@LadieKatie I am quite sure that you are not a woman, and very certainly not a lady. All these women nearly died because they had to wait that the baby that they wanted and carried with love had died in their bodies and began to rot. Causing septic choc. But, whatever gender you are, you are most certainly not a christian. Jesus would turn his face from you in deep disgust.
@LadieKatie It takes real guts to fight more for the feelings of guns more than the kids that are massacred by them in schools. It also takes real guts to defend murderous cops. It also takes real guts to label every woman who gets an abortion because she doesn’t want to or can’t donate her body parts for nine months a murderer when there’s been plenty of times in your life where someone else has died because you decided not to donate your body parts to save their life and therefore you’ve been a “murderer” as well.
@@TradBarbie if you’re allowed to mandate pregnant people to donate blood and organs outside of their own will to save a life, everyone should be allowed to mandate you to donate blood and organs to save a life outside of your own will right? You’re supposedly all about saving all lives right? Or does your “pro-life” agenda only apply to saving the lives of fetuses? By the way, you haven’t stopped women from doing abortions, you’ve just stopped them from doing them safely. So, now not only are the fetuses still not surviving, neither are a lot of women.
@@EllieRose-pe7mu - This whole story is BS --- What amanda had was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION. they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment. They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ?? nope. doctors aren't that dumb. also, they all have attorneys and so do hospitals. I work at St. Luke's and we have an entire legal _department_ 50% of their story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education. What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors or attorneys any questions about the case.... NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. _We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby."_ in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state. but they waited *3 days* at home _w/o using her prescribed antibiotics_ and then developed sepsis. _she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics_ and then wonders why she turned septic. REALLY? was that a smart choice? read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. if you want to skip all the legaleze, go to the bottom: >> *Texas law* : (b) The prohibition [of abortion] under Subsection (a) *does not apply if:* (1) _the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician_ (2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: (A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's death; or (B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female. (C) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function. >>>in Amanda's case this is the key to the whole law
This whole story is BS --- What amanda had was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION. they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment. They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ?? nope. doctors aren't that dumb. also, they all have attorneys and so do hospitals. I work at St. Luke's and we have an entire legal department 50% of their story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education. What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors or attorneys any questions about the case.... NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby." in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state. but they waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis. she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and then wonders why she turned septic. REALLY? was that a smart choice? read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. if you want to skip all the legaleze, go to the bottom: >> Texas law : (b) The prohibition [of abortion] under Subsection (a) does not apply if: (1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician (2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: (A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's death; or (B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female. (C) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function. >>>in Amanda's case this is the key to the whole law
So sorry this happened to her. That’s why I just got an endometrial ablation and got on the pill. If I can’t be safely pregnant in my state then I’m going to make sure I can’t get pregnant at all.
They will deny your right to birth control just so you know. That is the next thing on the list. So your choice now, as a woman in a red state, is to stop having sex. Hope you aren't raped, and if you become pregnant, hope you don't have any medical emergencies. Because the doctors will let you die right along with the baby. I guess they consider that pro-life. I think it's more 'no-life' I wish you the best and sorry this has happened to you and so many women in the same boat as you
How come these reporters never interview women who just want to abort for no medical or life threatening reasons ? Just cause they got pregnant ? Because people wouldn’t feel sorry ! For these women I feel bad because they had no choice but to abort period So sad
The mother's life was not in danger. She would have gone in premature labor anyway. And she would got gotten an infection the womb is supposed to be sterile
@@drstone3418that’s not what happened in this woman’s situation. The doctors could not do anything until she had sepsis and went into toxic shock which put her into the ICU for days. Her life was indeed at risk! It’s ridiculous anti abortion laws even exist as they are so broad that they obviously don’t take into account the wellbeing of the mother!
@@marinagarza1803 - nope. this was a miscarriage, she had an incompetent cervix. she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and developed sepsis. that caused a spontaneous miscarriage. read the court transcripts. what she says to the media is not what actually happened. This whole story is BS --- What happened to amanda was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment. They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ?? 50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case.... NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby." in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross state the line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis. didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and wonders why she turned septic? REALLY? was that a smart choice? read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. Texas law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) does not apply if: (1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician; (2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: (A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's death; or (B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female. (c) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function. >>> key paragraph>>> (d) Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death of the unborn child does not constitute a violation of this section. that's not so difficult to interpret that the hospital's lawyers and doctors would do what this article claims. funny how when you read the actual law, you learn how the media lies.
@@marinagarza1803 - actually what you claim is also not what happened. TX law allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. she went home and declined to take her prescribed antibiotic for 3 days and that's why she turned septic. believing that the doctors and attorneys can't read the simple laws and don't know how to care for a pregnant woman is a bit naive, don't you think?
nope. the law permits abortions in cases where the mother's life or physical health is in danger. in fact it provides pretty wide latitude for a licensed physician to make his decisions. it simply happens to be that Amanda is twisting the facts of her story to build a following for a political cause. texas law is clear and unambiguous. they just want it struck down.
This is totally injustice for women who needs to get abortion for a good reason. It’s not just about abortion just for the sake of aborting, this abortion ban is endangering women’s lives.
@aimeedoyle2448 - Roe v Wade was made for this. Women were dying because they couldn't get them and went to "after hours" non-medical people to get this done. Roe v Wade was saving women's lives.
nope. the law permits abortions in cases where the mother's life or physical health is in danger. in fact it provides pretty wide latitude for a licensed physician to make his decisions. it simply happens to be that Amanda is twisting the facts of her story to build a following for a political cause. texas law is clear and unambiguous. they just want it struck down.
@@girloninternet1188 such a “pro-life” thing to say. You only care about if the fetuses are born while simultaneously not giving a f***k about the people living outside the womb. If you proclaim “pro-life” you would think you actually care about everyone’s life and and not just whether or not fetuses make it it to being birthed.
@@jimperkins6073 says the little boy who will never know what it’s like to be pregnant and be mandated to donate his own blood and organs outside of his will to save the life of another and not be able to get any excuses as to why he doesn’t want donate his body.
I am 💯% against Texas's abortion ban however I will say the reason none of the state's attorneys showed her any sympathy is because to do so could end up backfiring for them. And for them that wouldn't look good.
It must be very traumatic for the live baby having it's limbs ripped out/off piece by piece, then (possibly) having it's skull crushed. She's right, it must be very traumatic. The poor babies. It's sad for the moms and dads having to live with that decision as well.
We just need to keep speaking up and out, no matter the consequences... Condolences to those who have and have dealt/ dealing with this incredible dehumanizing absolutely ignorant incompetent leadership. Lets not anyone forget what rights all of us women all across the globe, need and desperately deserve.🙏🏼💜
what rights were violated ? certainly not her right to get an abortion. she chose to *NOT* get an abortion. read the actual documents filed in court. This whole story is BS --- What amanda had was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION. they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment. They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ?? nope. doctors aren't that dumb. also, they all have attorneys and so do hospitals. I work at St. Luke's and we have an entire legal department 50% of their story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education. What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors or attorneys any questions about the case.... NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby." in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state. but they waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis. she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and then wonders why she turned septic. REALLY? was that a smart choice? read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. if you want to skip all the legaleze, go to the bottom: >> Texas law : (b) The prohibition [of abortion] under Subsection (a) does not apply if: (1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician (2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: (A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's death; or (B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female. (C) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function. >>>in Amanda's case this is the key to the whole law
*Females who are pregnant should be the ONLY people who decide what to do, are the only ones who decide over their own body, the law should make this available for those who want to use this.*
You do know that the people of Tx did not directly vote for the abortion bill.. it was passed by the Tx Republican senators, which are a majority of men.
@@marinagarza1803 - because her story is bogus. TX law allows for abortion if the mother's health is in danger. also she could have gone to a neighboring state where abortion is completely legal. she chose to not avail herself of either option. she also *chose* to not take her _prescribed antibiotic_ for *3 days* and that's why she developed sepsis. you have not been told the whole story.
siamese twins people defeat the devils philosophy about "my body, my choice" Master Source please have mercy on the fools that give support to the pro choice argument.
