Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Court rules Texas doctors not obligated to perform abortions
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 янв 2024
- A federal appeals court ruled that Texas hospitals and doctors are not obligated to perform abortions under a long-standing national emergency-care law.
Cops don’t need to know the law and doctors don’t have to treat emergencies. We really are in the worst timeline.
Stop voting democrat
Um yes doctors do have to treat actual emergencies lmfao are you really this dense
@@Will-yi5jxSay that a person is pregnant, and this person has a very high chance of death if they allow the baby to grow and birth it and wants to prevent it. Is that an emergency? yes, yes it is. Is the hospital required to comply with the person’s request? No, no they are not.
And if you’re going to say “They shouldn’t have gotten pregnant to start with”, Oh no I tripped and scraped my knee, if only I had been more careful and worn knee pads the entire time.
@@supercrafter0154 the part you leave out is that there's time to correct those risks. The number 1 risk to pregnant women is blood pressure. You eliminate all options and want to chose to kill a baby because it's more convenient instead of I don't know, diet, meds, early induction, exercise.
@@user-xl9dc1kx3zbro a “number 1 risk” doesn’t mean that it’s the only risk. There are complications that have no solution, just less harm via an abortion
Patient comes in with a gun shot wound to the chest.
Hospital: "sorry, gunshot wounds weren't specifically stated in the emergency care act"
@@driftingwolf0like a rotting baby causing sepsis isn’t.
@@Blanch590 okay thats part of one percent of all abortions done in the U.S.A., and I am pretty sure any sane doctor would abort at that point. What about the rest of the 99%, which is totally elective?
@@driftingwolf0 you don't know what an emergency termination is, do you?
@@Blanch590 okay, that counts for 1% of abortions. What about the other 99%
@@Irishrebel092 I do, but we already care for emergency cases.
This is basically what I've heard from a friend
In medical school a classmate of theirs basically said "what if they're gay, my religion doesn't agree with that can I refuse to treat them?" When discussing moral care for doctors. The professor basically said "then walk out that door and never come back"
Ooh, snap.
there is a difference between needing an abortion and wanting one if the pregnancy poses a threat to the patients physical health then the doctors have to abort the child because at that point there is no guarantee that they can save both the mother or child.
@@lorddeathofmurdermountain76
Well, here's a question:
Say that a would-be mother, one who wants a child, finds out her child will be born terminally ill, will live a short and painful life, at best.
...And at worst could die inside of her and cause sepsis.
Let's say, further, that carrying the doomed fetus to term could result in total loss of the mother's ability to have a child. Uterine scarring.
What would you think is best?
... It's not a hypothetical case.
@@grmpEqweer perhaps I should've been a little more clear on needing an abortion. But yes your comment has valid concerns and yes if the child is terminally ill it should be aborted to prevent suffering or death of a otherwise healthy person(the mother) however I do think aborting a child because someone doesn't want to take responsibility is wrong (I do consider r*pe as a valid reason to abort) however abortion should not be taken lightly.
@@lorddeathofmurdermountain76You should be able to get them even if you're not at the risk of dying. Pregnancies, especially unwanted ones, are traumatic and have severe effects on the body and mental health. Avoiding that is a medical necessity if the person asks for it.
A woman in texas had to wait till she was fatally ill before she could abort a child who would never be born. She didn't get care until MUCH AFTER.
That is literally what this law was suppose to prevent yet politics made the whole law pointless
The law technically still prevents it. Biden's bid was to essentially count an "emergency" as any situation where a woman might be negatively affected (Like say, financially or lose reputation). Which is why it was ruled as an overreach.
.
It STILL requires Texas to perform abortions in the case of an life threatening situation. Which is why I am curious if that woman your referring to got compensation (or if the situation was COMPLETELY misrepresented).
@@Nionivek No, the situation wasn't misrepresented. The fetus was viable, and forcing the woman to carry it endangered her life when it died, and my memory is the damage caused to her uterus will prevent her from becoming pregnant or carrying a baby to term. I think a DA became involved and filed a lawsuit to prevent the abortion. Makes me ashamed of the Texas conservatives that voted for this shit.
This doesn't make any sense. I would get it if the 86 law was invoked in the general case but this is specifically for life threatening pregnancies. Like an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is growing in the tubes instead of the womb and causing internal bleeding the whole way. The only treatment is the abortion. Without this exception we're repeating those horrible events where doctors couldn't operate even on dying patients.
They don't care they just want some kind of victory over Biden's administration and if it causes the death of some people they view that as acceptable
If this was for only legitimate cases where the life of the mother was at stake then Biden would care as much as he does about the thousands of black babies killed every year by abortion. . . Which is not at all.
2 replies, both taken down. I now sit here, alone, and on top
@@I_want_White_Cheddar_Popcorn I was wondering why it said two replies but showed nothing
We're going to see sepsis wards popping up where materinity wards use to be pretty soon. Most sepsis ward patients were pregnant or post-partum and only existed precisely because abortions were forbidden in all cases.
“The law doesn’t specifically mention abortions” what a joke. They know by that logic, doctors could argue they aren’t compelled to provide ANY emergency treatment they don’t want to.
More then likely a doctor will do that and argue this in court
I mean realistically... it is their job and they don't HAVE to do anything. They can just quit and accept their own consequences, but they are certainly not legally bound to continue their job
The way I'm understanding this: the ruling is that EMTALA requires emergency medical treatment, it just doesn't stipulate what that treatment must be. So an emergency pregnancy must be treated, but the doctor doesn't have to use an abortion procedure to do it.
An emergency is classified as a high risk of LOSS of life or bodily function.
If you don't perform surgery on a serious gunshot someone may die.
If you don't perform an an abortion on a pregnant woman than two people are likely to both live.
An abortion is not an emergency and in a healthy pregnancy increases risk of danger. (in 99%of cases)
@@kaiden0925then they aren't that kind of doctor anymore.
There are laws legally requiring medical personal to treat people certain ways. Some of those even persist after quitting firing and retiring
"The law doesn't govern the practice of medicine."
Then what does it actually do?
Your heart explodes and you need an emergency transplant.
.
It actually guarantees a lot of things... it just doesn't include abortion because it NEVER included abortion.
only what Republicans want it to do. Anything else is heresy and indoctrination.
Govern medical practices. Wapo is being disingenuous.
As it is already, women are dying because they are being turned away from hospitals for emergency medical care related to unviable pregnancies because the hospitals are afraid of governmental legal consequences.
