[RD] Abortion, once again

[Broken_Erika]

These women say the Texas abortion ban put their lives at risk. Now they're suing​

Lawsuit argues vague exemptions make doctors afraid to perform abortions, even when medically necessary​

Amanda Zurawski spent three days in intensive care on death's door, waiting for a life-saving abortion.

The Texas woman was 17 weeks into her pregnancy when she developed a condition called cervical insufficiency and dilated prematurely. Her doctors told her the loss of her fetus was "inevitable."

But they told her that under Texas law, they couldn't perform an abortion while the fetal heart was still beating. Instead, Zurawski had to wait for three days — locked in what she called a "bizarre and avoidable hell" — until she developed blood poisoning. Only then did they intervene.

"I cannot adequately put into words the trauma and despair that comes with waiting to either lose your own life, your child's life, or both," Zurawski told reporters at a news conference this week.

Zurawski is one of five Texas patients, as well as two doctors, who are suing the state over its abortion ban — one of the strictest in the country since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion last year.

Asked for comment about the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the state's top legal officer, said in an email that he's "committed to doing everything in his power to protect mothers, families, and unborn children, and he will continue to defend and enforce the laws duly enacted by the Texas Legislature."

'Physicians are scared'​

Texas, like most of the 13 states with abortion bans, allows an exception to protect the life of the mother.

But the lawsuit argues the law is vaguely worded and doctors aren't sure when it's OK to intervene. As a result, they're holding back, even if they agree abortion is the appropriate medical course of action.

"Physicians are scared," lawyer Marc Hearron told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.

"If they provided abortions in circumstances where a prosecutor, a jury, or government officials think that they should not have provided the abortion, they could face up to 99 years in prison, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and they could lose their medical licence."

Hearron is the senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is providing legal representation for plaintiffs.

"What we're asking for is the court to give physicians discretion so that they, in consultation with their patients, can have confidence that they're not going to be prosecuted for providing abortion health care," he said.

"Amanda Zurawski and the other plaintiffs who came forward bravely to file this lawsuit to hold the state of Texas accountable, they're just the tip of the iceberg.

"Someone is going to die as a result of these abortion bans."

The other four patients in the lawsuit — Ashley Brandt, Lauren Hall, Lauren Miller and Anna Zargarian — say they had to travel out of state to receive medical care for pregnancy-related complications after doctors recommended abortions.

"An already extremely difficult situation had an extra layer of trauma because of medical decisions that were made by lawmakers and politicians — and not by me or based on best medical practice," Zargarian said at a news conference.

Hearron noted that Zargarian and the other plaintiffs were fortunate enough to have the resources necessary to seek medical care in another state.

"There are patients who don't have those resources," he said.

An uncertain future​

Zurawski says she underwent 18 weeks of fertility treatment before she finally got pregnant. She had already picked out a name for her baby: Willow.

Now, because of the infections she suffered while waiting for care, it's unclear whether she'll be able to get pregnant again.

"She wants nothing more than to be able to have children. And this was her first pregnancy. And as a result of the abortion bans, she may not be able to in the future," Hearron said.

Otherwise, Hearron says all five women have recovered medically — "but it's certainly no thanks to Texas politicians that have put their lives in danger," he said.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/texas-abortion-lawsuit-1.6772579

 

[Birdjaguar]

^^^ Yes, they were treated very badly and this lawsuit is a good thing.

 

[Samson]

Three Texas women sued for wrongful death after aiding in abortion

Three women in Texas are being sued for wrongful death by a man who claims they helped his now-ex-wife obtain medication for an abortion. It’s another test of state-enforced bans since the US supreme court overturned the Roe v Wade decision.

In a lawsuit filed late Thursday in Galveston county, Marcus Silva alleges assisting in a self-administered abortion is tantamount to aiding a murder. Silva is seeking $1m in damages.

Silva is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell – a former Texas solicitor general who helped create one of the state’s abortion bans – attorneys from conservative legal group Thomas More Society and state representative Briscoe Cain, a Houston-area Republican.

“Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion,” Cain said in a statement from the attorneys.

According to the lawsuit, the manufacturer of the pills will also be named as a defendant once it is identified in the discovery process.

The lawsuit claims it has text messages from among the women discussing how to obtain medication that could induce an abortion and how to aid the woman who was pregnant in planning to take the medication.

 

[Arwon]

Such a free country it's starting to sic the surveillance state on people who obtain reproductive healthcare now

 

[AmazonQueen]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...1&cvid=62c61a71fdd34fd8a786c87a5ede3cb1&ei=14

They will protect the Right to Life and they will kill to do it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That should please a former CFCOT poster who used to proclaim on numerous occasions that all women who had abortions should be executed.