@@LunaBobbi - which part? the part Amanda wants you to believe? or the part they left out of this story? Let's look at the facts of this video: this was a miscarriage, This story is BS --- What they described is a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of the issue cloud your otherwise better discernment. They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ?? 50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education. What do the doctors have to say? they don't know because they didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case.... NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. _We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby_ " in the written article and court documents, Amanda & husband claim they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive *8 hours* to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but instead waited *3 days* at home _w/o using her prescribed antibiotics_ and developed sepsis. REALLY? was that a smart choice? now lets look at the law they cry over.... TX law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) *does not apply if:* (1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician; (2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: (A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's death; or (B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female. (c) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function. *[and the big one]* (d) _Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death of the unborn child does not constitute a violation of this section._ that last line there ........that's not so difficult to interpret that the hospital's lawyers and doctors would do what this article claims.
This is the only abortion i support, when the mothers life is on the line and the parents have to make a choice between having the baby or not. In this case I’m sorry for the loss of the baby and this woman almost dying.
You should make that decision for yourself, not for others. Isn't that what freedom is? Who has a right to see your medical records and why? Sounds more like China not the US.
I’m pro-life and for the right of the unborn child’s life to live with the exception of when the mother’s life is on the line and an abortion is necessary for her to survive if the decision is made for her to live instead. Or in this case the baby was unable to survive or make it unto birth.
You don't get it. People like you who don't support choice for ALL women is the reason women like her are put in that position in the first place. They have to be on the brink of death before doctors will even think about intervening because they're worried about the consequences for themselves. Imagine if you went to the doctor for an emergency and he refused to treat you until he got some lawmaker's permission first who had no medical knowledge whatsoever. THAT'S what you support.
@@user-uh1to6sc8f So who makes that decision? A doctor? A senator? You? Me? I think we should worry about the unborn when ALL live children are well taken care of in this country. Maybe your time would be better spent being a foster parent, a Big Brother or Sister, or something of that nature. Something that actually helps children. Politicians seem to have zero interest in children once they are born. My granddaughter was born during the formula shortage and my daughter was unable to breast feed. It was a frantic struggle every week to find enough formula to feed her. Had friends and family mailing (at great cost) formula from Texas and Ohio to feed this loved, wanted baby. A different formula every week is not good for infants, caused diarrhea, rashes, etc. Was anyone holding rallies to feed the babies? I didn't see any. This government sent billions of our tax dollars to the Ukraine to kill Russians. Living breathing humans killed with your tax dollars. Where is the morality there?
@@aaronwilliams6989 - , let's look at the facts of this video: this was a miscarriage, This story is BS --- What they described is a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of the issue cloud your otherwise better discernment. They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ?? 50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education. What do the doctors have to say? they don't know because they didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case.... NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. _We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby_ " in the written article and court documents, Amanda & husband claim they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive *8 hours* to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but instead waited *3 days* at home _w/o using her prescribed antibiotics_ and developed sepsis. REALLY? was that a smart choice? now lets look at the law they cry over.... TX law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) *does not apply if:* (1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician; (2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: (A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's death; or (B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female. (c) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function. *[and the big one]* (d) _Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death of the unborn child does not constitute a violation of this section._ that last line there ........that's not so difficult to interpret that the hospital's lawyers and doctors would do what this article claims.
@@michaelaclements1418 - what if the "man" is in total agreement and wants to kill the baby, too? oh, then he gets a pat on the back... the problem is amanda (the woman featured in this media story) is lying. read the documents file in the court case and you see she didn't tell the whole truth. this was a miscarriage, she had an incompetent cervix. she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and developed sepsis. that caused a spontaneous miscarriage. read the court transcripts. what she says to the media is not what actually happened. This whole story is BS --- What happened to amanda was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment. They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ?? 50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case.... NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby." in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross state the line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis. didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and wonders why she turned septic? REALLY? was that a smart choice? read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. Texas law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) does not apply if: (1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician; (2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: (A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's death; or (B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female. (c) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function. >>> key paragraph>>> (d) Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death of the unborn child does not constitute a violation of this section. that's not so difficult to interpret that the hospital's lawyers and doctors would do what this article claims. funny how when you read the actual law, you learn how the media lies.
@@Marie-vi6jg - he yawned because this whole story is a lie. it's propaganda. TX law allows for her to have the abortion in her condition. she chose to not do it. This whole story is BS --- What amanda had was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION. they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment. They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ?? nope. doctors aren't that dumb. also, they all have attorneys and so do hospitals. I work at St. Luke's and we have an entire legal department 50% of their story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education. What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors or attorneys any questions about the case.... NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby." in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state. but they waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis. she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and then wonders why she turned septic. REALLY? was that a smart choice? read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. if you want to skip all the legaleze, go to the bottom: >> Texas law : (b) The prohibition [of abortion] under Subsection (a) does not apply if: (1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician (2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: (A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's death; or (B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female. (C) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function. >>>in Amanda's case this is the key to the whole law
No matter what the incompetent cervix would have lead to the baby coming out and not surviving hence giving her what she wanted…. Incompetent cervix does not always mean getting sick. Somehow bacteria was introduced into her cervix making her sick which does not always occur. There are actually many many cases of women who can get through incompetent cervix provided that it’s caught in time to fix. I still don’t see this as a reason to abort a child. It’s going to die either way…
Incomplete cervix is something you made up. She should have been able to have a d and c. Dillitage and curretage D-N-C. I think it's cruel to make women deliver a dead fetus.
@@SUGAR_XYLER That’s what a mothers love will do. You’ll do anything for your baby. If you can’t comprehend that I’d recommend never having children because there will be many times of sacrifice on your body throughout their life.
@@sidali2590You are probably the same kind of person who also thinks teens and young adults still jumping in a empty bouncy castle sometimes is okay too
Says a little boy who will never know what it’s like to be in a situation like this where something is living off of his body for it’s survival and it’s killing him and he can’t get the necessary procedure that he needs done to not die.
@@michaelaclements1418 You leave on 2 table lamps with 2 different kind of bulbs. You wait to see which type of bulb burns out first after a while and how long it takes. Would you consider this example to be a scientific experiment ?
this was a miscarriage, This whole story is BS --- What they described is a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of the issue cloud your otherwise better discernment. They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ?? 50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education. What do the doctors have to say? they didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case.... NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby." in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive *8 hours* to cross state the line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but waited *3 days* at home _w/o using her prescribed antibiotics_ and developed sepsis. REALLY? smart choice? TX law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) does not apply if: (1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician; (2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: (A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's death; or (B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female. (c) A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function. -----------> (d) Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death of the unborn child *does not constitute a violation of this section*
These women have more courage than those lawmakers will ever have.
@LadieKatie Well it can be dangerous, rumor has it that particular fetus had conceal carry.
@LadieKatie
My favorite show is Killer Kids 😂
@LadieKatie I am quite sure that you are not a woman, and very certainly not a lady. All these women nearly died because they had to wait that the baby that they wanted and carried with love had died in their bodies and began to rot. Causing septic choc.
But, whatever gender you are, you are most certainly not a christian. Jesus would turn his face from you in deep disgust.
@LadieKatiescrew u go to hell anti choice
@LadieKatie It takes real guts to fight more for the feelings of guns more than the kids that are massacred by them in schools. It also takes real guts to defend murderous cops. It also takes real guts to label every woman who gets an abortion because she doesn’t want to or can’t donate her body parts for nine months a murderer when there’s been plenty of times in your life where someone else has died because you decided not to donate your body parts to save their life and therefore you’ve been a “murderer” as well.
This is literally stopping a doctor from doing what is in the best interest of the patient. What has happened to common sense?
Overridden by common decency
@@jimperkins6073If that's what you call common decency, I'd hate to see what you would call indecent.
There's a few neighbors I want to off because it's better for my son. I should be allowed right?
@@TradBarbie if you’re allowed to mandate pregnant people to donate blood and organs outside of their own will to save a life, everyone should be allowed to mandate you to donate blood and organs to save a life outside of your own will right? You’re supposedly all about saving all lives right? Or does your “pro-life” agenda only apply to saving the lives of fetuses? By the way, you haven’t stopped women from doing abortions, you’ve just stopped them from doing them safely. So, now not only are the fetuses still not surviving, neither are a lot of women.
@@no-barknoonan1335 Hopefully you have gotten rid of all the mirrors in your house.
How can the government ban anyone from getting healthcare to save their lives? What kind of a country is this?
Agreed💯
because amanda lied. what she described is not what actually happened.
@@donoimdono2702 Could you please explain further? I truly want to make sense of this.
@@EllieRose-pe7mu - This whole story is BS --- What amanda had was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION. they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda.
don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment.
They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ??
nope. doctors aren't that dumb. also, they all have attorneys and so do hospitals. I work at St. Luke's and we have an entire legal _department_
50% of their story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors or attorneys any questions about the case....
NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. _We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby."_
in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state. but they waited *3 days* at home _w/o using her prescribed antibiotics_ and then developed sepsis.
_she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics_ and then wonders why she turned septic. REALLY? was that a smart choice?
read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. if you want to skip all the legaleze, go to the bottom:
>> *Texas law* : (b) The prohibition [of abortion] under Subsection (a) *does not apply if:*
(1) _the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician_
(2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and
(3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner
would create:
(A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's
death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female.
(C) A physician may not take an action authorized under
Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection
(b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function.
>>>in Amanda's case this is the key to the whole law
This whole story is BS --- What amanda had was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION. they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda.
don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment.
They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ??
nope. doctors aren't that dumb. also, they all have attorneys and so do hospitals. I work at St. Luke's and we have an entire legal department
50% of their story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors or attorneys any questions about the case....
NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby."
in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state. but they waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis.
she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and then wonders why she turned septic. REALLY? was that a smart choice?
read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. if you want to skip all the legaleze, go to the bottom:
>> Texas law : (b) The prohibition [of abortion] under Subsection (a) does not apply if:
(1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician
(2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and
(3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner
would create:
(A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's
death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female.
(C) A physician may not take an action authorized under
Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection
(b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function.
>>>in Amanda's case this is the key to the whole law
So sorry this happened to her. That’s why I just got an endometrial ablation and got on the pill. If I can’t be safely pregnant in my state then I’m going to make sure I can’t get pregnant at all.
How was her life in danger . She would have gone one premature delivery
@@drstone3418she developed sepsis and was actively dying
They will deny your right to birth control just so you know. That is the next thing on the list. So your choice now, as a woman in a red state, is to stop having sex. Hope you aren't raped, and if you become pregnant, hope you don't have any medical emergencies. Because the doctors will let you die right along with the baby. I guess they consider that pro-life. I think it's more 'no-life' I wish you the best and sorry this has happened to you and so many women in the same boat as you
@@drstone3418why does it matter to you karen
@drstone3418 Because it takes great amount of time to determine sepsis and crucial time is lost in saving the mother's life.
How come these reporters never interview women who just want to abort for no medical or life threatening reasons ? Just cause they got pregnant ?
Because people wouldn’t feel sorry !
For these women I feel bad because they had no choice but to abort period
So sad
Anti-Abortion keep saying it's about saving unborn but what about the lives of the mothers.
Fact is all of these mothers got pregnant to HAVE a baby.
The mother's life was not in danger. She would have gone in premature labor anyway. And she would got gotten an infection the womb is supposed to be sterile
@@drstone3418that’s not what happened in this woman’s situation. The doctors could not do anything until she had sepsis and went into toxic shock which put her into the ICU for days. Her life was indeed at risk! It’s ridiculous anti abortion laws even exist as they are so broad that they obviously don’t take into account the wellbeing of the mother!
@@marinagarza1803 - nope. this was a miscarriage, she had an incompetent cervix. she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and developed sepsis. that caused a spontaneous miscarriage. read the court transcripts. what she says to the media is not what actually happened.
This whole story is BS --- What happened to amanda was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda.
don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment.
They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ??
50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case....
NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby."
in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross state the line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis.
didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and wonders why she turned septic? REALLY? was that a smart choice?
read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story.
Texas law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) does not apply if:
(1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the
abortion is a licensed physician;
(2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,
the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or
attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by,
caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at
risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and
(3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the
abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical
judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to
survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner
would create:
(A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's
death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function of the pregnant female.
(c) A physician may not take an action authorized under
Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced,
or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial
impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection
(b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage
in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial
impairment of a major bodily function.
>>> key paragraph>>> (d) Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a
licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional
injury or death of the unborn child does not constitute a violation
of this section.
that's not so difficult to interpret that the hospital's lawyers and doctors would do what this article claims.
funny how when you read the actual law, you learn how the media lies.
@@marinagarza1803 - actually what you claim is also not what happened. TX law allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. she went home and declined to take her prescribed antibiotic for 3 days and that's why she turned septic.
believing that the doctors and attorneys can't read the simple laws and don't know how to care for a pregnant woman is a bit naive, don't you think?
nope. the law permits abortions in cases where the mother's life or physical health is in danger. in fact it provides pretty wide latitude for a licensed physician to make his decisions.
it simply happens to be that Amanda is twisting the facts of her story to build a following for a political cause. texas law is clear and unambiguous. they just want it struck down.
