Pregnant Pro-life Texas teen suffers "fetal demise", dies from sepsis due to Texas abortion law

[TastySuckToy]

you're the one insisting the incident had nothing to do with a law

I have made no such claim, nice try.

I've simply rejected yours as being proven or have real evidence for it. That's why you appealed to 'common sense' and 'obvious' rather than hard facts.

 

[YDB95]

I've simply rejected yours as being proven or have real evidence for it. That's why you appealed to 'common sense' and 'obvious' rather than hard facts.

You want hard facts? I've got them:
1. In Texas, a doctor who performs an abortion could potentially end up serving life in prison. This was not the case before Dobbs; now it is. That makes a difference in how doctors are going to approach a case with a pregnant patient, no matter how fast you dance around it.
2. The patient presented with sepsis, and they did two ultrasounds on her, for the sole purpose of confirming her fetus was dead (the nurse's notes prove this). They did nothing to treat the sepsis before that, even though they knew she had it.
3. She died of a condition that could have been successfully treated, had they not been afraid to run afoul of the abortion law.
4. The experts quoted in the article know a hell of a lot more about this topic than you do.

And I'll grant you one hard fact that I concede is not directly related to the abortion law: women's health care concerns are often not taken seriously, even by professionals who should know better. But I've never seen any indication whatsoever that you care about that, or even that you accept it as truth.

 

[TastySuckToy]

3. She died of a condition that could have been successfully treated, had they not been afraid to run afoul of the abortion law.

More of you just asserting they were 'afraid' of abortion laws. Your arbitrary assertion means and proves nothing.

 

[YDB95]

More of you just asserting they were 'afraid' of abortion laws. Your arbitrary assertion means and proves nothing.

Do not expect me to believe a law that stipulated you could spend the rest of your life in prison for doing your job in a particular way would not affect the way you do your job. There is nothing arbitrary about that.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Do not expect me to believe a law that stipulated you could spend the rest of your life in prison for doing your job in a particular way would not affect the way you do your job. There is nothing arbitrary about that.

What you believe doesn't concern me.

 

[Lance_Castro]

Doctors can’t make any comments about treatments

So then we're in agreement you don't get to speak for the doctors, their assessments, opinions and conclusions on the issue. Glad you finally came around.

Game, set, match.

Noshirt’s record remains intact; 21 years of losing.

Lol

 

[Rightguide]

She DID see a doctor in a timely manner. Stop trying to blame the victim. She was attending her own baby shower when she fell ill and immediately went to see a doctor after the shower.

I did not misquote you, I summarized your positions. You have stated there is no "enumerated right" to an abortion so abortion cannot be regulated federally. Funny how we all drive on the right hand side of the road here without state interference.

I didn't say anything about regulating abortion. I said the right isn't in the Constitution and that abortion is a "state issue." It can either be rejected, permitted, or regulated by the states, and SCOTUS agrees. What Congress can or can't do has yet to be determined. The Constitution can be amended, which is a state issue as well, isn't it?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I didn't say anything about regulating abortion. I said the right isn't in the Constitution and that abortion is a "state issue." It can either be rejected, permitted, or regulated by the states, and SCOTUS agrees. What Congress can or can't do has yet to be determined. The Constitution can be amended, which is a state issue as well, isn't it?

My point, which you obviously missed, was that basic health care should not be subject to the various whims of state government.

 

[Lance_Castro]

My point, which you obviously missed, was that basic health care should not be subject to the various whims of state government.

Your right to a gun is protected, what more could you want?

Lol

 

[Deleted member 6873114]

A pregnant "pro-life" Texas 19 year old teen died from sepsis after her 6 month fetus died inside of her and the rotting flesh and bacteria from the fetus entered the mother's bloodstream caused massive organ shutdown in her body.

But because she was 6 months along in her pregnancy, past the point of fetal viability, this would have qualified under Texas law as a "Late term abortion" had an obstetrician done a routine D&C to flush out the rotting remains of her pregnancy to save her life, and might have caused a doctor to lose his/her license to practice medicine.

Women who have late term pregnancies and suffer the onset of catastrophic health issues are legally pariahs ("Untouchables") in Texas.

It's a gruesome way to die, and was easily treatable in a simpler pre-Dobbs era.

But hey, here on the political board @HisArpy glibly says "she should have simply gone to another state" and @Rightguide opines "geographic restrictions on health care are legal as there is no enumerated Constitutional right to health care".