 

[Samson]

US lawsuit threatens access to abortion drug: the science behind the case

Why do we, as taxpayers, have people with no knowledge of medicine making decisions about medicine? These are well paid professionals, in a country the size of the US there must be enough demand for medically knowledgeable judicial decisions that it would be worth training a few doctors in the law it takes to rule on this sort of cases?

A lawsuit in Texas not only has the potential to further restrict abortion access in the United States — but it could also set a dangerous precedent by overturning the approval of a medication by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Following the reversal of Roe v. Wade last year, some US states have banned abortions, driving more pregnant people to seek medication abortions. The lawsuit against the FDA, brought by anti-abortion groups and physicians, seeks to overturn the agency’s 2000 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. The plaintiffs allege that mifepristone, which is used in combination with another drug, misoprostol, is not safe — a claim that is not corroborated by the scientific evidence, say researchers who spoke to Nature. Legal specialists think there is a good chance that the judge deciding the case, Matthew Kacsmaryk in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, will rule in favour of the plaintiffs. Appointed by former US president Donald Trump, who promised to help overturn Roe, Kacsmaryk “has deep ties to the religious right, and he has issued rulings that are based on very, very conservative ideologies”, says Amanda Allen, an attorney and director of The Lawyering Project, an organization based in New York City that works to improve abortion access.

The effects of this case might reverberate across the country, further affecting health care for pregnant people. “If the plaintiffs get what they’re asking for, mifepristone will be banned in all states — it doesn’t matter if the state has a law in place that protects access to abortion,” Allen says.

Is mifepristone safe?

All the evidence suggests that the answer is yes, contrary to what the plaintiffs argue. A 2013 systematic review published in the journal Contraception, for example, found that failure to terminate a pregnancy occurred in fewer than 5% of pregnant people who had taken mifepristone combined with misoprostol, and only 0.3% of people were hospitalized after the treatment. The World Health Organization (WHO) lists the regimen as safe, and so does the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The plaintiffs also allege that the FDA made a mistake when it approved the drug in 2000 and its generic version in 2019. They say that the agency approved the drug using an accelerated process that required it to consider pregnancy an ‘illness’, for which the abortion drug would provide a ‘meaningful therapeutic benefit’. “But pregnancy is not an illness,” the plaintiffs state in their complaint.

In response to the lawsuit, the FDA’s attorneys have written that mifepristone’s approval did not involve an accelerated review (the approval process took four years). They also said that the plaintiffs do not provide any concrete example of a patient who might have suffered serious adverse events associated with mifepristone. “That omission is particularly telling, given the more than two decades that mifepristone has been in use,” the court filing says.​

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

A lawsuit in Texas not only has the potential to further restrict abortion access in the United States — but it could also set a dangerous precedent by overturning the approval of a medication by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

well, according to one source quoted later in the article, and only then if the case were to reach the Supreme Court.

personally I'm not in favor of any drug which terminates a pregnancy no matter how safe it may be, in most cases, so with that said, it the drug is to be banned, I would want it to be done for the right reasons and not the wrong reasons.

 

[Arwon]

personally I'm not in favor of any drug which terminates a pregnancy no matter how safe it may be,

Then don't take it

 

[Angst]

personally I'm not in favor of any drug which terminates a pregnancy no matter how safe it may be, in most cases, so with that said, it the drug is to be banned, I would want it to be done for the right reasons and not the wrong reasons.

i'm very very confused by this sentence. do you not want pregnancies terminated?

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but generally no.
My only comment was that if a judge wants to ban a drug**, it should not be based on false pretenses. As that only encourages more bad science. If doctors say this mifepristone is safe, then I guess it is.

Still, I'm not sure what exactly the FDA can do if a state happens to have a more stringent regulation (or ban) on a certain drug. Sue them?

**not like that hasn't created a whole underground economy in the US "war on drugs"

 

[Angst]

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but generally no.
My only comment was that if a judge wants to ban a drug**, it should not be based on false pretenses. As that only encourages more bad science. If doctors say this mifepristone is safe, then I guess it is.

Still, I'm not sure what exactly the FDA can do if a state happens to have a more stringent regulation (or ban) on a certain drug. Sue them?

**not like that hasn't created a whole underground economy in the US "war on drugs"

so ok;
"personally I'm not in favor of any drug which terminates a pregnancy no matter how safe it may be"
and do you not want pregnancies terminated?

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but generally no.

so ok sure, sounds like you're anti-choice? if so, like ok. i just want to outline that
- if you want pregnancies to be able to be terminated as safely and pain-free as possible, drugs are often a good help, particularly in the earliest stages
- of course you clarified in your second post here that your stance on drugs is more nuanced than that, and not as hardline as your first post seemed to be.
- point is just; if you want treatment of something, and there's available, safe drugs (which is contrary to the "no matter how safe" stance), you should usually use the available, safe drugs.