This is totally injustice for women who needs to get abortion for a good reason. It’s not just about abortion just for the sake of aborting, this abortion ban is endangering women’s lives.
Actually it's the doctors endangering lives.
@aimeedoyle2448 - Roe v Wade was made for this. Women were dying because they couldn't get them and went to "after hours" non-medical people to get this done. Roe v Wade was saving women's lives.
nope. the law permits abortions in cases where the mother's life or physical health is in danger. in fact it provides pretty wide latitude for a licensed physician to make his decisions.
it simply happens to be that Amanda is twisting the facts of her story to build a following for a political cause. texas law is clear and unambiguous. they just want it struck down.
My friend DIED because of this!!!
I'm genuinely sorry 😔❤
I’m sorry for your loss 😢
Good.
You are probably the same kind of person who also thinks teens and young adults still jumping in a empty bouncy castle sometimes is okay too..
@@girloninternet1188 such a “pro-life” thing to say. You only care about if the fetuses are born while simultaneously not giving a f***k about the people living outside the womb. If you proclaim “pro-life” you would think you actually care about everyone’s life and and not just whether or not fetuses make it it to being birthed.
Amanda 💔 sending love... bans off our bodies!! Vote
Bring all this madness to an end , Repeal the 19th amendment
@@jimperkins6073 I'd love to see how that would turn out. Good luck. 🥴
@@jimperkins6073 says the little boy who will never know what it’s like to be pregnant and be mandated to donate his own blood and organs outside of his will to save the life of another and not be able to get any excuses as to why he doesn’t want donate his body.
@@michaelaclements1418 Be quiet migrant, you have no say in this matter
@@jimperkins6073 says a boy who will never know what it’s like to be pregnant. You think you have a say when you’ll never be pregnant ever?
I’m so sad about this and mad enough to spit nails about this situation!
We will speak in November, so that no one will have to go through this.
It's sad that there are so many clueless people out there that are denying these women's experiences.
If an intruder plants a seed in your garden without your permission, should you be allowed to remove it?
I am 💯% against Texas's abortion ban however I will say the reason none of the state's attorneys showed her any sympathy is because to do so could end up backfiring for them. And for them that wouldn't look good.
They obviously despise women. Women are their sworn enemy apparently. No other explanation for this makes sense.
You are probably the same kind of person who also thinks teens and young adults still jumping in a empty bouncy castle sometimes is okay too, ;,
It must be very traumatic for the live baby having it's limbs ripped out/off piece by piece, then (possibly) having it's skull crushed. She's right, it must be very traumatic. The poor babies. It's sad for the moms and dads having to live with that decision as well.
We just need to keep speaking up and out, no matter the consequences... Condolences to those who have and have dealt/ dealing with this incredible dehumanizing absolutely ignorant incompetent leadership. Lets not anyone forget what rights all of us women all across the globe, need and desperately deserve.🙏🏼💜
what rights were violated ? certainly not her right to get an abortion. she chose to *NOT* get an abortion. read the actual documents filed in court.
This whole story is BS --- What amanda had was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION. they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda.
don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment.
They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ??
nope. doctors aren't that dumb. also, they all have attorneys and so do hospitals. I work at St. Luke's and we have an entire legal department
50% of their story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors or attorneys any questions about the case....
NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby."
in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state. but they waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis.
she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and then wonders why she turned septic. REALLY? was that a smart choice?
read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. if you want to skip all the legaleze, go to the bottom:
>> Texas law : (b) The prohibition [of abortion] under Subsection (a) does not apply if:
(1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician
(2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and
(3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner
would create:
(A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's
death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female.
(C) A physician may not take an action authorized under
Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection
(b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function.
>>>in Amanda's case this is the key to the whole law
this is insanity, a dead mother CAN´T take care of a LIVING baby no mather how short or filld with suffering that baby´s life is what the hell😒.
a tiny town? who loves G-D who loves
*Females who are pregnant should be the ONLY people who decide what to do, are the only ones who decide over their own body, the law should make this available for those who want to use this.*
This is what thet voted for. Women outnumber men, you have the power to vote out the sexist republicans.