So confused. No matter your moral stance on normal abortions, sometimes they are a medical necessity. For example, if the zygote plants in a fallopian tube (ectopic pregnancy), the mother and offspring will die without medical intervention.
Aka: tubular or ectopic pregnancy 🤔
Always classified as emergencies..
And according to the cdc it's at .17%
or 3.4 deaths per 10k of ectopic pregnancy that is fatal "IF" allowed to develop in the fallopian tube or otherwise outside of the womb.
It’s forcing doctors who are morally opposed to perform surgical abortions. It also ignores the the vast majority of emergency abortions is either after fetal death, which means it is not legally or colloquially understood as abortion, or have alternatives that do not require abortion
@@kingwilliamtheconqueror. HEY NOW.... THEM BE FACTS YOU SPEAKIN THERE BUDDY... WE DON'T TAKE KINDLY TO THEM KIND HERE!!
@@kingwilliamtheconqueror.Actually, the medical term for fetal death is a "natural abortion", as is also the case with a miscarriage. It just happens that the surgical procedure to remove those dead cells is also called an abortion.
What gets creepy is how even though it's dead, because it shares a circulatory system with the woman, its heart is still beating sometimes.
@kingwilliamtheconqueror. Someone already pointed out how the second half of your comment is incorrect but I'd like to focus on the first half. Would you be fine if a family member died because the doctor treating them was JW and opposed to Blood Transfusions? Ultimately if a person is morally opposed to providing life saving care they should chose a different field.
Wait. So aside from abortions, didnt this just open the door to allow hospitals to only treat patients who can pay/fot their patient type?
No what this is doing is stopping somebody coming in saying I demand a abortion you must give it to me here
If you look at the source it's pretty much saying non-emergency as well as it doesn't take away the doctor's ability to do it. Just gives the doctor the choice if you wants to kill that baby in that situation
No Washington Post is being stupid about this. It's specifies emergency procedure. It's very hard to argue that an abortion is a emergency procedure (until it actually becomes one but, for whatever reason it no longer is labeled as an abortion but a early induced birth, or removal of the fetus). That's the point that Washington Post really "forgot" to make clear in the ruling.
@Iceh4wkvideos oh that's really odd
Removal of the fetus sounds way worse than abortion
@@Iceh4wkvideos it essentially bans emergency abortions if the doctor opposes the practice
@ScarletTiger109 not exactly.
An abortion, the majority of the time, is NOT a life saving procedure. In fact, only about 1.5% of abortions are rape, incest, or medical necessity. (The stats shift from year to year, but 1.3-1.8% is the norm).
So, a law that's designed, specifically, for emergency life saving procedures, does not apply in the overwhelming majority of abortions.
And the federal government tried to say it did, because they don't like the State's law.
My nephews wife had a baby who died before birth. They still had to take a plane to another state to "abort" necrotic tissues
They also couldn't let anyone in their town and church know.
Insane!!!! I am so angry.
Yes! People forget when they argue against abortion that it doesn't JUST mean healthy fetuses. It includes ANY termination or removal of a fetus for ANY reason other then the woman literally dying on the spot and even then half the time theres a debate between the doctors arguing whether or not the woman is far enough gone tha it constitutes "life threatening emergency" at that point because they're worried about their license over these dumb archaic laws.
I had a friend who got pregnant (they were in fact trying for it) but the baby tested in the womb for one of those diseases where they die within hours of being born. Yet they still made her carry to term just so she could watch her child die. She unfortunately wasn't able to go somewhere that would do an abortion with the funds they had at the time. The law forced not only them to watch their infant suffocate to death. But it also forced an infant to go through that instead of an abortion when it wasn't capable of registering what was happening.
She could but chose not to. A miscarriage is not considered an abortion and the whole planet understands this. Something is wrong with this story
The whole planet does NOT understand this. And this goes for doctors too.
The problem with this "story" is that it's true.
@user-xl9dc1kx3z
@@user-xl9dc1kx3zNatural miscarriages are still dangerous, in this case it’s not unlikely they might’ve gone septic if they didn’t get the tissue removed
@@finch22 miscarriage isn't considered an abortion and neither is removing dead tissue
How exactly does a law requiring hospitals to provide medical care not govern the practice of medicine? That’s the exact thing it governs.
no it's not. Saying you have to treat someone isn't the same as saying exactly what they have to do to save them.
The worst part is that it will take actual people dying for it to get fixed, while they argue about possibilities and exaggeration.
Bold of you to assume they'll care. It's not about saving any lives, it's about control.
not even just that. countless women will die and they still will not care. they will not care until the public cares enough to threaten their power, such as voting in different elected officials
This is what happened in Ireland where a woman was going through a miscarriage, the fetus was still alive and the hospital did not detect sepsis, so although the abortion was necessary they legally couldn't as there was not a detected imminent cause of death, it was a failure of clinicians but also the law being a bit too strict. Medical Abortions are a completely different ethical dilemma than abortion by choice, it's a shame Americans have somehow mixed them together for politicking.
@@jamesparke6252 as a republican with a pretty hard stance on abortion but never in my life, met someone against medically necessary abortions. If it is a danger to the woman or the baby's health or life threatening then abort the baby. We have methods of proving when a pregnancy is far too dangerous. Also what happened to the woman in Ireland.
The law is literally for EMERGENCIES. Just wanting to get rid of a thing that could be a human for convenience isn't an emergency. If it is life-threatening, then yes, they will still give you your abortion. Terminating the pregnancy is something that has to happen regardless of a choice. And in those cases, Texas will still do it... they are talking about people just wanting to do it for funsies
Lmao, I absolutely cannot wait to watch as this bleeds into other types of care for people. Oh man and insurance? Oh bud they're gonna be stoked.
Becoming a hospital or a medical practisioner that doesnt do certain unprofitable interventions. The law doesnt mandate any specific medical practice. @@Bibbo8844hdbks
@@Bibbo8844hdbks doctors can now pick and choose which procedures they perform even in emergency.
@@Bibbo8844hdbks it basically gives insurers carte blanche to deny anything
@@Bibbo8844hdbks they’re saying that this ruling can lead to a gateway of certain conditions and treatments not getting g treated because they aren’t explicitly listed in laws and insurance is happy because that means less stuff they have to pay for
So you're telling me we might end abortion and have insurance reforms? That's great!
