295
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

On Tuesday, the Texas Supreme Court will consider this question: Are the state's abortion laws harming women when they face pregnancy complications?

The case, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, has grown to include 22 plaintiffs, including 20 patients and two physicians. They are suing Texas, arguing that the medical exceptions in the state's abortion bans are too narrow to protect patients with complicated pregnancies. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is fiercely defending the state's current abortion laws and arguing that the case should be dismissed.

At a hearing in Austin on Tuesday, the nine Texas Supreme Court justices will consider whether to apply a temporary injunction that a lower court judge ruled should be in place. That injunction would give doctors greater discretion to perform abortions when a doctor determines that a woman's health is threatened or that a fetus has a condition that could be fatal. It would make more people eligible for exceptions to Texas's abortion bans, but it would not overturn those laws.

Dr. Dani Mathisen, 28, is one of seven new plaintiffs who joined the case earlier this month. She is in her medical residency as an OB-GYN and comes from a family of physicians, so when she was pregnant in 2021 and getting a detailed ultrasound test at 18 weeks gestation, she knew something was very wrong.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 65 points 11 months ago

Fucking government shouldn't even be in this position. Abortions should be between the doctor and the patient and definitely doctor's should preform the Abortion when it is necessary to save the woman's life. Fuck the government when going overthrow these fucking facsiest?

[-] CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi 22 points 11 months ago

I want to point out that it's specifically Christian fascists that are the major driver of this. There is a powerful organization called Project Blitz that operates in the USA with the stated goals of removing separation of church and state, including the result of restricting abortion severely.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

We need an explicit right to privacy. Basically not just codifying roe in the “legalize abortion” way (though abortion needs to be legalized), but also solidify the foundation of everything built upon roe. And it needs to be a federal constitutional amendment.

We took a lot of rights for granted that were built on the implied right to privacy. The government shouldn’t get to decide what medicines you’re allowed to take so long as they are prescribed by a physician in good standing following a reasonable interpretation of sufficiently up to date research. The government shouldn’t get to decide what you do in your sex life so long as everyone involved is a consenting person who has reached the age of majority. Certain things shouldn’t get to be politics and personal medical decisions are on that list.

[-] spyd3r@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

All medical decisions should be between a patient and their doctor, and governments and corporations should have no say in it nor have the ability to use force or coercion to effect any medical decisions.

[-] reversebananimals@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I'm pro-choice, but I don't agree it's that black and white.

I don't support, for example, the right for a MAGA doctor to feed a patient bleach or ivermectin as a COVID cure. I also think the FDA should exist.

definitely doctor's should preform the Abortion when it is necessary to save the woman's life

But this is absolutely true. Its wrong for the goverment to restrict or dissuade scientifically proven effective medical care.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I mean, I'd argue feeding ivermectin or bleach for covid isn't "medically founded" so I'd say the post above kind of covers that lol. I understand what you mean of course, and I agree with what you're saying.

[-] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 11 months ago

Internal medical ethics controls do a pretty good job of dealing with this kind of nonsense though. You're never going to get rates of that kind of insanity to zero, and legal regulations don't make it any better.

[-] Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 11 months ago

Performed when requested, no questioned asked.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

when it is necessary to save the woman’s life

This is where you stole autonomy. You were doing so well until you dictated terms over someone else.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

No I believe woman should get abortion anytime and for any reason or no reason. But the argument the Supreme Court is going decide if one can be preform to save a woman's life and it shouldn't even be up to the Court to decide this.

this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
295 points (98.7% liked)

News

23311 readers
4042 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS