Feminism

1863 readers

1 users here now

Feminism, women's rights, bodily autonomy, and other issues of this nature. Trans and sex worker inclusive.

See also this community's sister subs LGBTQ+, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC

Also check out our sister community on lemmy:

Feminism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Woman Who Sought Court-Approved Abortion (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hours before the ruling, a group representing the woman, whose fetus received a fatal diagnosis, said she was leaving Texas for an abortion.

all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Non-paywalled article from ABC

"Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function,” the opinion read. "The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient."

What a ridiculous acknowledgement in a decision that overturned a doctor's judgment. Just appalling across the board.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's not really an acknowledgement, it's more of a threat. With how the ruling went, it's implicit understanding that says "We honestly don't care, don't try because if you do, we'll make sure you get the chair." Doctors can't do jack and I bet you that if this ruling is used as precedent, they are going to use to start justifying why people who need healthcare the most should just die....

Huh, that sounds little familiar. Kind of like a life decider.... no, that's not quite it. I'm sure it will come to me later.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

It’s a dark time when the law tells a Doctor they could perform a life saving procedure, but afterwards will need to defend their action in court.

Darn those Obamacare death panels (/s if that wasn’t clear…)

It’s a terrifying timeline to be a woman. Or anyone else who isn’t a white, straight, Christian man.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In America you don't have the freedom to ask a doctor for their opinion for you and your baby. You have to go through the government first.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summary

“Kate desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family,” Nancy Northup, the chief executive for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which was representing Ms. Cox in her case, said in a statement.

The case was believed to be the first to seek a court-ordered exception since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, clearing the way for Republican-controlled states like Texas to enact near-total bans on abortions.

It marked a new chapter in the legal history of abortion in the United States, with pregnant women now going to court seeking permission for their doctors to do what they determine to be medically necessary without fear of severe criminal or civil penalties.

That case, Zurawski v. Texas, involves women who said they were forced to continue pregnancies, despite dangers to their health, because the vagueness of the state’s exemptions made doctors extremely cautious about when a medical condition was serious enough to allow for an abortion.

The judge issued a temporary restraining order barring Mr. Paxton and others from enforcing the state bans against Dr. Karsan, Ms. Cox’s husband, and any medical staff members who assisted an abortion in her case.

Mr. Paxton objected, first sending letters to three Houston hospitals where Dr. Karsan can admit patients, saying that the judge’s order was only temporary and would not protect them from civil or criminal penalties if they allowed Ms. Cox’s procedure.

Saved 82% of original text.