As a woman living in America this is terrifying
As a tax payer I HATE living in NYS.
As a woman, I’m so glad I live in NYS.
How is it terrifying? You have a lot of obstetric emergencies?
Abortion is not an emergency.
@@jasonwhite9225 Yes, yes it is. There can be countless dangerous situations even before the child is out the womb, let alone after.
@@iamsiley And if one of those emergencies happen, it will be treated according to this decision per the 1986 law regarding emergency treatment.
Just "I want an abortion" isn't something that is an emergency. Nothing about this will stop actual treatment of immediate life threatening conditions.
@@jasonwhite9225it literally is. The second you decide to do so it’s not wise to fucking wait. Not to mention there could be complications which require it.
This HAS put women in danger, even those that aren't pregnant.
Last year, I went to the ER hemhorraging. They should have done a d&c. Instead, they sent me home without treatment while I was still heavily bleeding and hemodynamically unstable.
It's not even pregnant women at risk - it's ALL women. And if they attack birth control next, I'll be forced to have a hysterectomy. Progestin is the only thing keeping me healthy at this point. I'm FINALLY up out of bed after months of severe anemia and developing POTS.
What does that have to do with abortion? If they didn't treat you when you needed it, that was just a bad hospital.
@jasonwhite9225 because I'm in Texas with strict abortion bans.
I needed a D&C. You know what that is most commonly used for? An abortion. Had they provided the care, they would have been investigated.
Derpy derp.
@@anonymoose116no. D&c is not an abortion and its not always even needed after a failed pregnancy. You obviously are making something up or missed something in your care because you certainly know nothing about medicine.
@@jasonwhite9225 Hahahaha why are you so miserable
@@Nothing_._Heremiserable for being logical and speaking truth? Ok
…what? The law focused on Medicine and doctors does not govern the practice of medicine?? MAKE IT MAKE SENSE PLEASE
When has Medicare in America ever made sense?
It's about control, not sense
The 5th circuit is the most conservative circuit filled with hacks
@@rayodios5826 if its conservative you know damn well they are snakes even to their own laws let alone opposition laws
@@LS-bb9qh bingo! Regardless of democrat or republican it's not about sense, it's about controll
If you enter an ER in critical condition they HAVE to treat you, no questions asked, that is the cornerstone of emergency medicine in the US. Putting holes in this will just slow the system and put it at risk
The law is literally for EMERGENCIES. Just wanting to get rid of a thing that could be a human for convenience isn't an emergency. If it is life-threatening, then yes, they will still give you your abortion. Terminating the pregnancy is something that has to happen regardless of a choice. And in those cases, Texas will still do it... they are talking about people just wanting to do it for funsies
The ruling and law is being misrepresented by a lot of angry plebs. Think of it like rectangles and squares. A square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. A medical emergency can require an abortion, but an abortion on its own is not an emergency treatment. That's all this ruling made clear. Doctors still need to render aid for ectopic pregnancies and other potentially dangerous complications.
@@Demonicpurity Huh? In the case of Cox she literally had a medical requirement and still couldn't legally get treatment. It seems that this verdict actually made it even more unclear as to what an emergency is.
@@samc9133false. She wanted. Big difference.
@@TheShockingShanefunsies? Wtaf
And it already has. Several times. They actually had to move out-of-state in order to perform medical Care and save their lives. Even after doctors confirmed the fetus isnt viable or will die mins after birth. I think its pretty crual to force a woman to give birth, knowing the baby will die soon after.
Hospitals should be forced to provide it, doctors should not be forced to do it. The hospital should be required to find doctors who WILL do it.
Just wait until a Jehovas witness doctor refuses to do blood transfusions
Doctors are actually required to do things to help their patients, and have been required to do so according to prevailing medical ethics for literally thousands of years.
@@Scowleasythis statement that you made makes no sense
A doctor will treat you no matter what ---
Abortions can definitely be an emergency. Complications related to childbirth can definitely result in death or permanent disability for the mother. Obviously reproductive rights are a necessity for the health of women but banning abortions altogether is definitely a death sentence for many woman who have complications related to pregnancies.
Can be an emergency sure, no one is complaining about that bit. If it's not an emergency then there you go
@@krisblack5967 Except that they are. The rules around the "exceptions" are intentionally vague and the punishments so insane that hospitals are not letting doctors provide abortions until the woman is literally about to die right then. Don't be fooled by the fake exceptions. They are outlawing abortion.
@@krisblack5967You didn't pay much attention to the ruling, did you? The ruling says doctors can't do an abortion even IN an emergency.
@Orzufancylad that's not exactly the ruling. Medical professionals determine what an emergency is unless specified. Under certain circumstances a medical emergency would require an abortion but it would start out that way.
@@saiyedakhtar3931 Nope. You need to read it. The state argued that doctors shouldn't provide abortions, even in an emergency. The Fed invoked the law, the 5th circuit said it doesn't apply.
If the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother that’s a pretty big ass emergency.
Edit: I freaking love all the people leaving their ridiculous opinion on abortion in the comments. Like they just missed the point entirely and just feel the compulsive need to make their opinion known on the internet.
If women are property, the husband can just get another one to take care of everything but his dayjob. Duhhh /s
Except that it's almost as rare as hitting the lottery. Finding a cherry picked Stat out of context doesn't make a case just makes it clear you're manipulating people to get them to agree to what you want
This is like saying all murder should be illegal because self defense is justified.
Because one small type of it is fine doesn't mean all types of it should be.
Abortions in 99.9% of cases are not endangering the mothers life and are done for other reasons.
@@user-xl9dc1kx3z it isn’t rare at all, actually.
@@bluefiremarkii you pulled that number out ya butt
So refuse any Federal funds to hospitals that won’t DO THEIR JOB!
the whole "pro-life" comment section just looks the same to me.
"Well women dying isn't as bad as it seems in my opinion. That's what *my* beliefs say, and *you* are now legally obliged to follow them too"
I think we should rename "pro-life" into "pro-force".
That's a lot of straw man's in a row right there
You mean the fact that pro-life is more ok with making an exception to the law for far out circumstances than making it the law for all circumstances. Like you know all laws are. Like you can’t murder people unless they break into your home and or threaten your life just because that happens doesn’t mean murders ok.
@@whocares6757do you even know what a straw man is?
People are literally agreeing with the verdict which allows the ignoring or emergency situation, thus allowing for the death of both mother and child.
In order for it to be a straw man there needs to be evidence of them actually paying attention to that, but they aren’t.
There are more spontaneous abortions than there are elected ones. 1 million pregnancies a year result in a spontaneous abortion.
Not force but ok
Don't murder babies for fun and profit
Texas: "It ain't healthcare so it doesn't concern me"
Advocates: "But if someone wanted to get one, they'd have to see a licensed healthcare professional correct?"
Texas: "yes"
I’m pro-abortion so this is a peer-review, this argument is a little silly. You can see licensed healthcare professionals for loads of things not related to healthcare. Most wouldn’t considered Botox healthcare (when purely cosmetic and unprompted by medical needs) yet you need a healthcare professional to do it.
@@mishaf19this is also specifically about medically necessary abortions
"The government shouldn't tell doctors what to do, unless it's abortion."
They aren’t, the doctor still has the say, that was the reason they gave.
For people taking about it being medically nessercery.
Texas has exceptions for exactly those scenarios which the court pointed out.
So people will still be able to have abortions in emergency situations.
All it rules is that EMTALA is too vague which should have been expected to be ruled as previous supreme court cases have over-ruled laws that are to vague. From my understanding.
Just to end on this video frames it in a deceptive way to get people upset about it when it really shouldn't be. The problem is easily solved by an executive order or just making a new law that is less vague. So just tell your representitive you want a law mandating this.
In what world would a regular abortion be considered an emergency?
When the mothers life is at risk
I'm going to assume you're asking in good faith and so I'll reply in kind:
The short isn't talking about "regular abortions" but I don't blame you for not knowing that because they don't make it clear. Instead, it's talking about emergency abortions where if the fetus isn't removed the mother will die or suffer horrible health complications. This could be anything from an ectopic pregnancy to the fetus being dead and needing to be removed before the dead tissue starts making the mother sick. Unfortunately, these kinds of things aren't uncommon, so the goal of labeling these kinds of abortions as emergency care (Which to be clear, they are. People die if they don't happen) is to ensure that doctors in states where abortions are banned can still perform these necessary surgeries without risking jail time or losing their license.
Women will die under this ruling. The procedures to treat a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy are the same as the procedures to perform an abortion. Doctors are currently refusing to do these procedures out of fear of being accused of performing illegal abortions.
if you want abortions pass a law saying that don't try to misinterpret old laws. court is doing its job. it's not any different when they tried to pin abortion on right to privacy.
@@jai-kk5uuI mean here it did pin abortion to the woman’s right to getting life saving medical procedures. It is a quite clear case here.
Abortions are 100% medically necessary in some cases, and it is unwise to categorize them as a wholly different term or ban those as well. The dogma must end or else people will get hurt
@@GelloWello when we try To do that Dems go that it's bad that we are not Willy nilly allowing murder and mothers should be able to abort for any reason even when not medically necessary and without fathers consent. which then some women use to emotionally blackmail men. there are different reasons why people are in this fight. for me specifically you are saying some women will suffer under this I say better them than the men who suffered under democrats system.
@@jai-kk5uu Abortion shouldn’t be pinned to men as the man isn’t always present and it is hard to prove rape in every case. Also this case was strictly about medically necessary procedures.
We all know though, pro-life is actually just anti-women and pro-death. There is a reason why Greg Abbott AG of Texas blocked abortion if it’s only a 99% chance of death with 1% of surviving maimed when it comes to a fetus that would never be viable.
abortion simply put is impossible to regulate thoroughly as at a certain point it becomes thought crime.
Not in TX, there are exclusions, in LA however they originally over reached on the law and caused those issues
Well this is concerning
Less babies being killed is "concerning" ?? Hwut?
@@bigisrick ….government controlling what medical practices are legal or not is.
@@bigisrickthey aren't babies, when most abortions are done they're as conscious as a plant
@@bigisrickyou don't understand abortion as much as you think you do.
@@screaming_cat2007 like lobotomy? Shock therapy? Blood letting? Smoke enemas? Oxycotin?
“The law doesn’t govern the practice of medicine.” Then abortions can’t be banned??
Yeiks, here in the UK no individual doctor is obliged to perform abortions. But they are obliged to refer somone for whom one is neccassay to another doctor who hasn't opted out.
Y'all need to take a moment to think about the health of the woman who is giving birth. Death by child birth is a real concern.
If you survive your wallet ain't
Not really in this modern age. I think we’re quite far removed from child birth causing death as a serious thing. In the very few legitimate cases where this might be the case I’m actually for it. The key word being legitimate.
@@danielnoonan8046well not if the child is dead in the womb. A rotting corpse in your body isn’t exactly healthy
Absolute lobotomite take. The statistics are available for free online. Death by childbirth isn't a thing of the past@@danielnoonan8046
Which we do, most at least. If a woman needs to kill her baby because of this than it's ok but if she just wants to or she got r worded, all I'm gonna say is life is tough man, deal with it. You're no Queen.
Sooo, since they wanna play the game that a specific type of medical procedure wasn't specified so it doesn't apply, you can easily say that certain firearms aren't specifically listed in the 2nd amendment so they aren't protected.
And I'm pro 2nd amendment, I'm just anti Texas lawmakers...
So, since social media wasn't covered in the first amendment, freedom of speech doesn't apply right?
And fourth amendment no longer protects you from having your car searched.
And apartments aren't protected from having soldiers quartered in them, so we can go ahead and start doing that, right? After all, the third amendment specifically says "house".
Except all fire arms are protected by 2A. 2A is the right to bare arms. that covers from flintlock to machine gun all the way to tank.
@@em0rabbit798 yes, I'm aware of that which is why I pointed out I'm pro 2nd amendment.
My point was the hypocrisy of Texas lawmakers trying to say that because a specific medical procedure wasn't listed in the law, then that means they can pick and choose which ones it actually does protect. Which is exactly what the left has been doing for years with the 2nd amendment.
The spirit of the law is that all emergency medical procedures are covered.
@@em0rabbit798A tank isn’t a firearm. The turret maybe, but it doesn’t require the whole tank to function.
@@em0rabbit798Well technically it says "right to bear arms," not "right to bear firearms," so by Texas lawmaker logic, we can ban any and all guns without violating the second amendment, because it doesn't specify what it means by "arms."
Just like emergency abortions apparently are not emergency medical procedures anymore 🙄
Getting pregnant is not an emergency, its a lack if responsibility I shouldnt pay for.
you forget that abortion does not just cover the willing termination of a healthy growing fetus.
