Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[Stacyhs]

Another case of how the new restrictive abortion laws in mainly GOP controlled states almost killed a pregnant woman. Amanda Eid and Josh Zurawski of Austin TX:
[quote]
Texas woman almost dies because she couldn’t get an abortion

Summation: Amanda and Josh had fertility treatments for a year and a half. Amanda became pregnant but at just 18 weeks into the pregnancy, her water (amniotic fluid) broke. Once this happens, it is 100% sure that the baby will die as it cannot survive without the amniotic fluid. But at that point there was still a hearbeat and they were told an abortion could not be done under TX law.

Quote:

Texas law allows for abortion if the mother “has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

But Texas lawmakers haven’t spelled out exactly what that means, and a doctor found to be in violation of the law can face loss of their medical license and a possible life sentence in prison.

“They’re extremely vague,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and Law Initiative at Georgetown University Law Center. “They don’t spell out exactly the situations when an abortion can be provided

At high risk for infection unless the baby aborted naturally, Amanda was told to watch for signs of infection which could only take hours or up to several weeks. Since it could happen within hours, they decided not to get an abortion at the nearest possible out of state place...an 8 hour drive away. "“Developing sepsis – which can kill quickly – in a car in the middle of the West Texas desert, or 30,000 feet above the ground, is a death sentence.”

Three days later, Amanda became ill and very quickly developed a fever of 102 by the time they arrived at the ER. When her temperature reached 103, the doctors felt they could now safely perform an abortion as her life was in imminent danger.

Quote:

But Amanda was so sick that antibiotics wouldn’t stop the bacterial infection raging through her body. A blood transfusion didn’t cure her, either.

About 12 hours after her pregnancy was terminated, doctors and nurses flooded her room.
“There’s a lot of commotion, and I said, ‘what’s going on?’ and they said, ‘we’re moving you to the ICU,’ and I said, ‘why?’ and they said, ‘you’re developing symptoms of sepsis,’ ” she said.

Quote:

Doctors inserted an intravenous line near her heart to deliver antibiotics and medication to stabilize her blood pressure. Finally, Amanda turned the corner and survived.

Quote:

But her medical ordeal isn’t over.

Amanda’s uterus suffered scarring from the infection, and she may not be able to have more children. She had a surgery recently to fix the scarring, but it’s unclear whether it will be successful.

This didn't have to happen. But it did because certain states have removed the right of a woman and her doctor alone to make medical decisions when it comes to pregnancy.

[Gulliver Foyle]

[quote=Stacyhs;13948301]Another case of how the new restrictive abortion laws in mainly GOP controlled states almost killed a pregnant woman. Amanda Eid and Josh Zurawski of Austin TX:

Quote:

Texas woman almost dies because she couldn’t get an abortion

Summation: Amanda and Josh had fertility treatments for a year and a half. Amanda became pregnant but at just 18 weeks into the pregnancy, her water (amniotic fluid) broke. Once this happens, it is 100% sure that the baby will die as it cannot survive without the amniotic fluid. But at that point there was still a hearbeat and they were told an abortion could not be done under TX law.

At high risk for infection unless the baby aborted naturally, Amanda was told to watch for signs of infection which could only take hours or up to several weeks. Since it could happen within hours, they decided not to get an abortion at the nearest possible out of state place...an 8 hour drive away. "“Developing sepsis – which can kill quickly – in a car in the middle of the West Texas desert, or 30,000 feet above the ground, is a death sentence.”

Three days later, Amanda became ill and very quickly developed a fever of 102 by the time they arrived at the ER. When her temperature reached 103, the doctors felt they could now safely perform an abortion as her life was in imminent danger.






This didn't have to happen. But it did because certain states have removed the right of a woman and her doctor alone to make medical decisions when it comes to pregnancy.

Savita Halappanavar. That's where the US is heading, a country where there's thousands of such deaths a year all because a bunch of white men want to return woment to servitude

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Savita Halappanavar. That's where the US is heading, a country where there's thousands of such deaths a year all because a bunch of white men want to return woment to servitude

But it will all be worth it to pwn teh libs (some, on this very thread, would suggest).

[Aridas]

Slight aside on the digital privacy front.

Facebook and Anti-Abortion Clinics Are Collecting Highly Sensitive Info on Would-Be Patients

The social media giant gathers data from crisis pregnancy centers through a tracking tool that works whether or not a person is logged in to their Facebook account

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Slight aside on the digital privacy front.

Facebook and Anti-Abortion Clinics Are Collecting Highly Sensitive Info on Would-Be Patients

The social media giant gathers data from crisis pregnancy centers through a tracking tool that works whether or not a person is logged in to their Facebook account

Well gosh! Colour me surprised!

Of course, its perfectly safe to communicate with abortion clinics without bothering with pesky things like online anonymity and security precautions.... just ask Recovering Yuppy

[Aridas]

Looks like there's a bit of fighting back successfully going on.

Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Looks like there's a bit of fighting back successfully going on.

Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds

good

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Looks like there's a bit of fighting back successfully going on.

Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds

Quote:

(Reuters) – A second Indiana judge on Friday blocked the state from enforcing its law banning most abortions after Jewish, Muslim and other non-Christian women challenged it in a lawsuit.

What about Christian women challenging that law joining in that lawsuit?

It's not like all Christians believe the same things (not just on the grounds of there being as many Christianities as there are Christians; but also on the basis of different Christian sects having very different principles —I mean, come on, are you going to tell me that the Hillsborough Baptists are the same as the United Church of Christ?). Having the ones who believe that "human life begins at conception" be considered as representative and excluding those who do not (probably the majority) seems perverse.

What would be the reasoning to suppose that those who believe this are more representative of Christians than those Christians who do not? Are Christians so gaslit by their fundamentalist wing as to believe that it would not be proper to be heard on this or is this just a disappointing oversight by on the part of the ACLU? I imagine it is the latter. If they had sought out such plaintiffs they would have found them in droves.

Atheist here so I don't really have a dog in this race. It just seems, to me, like a wrong framing to exclude Christians who do not believe as the fundies do.

[smartcooky]

Those who want to criticize my nurse friend in Virginia for her advice to abortion seekers on protecting their online anonymity might need to rethink their positions.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/re...cies-rcna67251

Last week, ProPublica released an investigation showing several online pharmacies use tracking technology to collect data on users’ web behaviors, and then give that data to third parties like Google to be used for targeted ads … or worse.

Originally Posted by ProPublica

Those details include the web addresses the users visited, what they clicked on, the search terms they used to find a website, the previous site they visited, their general location and information about the devices they used, such as whether they were on a computer or phone. This information helps websites function and helps tech companies personalize ads.

So, theoretically, abortion-seekers in a state with oppressive anti-abortion laws could visit these sites in search of refuge, the sites could relay their information to a third party, and law enforcement officials could subpoena that third party for all sorts of data to be used in a criminal prosecution.*And let’s be clear: Several Republicans nationwide have shown an eagerness to punish people who seek abortions.

Sources

ProPublica Investigation Report: https://www.propublica.org/article/w...ta-with-google

Punishment for seeking abortion: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/20/polit...nvs/index.html