 

[Arwon]

Mifepristone has been used for decades in dozens of countries as a reliable and safe modern method of medical termination (replacing older ones), it's pretty rich to just be like "oh no I don't support that oh me oh my" now that some US news outlets and Republican weirdos have started paying attention to it.

 

[Lexicus]

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but generally no.

And I want you to shut up and stop posting stupid **** on CFC, but that's your decision and your business. Similarly, women's pregnancies are their business, not yours.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

personally I'm not in favor of any drug which terminates a pregnancy no matter how safe it may be

And you're weighing in an opinion on things that are not your business because...?

(Abortion is between a woman, her doctor, and her conscience, and is nobody else's business.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Three Texas women sued for wrongful death after aiding in abortion

Three women in Texas are being sued for wrongful death by a man who claims they helped his now-ex-wife obtain medication for an abortion. It’s another test of state-enforced bans since the US supreme court overturned the Roe v Wade decision.

In a lawsuit filed late Thursday in Galveston county, Marcus Silva alleges assisting in a self-administered abortion is tantamount to aiding a murder. Silva is seeking $1m in damages.

Silva is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell – a former Texas solicitor general who helped create one of the state’s abortion bans – attorneys from conservative legal group Thomas More Society and state representative Briscoe Cain, a Houston-area Republican.

“Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion,” Cain said in a statement from the attorneys.

According to the lawsuit, the manufacturer of the pills will also be named as a defendant once it is identified in the discovery process.

The lawsuit claims it has text messages from among the women discussing how to obtain medication that could induce an abortion and how to aid the woman who was pregnant in planning to take the medication.

"wrongful death" lawsuit against people giving the pills isn't viable imo. texas of all states should know better. same argument could be turned on guns in a heartbeat.

Such a free country it's starting to sic the surveillance state on people who obtain reproductive healthcare now

it's only a problem when it's used against something one cares about, apparently.

(Abortion is between a woman, her doctor, and her conscience, and is nobody else's business.)

still wrong for the reason it's been wrong all thread. rejecting the concept of legal personhood at some point in the 0-9mo window isn't functional conceptually, especially in legal context. though considering early term for legal personhood also still seems insane.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

"wrongful death" lawsuit against people giving the pills isn't viable imo. texas of all states should know better. same argument could be turned on guns in a heartbeat.

it's only a problem when it's used against something one cares about, apparently.


still wrong for the reason it's been wrong all thread. rejecting the concept of legal personhood at some point in the 0-9mo window isn't functional conceptually, especially in legal context. though considering early term for legal personhood also still seems insane.

I would rather not expand this further than the article I commented on besides saying only this. That a medically safe abortion still does not validate what is going on. Something which the judge in question might not particularly care about anyway when he makes a ruling; he can throw darts at a board if he wants to, for all we know...

...Now if that, or anything else I said, doesn't "belong" here, then the posters who have claimed as such can report it and move on. Until what I say gets moderated, I'll comment on what I feel like.

 

[Farm Boy]

I would rather not expand this further than the article I commented on besides saying only this. That a medically safe abortion still does not validate what is going on. Something which the judge in question might not particularly care about anyway when he makes a ruling; he can throw darts at a board if he wants to, for all we know...

...Now if that, or anything else I said, doesn't "belong" here, then the posters who have claimed as such can report it and move on. Until what I say gets moderated, I'll comment on what I feel like.

The world is full of interesting fun.

Spoiler So much fun :

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I would rather not expand this further than the article I commented on besides saying only this. That a medically safe abortion still does not validate what is going on. Something which the judge in question might not particularly care about anyway when he makes a ruling; he can throw darts at a board if he wants to, for all we know...

...Now if that, or anything else I said, doesn't "belong" here, then the posters who have claimed as such can report it and move on. Until what I say gets moderated, I'll comment on what I feel like.

"wrongful death" has two components. one is that there is a person (by legal status) who died, which isn't actually established and has been a central point of contention since before this thread was made (decades before). the other is that the person charged has a direct causal relation to the death...which simply didn't happen wrt people charged.

• you could attempt a wrongful death claim on the mother, though it will still fail if you can't establish legal personhood.
• a wrongful death claim against the people providing medication is non-functional. it's the same logic as suing gun manufacturers for wrongful death in murder. it's stupid/unjustifiable, unless the gun manufacturer is also the murderer.

the only way wrongful death could possibly apply to pill seller/provider would be if the pill had something defective where it killed the mother. that's obviously not what happened here and is an extremely different scenario, but that's the only way the suit makes sense. or i guess if the fetus were a) legally a person and b) the people force-fed or sneak-laced the mother the pill against her wishes. that's the kind of nonsense required for a suit or charge against sellers/distributors to make sense.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@mdl5000 Moderator Action: This thread is to discuss the topic of abortion in a civil manner. All sides are welcome.