It also covers a fetus in the womb which is already dead. At least until the sepsis sets in and the mother is in critical danger of dying herself. (Many times the doctors are still arguing over whether it counts as life saving measures or if its still abortion and the mother dies anyway)
Its covers any abnormal placement of the fertalized egg (such as in the tubes) despite it not being viable anyway and if left alone would inevitably threaten the mothers life.
It covers medical complications where removal by c-section when the fetus is at high risk of death due to underdevelopment is a problem. If the baby dies its considered an abortion despite it being a bad odds game and not a deliberate attempt at killing the fetus.
It covers terminal medical conditions where the infant WILL definitely die withing hours of being born. Picture being forced to carry a child, knowing for months that the baby wont even make it to be one day old. Then having to watch that baby die horrifically in your arms, when they are now capable of feeling every moment of discomfort of their death. How is that not inhumane? Youre deliberately bringingin a child to this world that can not sustain life. That has absolutely no chance of survival.
And yes these are not exactly common. But they do happen. Just because 100 people have a healthy baby does not justify putting 1 person through any of that!
Thats not even including the overrun child services who cant even get the kids they have adopted out. Or even better. Lets have an unfit mother raise a child. Or bonus. A cruel woman who blames their child for the loss of their future because they got knocked up. and on top of that due this is about Texas doctors and hospitals this probably happens in texas which is top 7 in 15-19 pregnancies and top 1 in 15-19 repeat pregancies, because the child requires parents permission to get sex education and birth control pills even if the child is already parent.
Hold on. So a law about emergency care "doesn't govern the practice of medicine"???????
Hey, "Pro-Lifers," abortions are reduced way more by access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed than abortion bans.
Banning mostly moves abortions to less legal places and encourages home jobs, rather than actually preventing abortion.
If you really care about life, you should push for accessible birth control and good sex education!
I'm pro-life because I think life start to conception for no religious basis
I also think it's idiotic to say don't have sex and hope that the kids listen to you give better access to birth control and make it cheaper and have a better sexual education class
They don't care about life. They care about controlling child-bearers' bodies.
They don't care about life though. They care about control. A scared and uneducated populace is easier to control.
Either better sex education or none, didn't need to learn how to make a kid in 5th grade. Definitely more birth control access
@@synsvids In 5th grade, ideally, it'd be limited to sex (characteristic) and how it relates to gender identity. It'll give a more standardized introduction to genderqueer (trans, non binary, etc) people, which America clearly needs
This will only mean more insurance companies exploiting loopholes
Its wild to me that we have judges making policy based on interpretation of 50+ year old laws because we cant pass anything one way or the other
That... is kind of their job. As I said... the democrats do not want Texas to end their abortion ban.
Yes you can’t force doctors to perform certain surgical procedures, but it does also come with at the risk of those needing the procedure for means of preserving their life.
While I believe abortion isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is necessary for those that need it in order to save their lives.
This is what happens when politicians appoint the judges in the highest court. The law becomes a political tool
Unless you agree with the ruling..
Then you have no issues.
A law tnat ensures medical care for medical emergencies doesnt govern the practice of medicine? 💀
Fifth circuit really said state abortion bans have more authority to govern the practice of medicine than the National Emergency Medical Care Act. 😢 RIP all those women killed by this court.
And as I said the Democrats could have fixed this situation overnight, but they won't (they probably will never fix it) because it advantages them to keep it active.
.
The Courts job is to side with the law, the Supreme court is to side with the constitution. I HATE the idea that their job is to interpret the law in the most convenient way possible... their job isn't to fix the government.
@@Nionivek (reply to 1st paragraph) except the U.S. Supreme Court already stated that a law about abortion Cannot be Made at a National Level at this time, and a law was never passed because it would become redundant and would be overturned at the same time as Roe v. Wade making it pointless to be passed
So the law that forces medical professionals to treat emergency conditions, doesn’t force them to treat emergency conditions…..? What?
The medical condition is self inflicted, takes nine months, and doesn't kill the mother. Obviously overreach completely separate to the idea of whether abortion should be legal.
You can't ban abortions only safe abortions. No matter your opinion on it, these laws never work. If a woman wants an abortion she's gonna do it with or without doctor intervention, which, as you can imagine, is ridiculously dangerous.
A murder is a murder.
Why should we make murder safer?
Actually considering the left want to make self defence illegal, maybe they do want to make murder safer
Almost like banning guns doesn't stop criminals from getting them.... huh interesting
The problem is you're conflating elective abortions and medically necessary abortions.
@Rundvelt No, I'm not. If I were a few years younger and I got pregnant. I'd want an abortion. If it was banned in my state(it basically is), I would do anything to get the baby out of me. I viewed it as life-threatening to have a child. Women and girls who don't want a child are going to abort themselves whether you like it or not. Your take on things only increases the fatality rate. So I'll say it again, and I'll scream it from the rooftops, "You can't ban abortion only safe abortions."
Making access to healthcare illegal or restricted all the government is doing is increasing the fatality rate. Other countries have banned abortions before, and it never works.
@@RundveltTexas does not see the difference. I would know, I have the great misfortune of calling it home. Most doctors here can agree on what qualifies as an “emergency”, but they won’t perform the procedures because they don’t know whether a judge will agree. Penalties when Mr judge decides that the doctor was wrong include a hefty (very, very hefty) fine and a prison sentence of up to 99 years.
Americans scare me.
As an American, American politicians scare me. Regular Americans don't.
It has ALREADY put women in danger. Stop letting religions dictate laws.
The fact that life begins at conception is not a religious point but a scientific one. the fact is that at the moment a sperm and egg fuse new DNA is created. This DNA is not the same as any cell from the father or the mother, and nobody is disputing the fact that it is human DNA. This organism then begins growing, and without intervention will in the vast majority of cases grow to term and be delivered. When you have a collection of unique, human DNA which is alive (life as proven by growth because dead things cannot grow) then we call that a human being. There are 2 arguments that I've heard that seem to hold some water unless you look into them so I'll address them now.
1. "There isn't much brain function so it's not worth protecting until such a stage in the pregnancy as it can think for itself"
2. "It's not murder if it can't survive outside the mother's body so it's not worth protecting until it can be delivered"
1. While this makes sense to some it ignores the fact that many people with severe mental deformities or who have suffered debilitating brain injuries also have very low cognitive function. If you wouldn't euthanise someone for being in a severe car crash where they suffered brain damage, or for being born with cognitive disabilities then there is no justification for doing so during gestation.
