A minimum $10,000 penalty plus attorney fees for the doctor and anyone that 'aids and abets' (could include patient's family, nurses, hospital administration etc) the abortion is a pretty severe deterrent. The bill also contains one-way legal fee shifting. Even the doctor/hospital wins the civil lawsuit in defending their decision to perform the abortion because it is a medical emergency. The doctor/hospital would still be responsible for their own legal fees. However, if the doctor had lost, they would be responsible for the complainant's legal fees. There is also no requirement for the complainant to have any standing to file the lawsuit. Anyone (even non-Texans) can file the lawsuit. The doctor or hospital can get easily get swamped in frivolous legal battles. SB8 also contains a provision where if complainant prevails, an "injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant" from violating the law again. So the clinic/hospital could be shut down by the courts if they lose SB8 lawsuit even once. So the consequence of providing an abortion is severe even without it being a criminal offense.
That's so heartbreaking. Like the article says, There is a federal law to prevent emergency room doctors from withholding lifesaving care. Passed nearly four decades ago, it requires emergency rooms to stabilize patients in medical crises. The Biden administration argues this mandate applies even in cases where an abortion might be necessary. No state has done more to fight this interpretation than Texas, which has warned doctors that its abortion ban supersedes the administration’s guidance on federal law, and that they can face up to 99 years in prison for violating it. Guys like Ken Paxton, Abbott and Cruz fight harder to protect guns than the lives of women and teen girls. They really are disgusting men, with no heart or soul.
Before SB8, Texas was having 50,000 or more abortions per year Abortions in Texas by the numbers | The Texas Tribune. Post SB8, but pre-Dobbs, that was down to 34,224 per year or 2,852 per month on average State Data Refutes ProPublica's Misinformation on TX Pro-Life Laws. Almost all of those were elective abortions, roughly 99.9%. Since Dobbs, elective abortions have dropped to near zero (67 in the first month, zero thereafter), but medical necessity abortions have increased. You have been lied to. They are performing abortions to protect the life/health of the mother, they are just no longer performing elective abortions, and thousand of people's lives have been save as a result. Whatever edge cases you can find where the woman was denied an abortion and then later died are a drop in the ocean compared to the number of lives in existence because of the new laws.
The problem with the law is that it states medical emergency, but it doesn't define or guide what is deemed a medical emergency. It's vague. That's the problem with the current law and why multiple lawsuits have been brought up. Essentially a doctor is afraid that their medical judgement will be questioned and they will be criminally liable. I don't blame them at all for being extra cautious with their license which is likely why they are being overly cautious. I don't think anyone is being lied to and I do believe the law as it is written leaves it purposely vague to really really make doctors think twice about signing off on an abortion. For the very least, some guidance seems to have been issued in June 2024. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/21/texas-medical-board-abortion-guidance/ As a professional with a license myself, I definitely think long and hard about the decisions I make, I can't imagine an issue like this hanging over my head and questioning my own judgement. It's easy for people to sit from the outside that don't understand the implications of making a choice that ultimately could lead you a civil fine plus criminal charges. I'm glad at least some judgement was provided although it appears that more needs to be done to be added to the document. This is what happens when politicians get involved in **** they don't understand or simply want to play politics. I will never support Texas decision in regards to how it wants to handle abortions, however, I would respect the rulings if politicians actually made a serious effort to have an actual discussion on the repercussions of their proposal and made every attempt to fool proof something so sensitive. Instead their judgement led them to include very vague language which ultimately scared the medical professionals and thus led to isolated cases that ultimately led to a mother's death. That's ****ing tragic.
I wrestle with similar issues regarding interpreting the building code. Vague wording is definitely a problem and one reason why there are so many lawsuits in construction. I fully understand why many doctors may feel very uneasy about taking measures that they feel may run afoul of the law.
Your logic is consistent, within itself, but a few things. 1. We should compare present tense women who die b/c of a new law versus current fetuses preserved by the same law. The "lives in existence" takes an additional step in the possible future of those fetuses. That logic could also argue against, for instance, anyone having their tubes tied or ovaries removed, b/c that definitely could minimize future lives. 2. Most people prioritize current lives and the health and well-being of those alive versus number of future possible lives. Then we (hopefully) also prioritize the health and well-being of generations to come. (In that light, babies that are wanted by their parents are, statistically, the most likely the thrive.) I know that does not sway you, but I'm pointing out that mismatch. 3. Your logic appears to prioritize maximizing eventual living humans versus their health or happiness. If that's a priority, people with a similar mindset might want to outlaw contraception or even, in the slippery slope case, legalize rape. (Indeed, I believe there have been horrific state bills regarding making rape a legal impossibility within a marriage.) While aborting fetuses is barbaric to some points of view -- and I acknowledge hearing that point of view -- #3 would be barbaric to a much wider segment of our population. FWIW, I'm happy this thread has specifics instead of just quoting the latest Xeets from idiots like MTG or similar.
Women do not like being told what to do regardless what the alpha males would like you to believe. If you look to Alpha males for their opinion, then by definition you are a beta.
Moniker is using the same ill logic that had led him to make this nonsensical claim, in this thread on diversity, the City of Irvine, w a demographics of 40% White, 40%, 20% others, is not diverse
Agreed, I personally don't like abortion, but the government has ZERO right to tell a Woman what she can do with her reproductive rights. It is her body, and it is her choice and they sure as hell don't need a bunch of old white men telling them what they can and cannot do............
I will be intrigued at a POST-TRUMP Republican party It will either swing back the other way or go full indiocrazy Rocket River
I really thought they'd colapse after the last loss. I now see one or two more cycles of losses before they regroup - like Dems in the 80s trotting out Mondale and Dukakkas - it took from Regan winning in 1980 over Carter all the way until '92 before Dems took a hard look in the mirror and re-formed with a more moderate less "traditional Dem" (i.e. less an evolution of Carter's 1970s Democratic Party) candidate like Slick Willie. The way the media landscape is now, with "boutique" viewpoint specific media outlets, MAGA will if anything have more life as MAGA news will continue to feed to MAGA what they want to hear - they won't have lost because they support a marginaly radical viewpoint that lots of America rejects, but rathet because it was stolen from them.
