not meet the criteria for a medical exception.

    Great, hold it up in the appeals courts to get the stupid outcome you want regardless of whether you win the appeal, the State. This is the definition of abusing the judicial system.

    • someguy3@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Oh everything took too long and now you can’t get an abortion? Tee hee.

  • tygerprints@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Oh isn’t that the pinnacle of christian goodness for his highness the judge to dismount from his high manly horse long enough to grant a lowly peasant commoner, and a WOMAN no less, the right to get the healthcare she requires. Let’s all bow down and kiss his royal purple ass in thanks. Thank you, conservative men, for ensuring that all women and girls no longer have to be burdened by independence and self care. What a noble gesture.

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s very different. (looks into the camera). Never mind! I now know that to be the case, it was reported on the news last night. Sorry for my flying off the handle. I just assumed the judge was male - is that some kind of reverse chauvinism?