2. If the mother gave birth to that child and refused to feed it we would classify that as murder. If someone was recovering on life support and you unplugged them because it was expensive we would classify that as murder. Being self sufficient has never been part of the criteria for being a person worthy of having your life protected.
Finally it's worth pointing out that the court didn't forbid doctors from performing abortions, they simply clarified that doctors couldn't be forced to perform these abortions.
This court just told hospitals and doctors they are allowed to deny any care without repercussions.
This isn’t very “pro-life” of them
It was never about pro life, it's pro control or pro birth. Incredible that pro life is stuck when that's not the movement at all.
Killing something isn't pro life. Forcing someone to do something when there's plenty of crappy democrats that are willing to do is once again forcing your ideology on others which is why it's a flawed ideology
It totally is. The problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between medically necessary abortions and elective abortions.
The bill attempts to make all abortions the same, therefore, the ruling allows doctors to decide if they'll do it or not. Rather then being compelled.
@@AeonQuasar what amazing is that you feel so strongly about something and have done zero research about that topic
@@Rundveltwhy do you need to abort the baby? Just deliver it instead and give it the best chance possible.
Luckily that woman had enough money to get out of Texas, but what about others?
The law doesn't govern the practice of medicine? Isn't that the reason behind this whole interaction?
This ruling is the equivalent of the VA medical provider saying “injury not service related” but to civilians nationwide.
Emergency Medical Treatment Act: if a person have an emergency medical condition then they must be treated
Court: unless that case is abortion, because we said so.
seriously, this ruling makes absolutely no sense.
The video is misleading. They’re already is an exception in Texas abortion law for emergencies. However, the exception is very narrow so the federal government was trying to get them to expand it. For example, under the current, Texas abortion law, if an ectopic pregnancy is detected, doctors cannot immediately act. They have to wait until it progresses to the point where the mother is literally about to die before they can give her an abortion. It is not actually considered “Emergency“ up until that point, even though ectopic pregnancies are never viable so they know it is going to lead to death or abortion eventually. So the federal government was trying to say that Texas should expand the definition of “emergency abortion“ to include conditions where the doctor knows that it is eventually going to lead to an emergency and not have to wait until the mother is literally dying.
@@bebop2523 Drs are also afraid to invoke that exception and Texas law ALSO forbids people to leave the state or assist a person in leaving the state for an abortion.
Except is that the intent of this change? Did you read it?
@@scottlemiere2024
They can't stop you from leaving that's against your constitutional right to travel
They are Conservatves, making sense is not their priority
A famous quote
“Hey Patrick what am I now?”
“Uhm… stupid?”
“No, I’m Texas!”
“What’s the difference!”
Still true to this day I see
Surprised someone hasn't gotten here before me.
Hmmmmm
@@I_want_White_Cheddar_Popcorn well most are having arguments some are watching others are too tired of this to care.
That quote gets truer every day
Funny when people hate on Texas when there state is 10x worse then it is
Except Texas is right here. You haven't bothered to read what the law was trying to do, have you.
if the law does not govern trh practice of medicine WHAT THE FRICK DOES THEN?!
For people who miss the point, the ruling opens doctors up to prosecution/lawsuits in some states if a politician decides an emergency abortion wasn't an actual emergency.
I can certainly get down with not forcing a doctor to perform an abortion, even though I am pro choice. They should however be obligated to refer the patient to a doctor that does not have that personal opinion blocking them from performing that procedure
They're still risking the people's lives by being a doctor at all. Abortions are time sensitive. People shouldn't be expected to go doctor shopping during an emergency.
@@nasafo8292 cannot think of a harder step backwards than suddenly allowing subjective ideology to even exist within medicine lmao
@@nasafo8292 also not even what the subject matter is, they're refusing to do it now because they don't want to get arrested by the state under some anachronistic gobbledygook, they're being drowned in red-tape, not opinions.
you have to be a literal specialist, they don't just run a lottery for who does what in a hospital, how old are you lmao
"aw shucks, i got assigned to reproductive care, but i wanted to work in anesthesia today!"
also you're saying verbatim that you can get down with allowing discrimination in healthcare. you genuinely just said "yeah i'm fine with allowing a doctor to let someone die because they "don't agree with the patient for being gay, that's their opinion ❤️ :)"
you do not get to bring that into the field of medicine. you will literally get blacklisted if you behave like that or allow that to influence how you treat people, it's several violations wrapped into one eldritch package of "will get you fired."
refrain from having opinions on this in the future, honestly, you're not capable of actually having one with any genuine thought put into it beyond platitudes.
"The law is intended to make physicians treat emergency medical conditions."
"The law doesn't govern the practice of medicine."
Bro what😂
This is the same court that said they have the authority to overrule the FDA.
Saying you have to treat an emergency is one thing, telling the doctor how to do it is another.
Should’ve told them to slip it on if you didn’t want a baby
I think it's fair. If the doctor is morally against abortions, which is, admittedly, a heavy and controversial topic, they can refuse to perform the procedure.
A ton of other doctors will most likely be happy to assist you with an abortion.
Apply that to other urgent situations.
@omgnowairly I do. In my country, a doctor isn't obligated to treat you if he thinks his life is being put at any risk, in any way, shape, or form. That means if he has the slightest doubt they can catch *anything* from you, they can leave you bleeding out on the street.
We're talking about a state that already had a 30% mortality rate for mothers before the Republicans went after abortion.
30% I'm gonna need a source for that. I'm quite sure you've misunderstood something there...
@jacobydove8213 Texas department of health statistics. It was big news when I was moving out of Texas. With my pregnant wife. 20 years ago.
@@jacobydove8213 and I put 30% because I don't remember the actual higher number
Not to mention infant death rates are up especially in red, southern states like Mississippi and Alabama dramatically since the overturned roe vs Wade.
Uhm I am pretty sure 30% is a number from maybe 200 years ago.... maybe you meant a maternal death rate of 30 out of 100.000?
The “moral conscious” thing is mind-numbing. If a physician won’t perform a routine and often life-saving procedure because it hurts their feelings, hand over the MD and go somewhere else.