This is what voters are up against this year...the callous disregard for women's health in the name of ideological purity.

A vote for Trump is a tacit approval for death by septic shock.

What was her husbands position in all of this?

 

[ll74]

What was her husbands position in all of this?

From the article, it doesn't appear as though she was married.

 

[Deleted member 6873114]

And the doctors stated they were afraid of running afoul of the Texas' anti-abortion law...where?

Under Texas law she could have had a C-section to try and save the baby. Also, if the baby has been determined to be dead in the womb then she could also have the baby removed with no criminal issue. Remember, the abortion laws are intended to protect the life of the baby. So if the baby is no longer alive there can be no protection. Living people have legal rights. Dead people have none.

 

[Deleted member 6873114]

From the article, it doesn't appear as though she was married.

How old was she? "Teen" could be minor or adult. If she was a minor then what about her parents stand on the issue?

 

[ll74]

How old was she? "Teen" could be minor or adult. If she was a minor then what about her parents stand on the issue?

There's an article posted.

Maybe read it. ?

Or hell, just read the fucking headline

 

[Deleted member 6873114]

There's an article posted.

Maybe read it. ?

Or hell, just read the fucking headline

I think it is a click bate story so I don't have time to read it unless someone comes up with something of special interest in this. I think the story is an effort to find a problem where there is no problem. But it is a worthy question in principle.

 

[ll74]

I think it is a click bate story so I don't have time to read it unless someone comes up with something of special interest in this. I think the story is an effort to find a problem where there is no problem. But it is a worthy question in principle.

It literally says how old she is in the text that is posted. No clicking necessary.

 

[Deleted member 6873114]

I think it is a click bate story so I don't have time to read it unless someone comes up with something of special interest in this. I think the story is an effort to find a problem where there is no problem. But it is a worthy question in principle.

I see the original post says she was 19. Not sure if that is accurate or not but if so then at least she was not a child.

 

[RoryN]

I think it is a click bate story so I don't have time to read it

You don't even know what a clickbait story is. (You can't even spell it.)

You won't read it because you don't want to properly address its contents. Which means the OP wins.

 

[YDB95]

Under Texas law she could have had a C-section to try and save the baby.

I think her doctors knew better than you do as to whether or not that was a viable option.

Also, if the baby has been determined to be dead in the womb then she could also have the baby removed with no criminal issue.

Since we've already established that you didn't read the article, I might as well tell you, this is exactly why they waited as long as they did to give her the treatment they knew she needed. They gave her two ultrasounds, which had no medical necessity in this case beyond confirming that the fetus was dead. This was after they were aware she had sepsis, which can easily be fatal. There simply isn't any reason why they should have waited as long as they did, other than fear of running afoul of the abortion law.

 

[Politruk]

I think it is a click bate story so I don't have time to read it unless someone comes up with something of special interest in this. I think the story is an effort to find a problem where there is no problem. But it is a worthy question in principle.

No, the woman's parents' stand on the issue, if she were a minor, is not a worthy question in principle.

 

[YDB95]

No, the woman's parents' stand on the issue, if she were a minor, is not a worthy question in principle.

Exactly. They weren't the ones who were pregnant in this case, after all.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think it is a click bate story so I don't have time to read it unless someone comes up with something of special interest in this. I think the story is an effort to find a problem where there is no problem. But it is a worthy question in principle.

You're too busy to click a link but not too busy to shitpost your "this I believe!" soapbox drive.

If I hadn't posted a link, you and your "elk" would be yammering "cite? CITE?".

Bloviation at its finest.

You. and people such as yourself, are exactly what is wrong with America today.

 

[Deleted member 6873114]

We have one thing in common. I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Rightguide]

My point, which you obviously missed, was that basic health care should not be subject to the various whims of state government.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "basic health care " either.

 

[Deleted member 6873114]

There's nothing in the Constitution about "basic health care " either.

Excellent point. The constitution was DESIGNED to keep government small and avoid the government from creeping into peoples lives. But the sick human desire to control other people has done what it always does. The ruling class have an endless thirst for more and more control over others. No matter how much they gain they will always want more. To get more they always package the new controls in something that is frosted with sweet treats. "Free health care." "Free housing." "Free food!." "Gun control to make us SAFE!" It is all frosting on a turd. Under the frosting and along with the sweet goodness is the additional control of everyone's life that they so crave. They even want to control what other people's children are taught. It is a disgusting sickness but it thrives by playing upon human weakness and selfishness.