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

[UltraChad]

You didn’t. I guess I’ll keep waiting.

Just because you can't read, doesn't mean I didn't.

Waiting won't teach you how to read.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Just because you can't read, doesn't mean I didn't.

Waiting won't teach you how to read.

Just tell me which post number you told who decides.
Looks like I’ll keep waiting.

 

[UltraChad]

Just tell me which post number you told who decides.
Looks like I’ll keep waiting.

Looks like you're too fucking stupid to figure it out.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Looks like you're too fucking stupid to figure it out.

Then it should be easy for you to explain; yet you haven’t been able to.

 

[Lance_Castro]

Here’s the most important line in the report linked in the OP:

“they were not certain from looking at the records provided that Crain’s death could have been prevented”

sgt shirtless can shake his micropenis all he likes, nobody can say texas law killed her.

Lol

 

[Rightguide]

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.

So why didn't she see a doctor in a timely manner?

And why did you misquote me in your opening post?

 

[Politruk]

So why didn't she see a doctor in a timely manner?

Because pro-lifers ain't that smart.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Here’s the most important line in the report linked in the OP:

“they were not certain from looking at the records provided that Crain’s death could have been prevented”

sgt shirtless can shake his micropenis all he likes, nobody can say texas law killed her.

Lol

Were they there?

 

[Rightguide]

Because pro-lifers ain't that smart.

So them whey would you care?

 

[John_von_Neumann]

So them whey would you care?

Could you rephrase that in the form of a language?

 

[RobDownSouth]

So why didn't she see a doctor in a timely manner?

And why did you misquote me in your opening post?

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.

 

[YDB95]

Anyone who argues that a law is written in simple, easy-to-digest language obviously knows nothing whatsoever about the law.
Also, doctors tend to skew conservative (although that may change as the radical right gets more and more into their business).

 

[YDB95]

Agreed.

Rib n Sgt Shirtless are ignorami.

Nice try, but it's UltraChad who's arguing that the law is simple and clear. It quite deliberately is not.

 

[Lance_Castro]

Nice try, but it's UltraChad who's arguing that the law is simple and clear. It quite deliberately is not.

Okay, they’re all retards, except me.

 

[Politruk]

In a mature rational society, the anti-abortion movement would have faded away in the 1970s, and we would now only ever hear about it from a few crankish Catholic priests who are laughed at by their own congregations.

 

[YDB95]

In a mature rational society, the anti-abortion movement would have faded away in the 1970s, and we would now only ever hear about it from a few crankish Catholic priests who are laughed at by their own congregations.

I wouldn't be so sure. While other countries don't have an all out war over the issue like we do, it has been controversial elsewhere too. In Australia, abortion has only been legal for the past few years in some places.

 

[YDB95]

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

The doctors involved in this particular case are probably under a lawyer's orders to say nothing publicly. But the nurse's notes about the two medically unnecessary ultrasounds to 'confirm fetal demise' are about as damning as you can get.

 

[TastySuckToy]

The doctors involved in this particular case are probably under a lawyer's orders to say nothing publicly.

In other words, the doctors have said no such thing, which I pointed out in my very first post, and you're now appealing to completely unsubstantiated claims of "lawyer's orders".

But the nurse's notes about the two medically unnecessary ultrasounds to 'confirm fetal demise' are about as damning as you can get.

Medical confirmation of a issue is damning in what way?

 

[Lance_Castro]

See? Retards.

 

[YDB95]

In other words, the doctors have said no such thing, which I pointed out in my very first post, and you're now appealing to completely unsubstantiated claims of "lawyer's orders".

It's not unsubstantiated. It's common sense. Think about it, everyone involved in her hospital visits is potentially on the hook for a massive lawsuit. Doctors aren't stupid, they know in a situation like this they will need to talk to a lawyer at the very least, and the first thing the lawyer is going to tell them is not to talk to the press about the matter. In no way does their complying with that directive prove the abortion ban was not to blame.

Medical confirmation of a issue is damning in what way?

The answer is in the part of my post that you ignored: the two ultrasounds. By that time, they already knew she had sepsis; but thanks to the abortion law, they couldn't do anything about it until they were sure the fetus was dead. There was no other reason to give her even one ultrasound, never mind two, since they already knew she had sepsis.

 

[TastySuckToy]

It's not unsubstantiated. It's common sense.

Appealing to 'common sense' is not a valid argument or evidence. Flats earthers will appeal to 'common sense'.

The answer is in the part of my post that you ignored: the two ultrasounds. By that time, they already knew she had sepsis; but thanks to the abortion law, they couldn't do anything about it until they were sure the fetus was dead. There was no other reason to give her even one ultrasound, never mind two, since they already knew she had sepsis.

Sepsis is an issue of infection that can have any number of causes, and doesn't by any means automatically mean a problem with pregnancy.

Sounds like the doctors did their actual job by confirming one possible cause, by doing ultrasounds. Explain why I should trust your judgement on whether ultrasounds were really needed rather than the judgement of the actual doctors who ordered them.

 

[YDB95]

Appealing to 'common sense' is not a valid argument or evidence. Flats earthers will appeal to 'common sense'.

Flat earthers would do that, but they'd be wrong. If you know anything whatsoever about practicing medicine, you know malpractice lawsuits are a thing.

Sepsis is an issue of infection that can have any number of causes, and doesn't by any means automatically mean a problem with pregnancy.

Not the point. In this case they knew she was pregnant.

Sounds like the doctors did their actual job by confirming one possible cause, by doing ultrasounds.

But that's not what they were doing with those ultrasounds. They were ensuring the fetus was dead, thus they wouldn't be in danger of going to jail for giving her the care they knew she needed.

Explain why I should trust your judgement on whether ultrasounds were really needed rather than the judgement of the actual doctors who ordered them.

You are not trusting the judgment of the doctors, you're pretending there's a more plausible explanation for what they did than the obvious one. And I repeat, that's what you always do.

 

[TastySuckToy]

You are not trusting the judgment of the doctors, you're pretending there's a more plausible explanation for what they did than the obvious one.

You asserting your opinion on what the 'obvious' explanation was is not a valid argument.

No where in the OP story did the doctors say their actions in this case were motivated out of fear of any anti-abortion laws.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You asserting your opinion on what the 'obvious' explanation was is not a valid argument.

No where in the OP story did the doctors say their actions in this case were motivated out of fear of any anti-abortion laws.

Doctors can’t make any comments about treatments they have a patient without that patient’s permission. There are laws against that.

 

[YDB95]

Doctors can’t make any comments about treatments they have a patient without that patient’s permission. There are laws against that.

Exactly. That is not the tell he thinks it is, not even close.