Agreed, it already feels like doctors these days don't even do their jobs anyways. Why go to school, get into tons of debt just to not do your job you were trained to do? You are trained to do a job to do that job, nothing else, your feelings don't matter, this isn't Grey's Anatomy 😑
How often is it lifesaving because in the USA there are anywhere between 200 000 and 40000 abortions
When Statistically 32.9 out of 100,000
Women die during childbirth in the USA while giving birth
“Often life saving” is misinformation even if you assume it is life saving in some situations the most charitable argument is there’s some wildly rare instances that need it
So they could save thousands of other lives but because of this one procedure they won't perform all the other people they would save should just die then?
@@jackiebiskan4748that’s the immediate cause-effect outcome. I’m also talking about: 1) children who will end up neglected in the foster system, 2) skyrocketing rates of postpartum depression, 3) underdevelopment because of malnutrition/environment, 4) birth complications due to poor healthcare access, 5) unforeseen psychiatric concerns with parents, and 6) ultimately none of my damn business, it’s not my body, let women make their own medical decisions about their own bodies.
This is the most unbiased way I have seen this chanel report the news
Saying “it doesn’t specify what type” is like saying they can refuse to remove someone’s appendix if they didn’t want to
Pro life isn’t about life, it’s about control
It's about life. We don't want the person to cure cancer to die because of abortion, in fact the cure to cancer probably did die to abortion seeing how many die of abortion per day.
@@ChristMyGod Hey kid, I would wait until you graduate primary school before delving into any politics. Once you get here its pretty miserable, enjoy your time as a kid while you can
@@scars3596 im pretty interested in history and its kinda hard to be interested in history without being interested about politics
@@ChristMyGodI want to pose a question to you and I honestly won't even find my way back here if you do decide to post a responce so no pressure, this is just something to think about. In your personal definition of prolife, what is more important: quality or quantity? As in quality of life or quantity of life (and maybe even expanded byond that if you wanna play with the idea). I think every answer to this is valid and the important thing is we continue investigating our belief systems! ^_^
Additionally: I'll add, that in Texas right now, even if both mother and baby will die, the mother will not be allowed to get an abortion. Would this circumstance be an exception in your beliefs? Just ponder it and keep exploring. Have a lovely day all ❤
@@ChristMyGodso you would rather subject hundreds of thousands of children to a broken home, bad financal situation, etc. as well as the parent[s] to a ton of stress, emotional and sometimes physical harm, and more, just so that maybe some kid will eventually cure cancer (but probably not since thats still extremely unlikely)
It’s a bad day to be female in Texas.
Unless you are one of the woman who wanted this. People forget that a lot of women also want this. If they didn't, it wouldn't have passed.
@@shadowscall7758it’s not a law that “passed” it’s a court ruling
@Volcano22207 true, that was poor wording on my part, but what I said was still true. Plenty of women advocated for that decision.
Texas really is a clown state.
I was born in the capital of texas in its largest former air force base. can confirm that since Ann Richards was governor it has gone downhill with all the republicans
"the law, in our interpretation, does not govern the practice of medicine." Yet they turn around and make laws about you practicing medicine. What?!?
Women, just get out of there. Move. At this point, selling everything and moving to a different state is worth it.
Here is the thing, and why people are so insulting to women who don't tow the line, if women didn't want this bill it would have had no chance to pass.
@@Nionivekpeople hate taxes politicians and insurance companies but here we are this only works if there small enough
@@Nionivekyou forgot that this is a court case and not something you can vote for
I love how it's, "Well I interpret the law this way so....neh." love living under a system where we basically have people interpreting laws based on their whims and fancies.
That's how each and every law is applied
That is how most anti gun laws are being deployed. The Constitution practically states that there should not be laws controlling guns or gun ownership (to some extent)
@@AlpineTheHuskythe second amendment specifically states that gun ownership ought to be “well-regulated”. Making guns outright illegal and making it impossible for someone to get a gun, definitively not ok, but regulating when and how they’re used and conditions required to get one are.
@@mishaf19 Straight up wrong
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Militia should be regulated as in a semi independant force to withstand government interference.
it's like an annoying 3rd grader. "you didn't specify, i only did what you said!!!"
America is falling ever slowly, turning to a theocracy. It sad to see an admired country crumbling from within.
The ruling only says that an abortion isn’t considered an emergency procedure… it isn’t for or against abortions
Common judicial L. If saving womens’ lives isn’t within the law, then change the damn law.
This video appears misleading. Texas already has allowances for emergency abortions, Biden's administration wanted what classifies as an "emergency" expanded. Plus the federal law does still exist should another lawsuit come up, it'll just be a waiting game to see what circumstance goes to court first
Don't thread on me but I'll thread on thee.
The key words are "forced to". As in, you cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion.
If a doctor can't do their job then they shouldn't be allowed to be a doctor.
@noname-zp1yh a doctor's job is first and foremost to "do no harm." So I agree, any doctor who performs a child murder, especially for no good reason, shouldn't be allowed to be a doctor anymore.
One seems like a legal argument, and the other is emotionally charged.
I can hear the clanging of make-shift guillotines being built in my dreams.
Once again, Texas is proving that it values an ascribed ideology over the lives of real women.
"The law doesn't govern medical practice"
And yet by banning abortions that's exactly what the law is trying to do.
Ireland, a famously Catholic country allowed an Indian (from India) woman to die because the fetus' heart had not stopped beating. By the time it did, the sepsis was so advanced the woman died shortly thereafter. Ireland changed its abortion laws because of that incident. Religious fundamentalism does not always rule ok.
Always remember, it's not about the life of the fetus, it's about controlling women.
It doesn't matter. It literally doesnt matter if someone is getting an abortion because they dont want to be a parent or because theyll die if they dont or whatever else. A person has a right to their own body and to remove any invasive or harmful entities/parasites if they so wish. So yeet the unwanted fetus in your meatsuit. And if it cant survive without its host? Thats its problem.
And by that very logic, don't the doctors have a right to deny service?
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466that doesn’t mean that a state can out right deem it illegal.
@@b00mbox I don't think it's illegal to do abortions..... If I'm not mistaken, it's just a deadline, right?
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 no. Doctors agreed to provide healthcare to the population when they became doctors. Abortion is healthcare. They are obligated to provide it.
And the state has no business not listening to medical professionals about medicine.
Nice try though.
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 rewatch the video.
Reading some of the comments confuses me. Hospitals are still required to treat emergencies. They must also treat abortions if and only if the mothers life is at risk. They can deny you service if you want to get an abortion simply because you don't want a baby.
Yeah IF the womans life is at risk at the moment.
Some need to wait until they get into this life threatening situation to get this emergency care.
Imagine your fiance is pregnant but sadly the Baby is not alive.
Your fiance needs to go to the Hospital and wait until she gets into a critical condition to get this emergency care.
That's reality even right now, we have already cases with this exact Szenario.
Beyond not being obligated. What ruling is there on restricting doctors who DO want to perform abortions from doing it?
I don't understand how women aren't protesting, this is what you get when people take rights for granted.
There have been multiple very large protests since Roe v Wade was overturned
It’s almost like, some women agree that abortion is bad?
@@MrTwinkieXDIt’s almost as if abortion isn’t always bad just like killing itself isn’t always bad. When you put others lives at risk, especially those who could die from pregnancy and you don’t let them get an abortion, that is questionable ethics right there. Also, people who use religious arguments forget separate church from state thing and what not too, plus not all things in religion are ethically right. And the statement often used, abortion is murder. Question begging statement. There is question begging statements for pro choice too such as my body, my choice since we all don’t always know or do the right things to our bodies. But most arguments with pro choice are much more ethically sound and concrete than anti abortion. I took a ethical issues course, abortion was one of the many topics. They talked about both sides, it was very interesting.
@colinzink6487 explain how "abortion is murder" is begging the question. Also, they did not ban "medically necessary" abortions, the court simply ruled that the state can decide what constitutes as medically necessary/whether to make an exception for medically necessary abortions or not. Texas, and essentially every state has at least abortions for medical necessity.
@@colinzink6487 never said it isn’t, I agree sometimes it’s needed! Just some people think only men agree that abortion is “bad” but a lot of women and men actually agree that’s why it’s so public ally reprimanded.
Women give birth to those babies yall love so much. But sure! Let's not try to protect them AT ALL.
If they acted like adults and kept thier legs shut there would be no need to protect them theyed be protecting themselves
@@dovakeen1179 Nice try, troll. ✌🏼
@@goddessofcha0s Same mantra told to men, when a woman gets pregnant. The only difference is that a man has no choice. How does a man opt out of his obligations to a child's birth he has no say over. Women want equality, and this is it.
@@trickmiller8169 is it his body? Is it his body that will endure months of dramatic and drastic changes?
@goddessofcha0s it is his baby just as much as it is hers. Now, this does mean (in my opinion) that men who basically abandon a woman who gets pregnant should (in my opinion) be criminally liable.
I hate it when people think that it only goes one way and Mom is the only one responsible for the baby.
This is not about ectopic pregnancy and similiar cases. Any hospital in texas will take care of that. This is saying a normal pregnancy is an emergency situation in need of abortion. In Texas if you are a woman and your life is in danger because of pregnancy you literally can get an abortion. Please no one misinform.
Tell that to Texas, and other states citizens
I'm never stepping foot in Texas if I can help it.
It will put people in danger.
How? an abortion isn't automatically an abortion.
Seems like a bunch of people here don't understand the difference between "being allowed" and "being obligated" to do something. you might want to look up the difference
As someone who was at risk for tubular pregnancy, a pregnancy that can potentially kill me, this is concerning that I could be denied care because by medical definition it would be an “abortion “
Pregnancy alone is not an emergency
For Kelsie-norris-de la Cruz it was. you forget that abortion does not just cover the willing termination of a healthy growing fetus.
It also covers a fetus in the womb which is already dead. At least until the sepsis sets in and the mother is in critical danger of dying herself. (Many times the doctors are still arguing over whether it counts as life saving measures or if its still abortion and the mother dies anyway)
Its covers any abnormal placement of the fertalized egg (such as in the tubes) despite it not being viable anyway and if left alone would inevitably threaten the mothers life.
It covers medical complications where removal by c-section when the fetus is at high risk of death due to underdevelopment is a problem. If the baby dies its considered an abortion despite it being a bad odds game and not a deliberate attempt at killing the fetus.
It covers terminal medical conditions where the infant WILL definitely die withing hours of being born. Picture being forced to carry a child, knowing for months that the baby wont even make it to be one day old. Then having to watch that baby die horrifically in your arms, when they are now capable of feeling every moment of discomfort of their death. How is that not inhumane? Youre deliberately bringingin a child to this world that can not sustain life. That has absolutely no chance of survival.
And yes these are not exactly common. But they do happen. Just because 100 people have a healthy baby does not justify putting 1 person through any of that!
Thats not even including the overrun child services who cant even get the kids they have adopted out. Or even better. Lets have an unfit mother raise a child. Or bonus. A cruel woman who blames their child for the loss of their future because they got knocked up. and on top of that due this is about Texas doctors and hospitals this probably happens in texas which is top 7 in 15-19 pregnancies and top 1 in 15-19 repeat pregancies, because the child requires parents permission to get sex education and birth control pills even if the child is already parent.
Actually promoting casual sex puts women in danger.
Easy way to solve this. Withdraw all federal funding for Healthcare in states that do not comply with the law.
No that'll just put a smile on private insurance companies faces. Just because the state gov is a cancer doesn't mean the ppl should suffer. I guarantee you those rich bastards won't be bothered or even inconvenienced by your proposal one bit.
I mean they voted for the party that has been screaming for 50 years that they want to take our healthcare away and HAVE now successfully taken our healthcare away. Vote blue to fix it.
That will make things worse
Well the law says you have to save people in an emergency. Abortions aren't an emergency in about 99% of the time.
unless you’re having major complications, an abortion is NOT an emergency.
“We have ruled that doctors/hospitals do not have to perform CRP if a patient’s heart stops, because the law doesn’t specifically say CPR” This is absurd.
Americans, VOTE THEM OUT.
We can’t vote for judges dingus
@@Abdominalsnowman I am talking about the Republican Party. ;P
That's not how abortions are conducted.
@@christopherboisvert6902 yea all around the world you guys are seen as stupid for letting this Biden guy into office like what were you thinking bruh.
It is a moral argument with no clear answer. The government should have no right to tell people that they can't get an abortion but the government should also have no right to tell someone that they must perform one.
It is wrong to use law to force doctors to perform abortions. It is also wrong to use law to ban abortions (within a reasonable time frame, such as 15 weeks).
It mentions help
They refused to help and that should blacklist every single hospital in Texas that does this