She was not in any danger. She would have gone in to premature labor anyway
@@drstone3418 you have no clue what you are talking about. Obviously you are not an OBGYN.. and you didn’t even listen to her story.
You do know that the people of Tx did not directly vote for the abortion bill.. it was passed by the Tx Republican senators, which are a majority of men.
I’m from Texas and most of those white women just do what men tell them
@@marinagarza1803 - because her story is bogus. TX law allows for abortion if the mother's health is in danger. also she could have gone to a neighboring state where abortion is completely legal. she chose to not avail herself of either option. she also *chose* to not take her _prescribed antibiotic_ for *3 days* and that's why she developed sepsis. you have not been told the whole story.
I’m voting TRUMP more now then EVER
Don’t worry lady! Abbott will find a way to get you, and your little dog too!
Good justice will always pursue the wicked
WTF ARE U TALKING ABOUT UNEDUCATED OPINION
You are probably the same kind of person who also thinks teens and young adults still jumping in a empty bouncy castle sometimes is okay too -.:
@@yellowyellowyellow7894 you are probably someone who makes ridiculous comparisons and can’t think for themself.
That’s super mature
siamese twins people defeat the devils philosophy about "my body, my choice" Master Source please have mercy on the fools that give support to the pro choice argument.
This is barbaric
@@LunaBobbi - which part? the part Amanda wants you to believe? or the part they left out of this story?
Let's look at the facts of this video: this was a miscarriage,
This story is BS --- What they described is a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of the issue cloud your otherwise better discernment.
They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ??
50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? they don't know because they didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case....
NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. _We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby_ "
in the written article and court documents, Amanda & husband claim they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive *8 hours* to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but instead waited *3 days* at home _w/o using her prescribed antibiotics_ and developed sepsis. REALLY? was that a smart choice?
now lets look at the law they cry over....
TX law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) *does not apply if:*
(1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the
abortion is a licensed physician;
(2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,
the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or
attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by,
caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at
risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and
(3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the
abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical
judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to
survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner
would create:
(A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's
death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function of the pregnant female.
(c) A physician may not take an action authorized under
Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced,
or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial
impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection
(b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage
in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial
impairment of a major bodily function.
*[and the big one]*
(d) _Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a
licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional
injury or death of the unborn child does not constitute a violation
of this section._
that last line there ........that's not so difficult to interpret that the hospital's lawyers and doctors would do what this article claims.
This is the only abortion i support, when the mothers life is on the line and the parents have to make a choice between having the baby or not. In this case I’m sorry for the loss of the baby and this woman almost dying.
You should make that decision for yourself, not for others. Isn't that what freedom is? Who has a right to see your medical records and why? Sounds more like China not the US.
Then you aren’t pro choice
I’m pro-life and for the right of the unborn child’s life to live with the exception of when the mother’s life is on the line and an abortion is necessary for her to survive if the decision is made for her to live instead. Or in this case the baby was unable to survive or make it unto birth.
You don't get it. People like you who don't support choice for ALL women is the reason women like her are put in that position in the first place. They have to be on the brink of death before doctors will even think about intervening because they're worried about the consequences for themselves. Imagine if you went to the doctor for an emergency and he refused to treat you until he got some lawmaker's permission first who had no medical knowledge whatsoever. THAT'S what you support.
@@user-uh1to6sc8f So who makes that decision? A doctor? A senator? You? Me? I think we should worry about the unborn when ALL live children are well taken care of in this country. Maybe your time would be better spent being a foster parent, a Big Brother or Sister, or something of that nature. Something that actually helps children. Politicians seem to have zero interest in children once they are born. My granddaughter was born during the formula shortage and my daughter was unable to breast feed. It was a frantic struggle every week to find enough formula to feed her. Had friends and family mailing (at great cost) formula from Texas and Ohio to feed this loved, wanted baby. A different formula every week is not good for infants, caused diarrhea, rashes, etc. Was anyone holding rallies to feed the babies? I didn't see any. This government sent billions of our tax dollars to the Ukraine to kill Russians. Living breathing humans killed with your tax dollars. Where is the morality there?
Some of those laws go so far women can end up sterile as well as dead . Pro life my tail.
which laws? name one.
@@aaronwilliams6989 - , let's look at the facts of this video: this was a miscarriage,
This story is BS --- What they described is a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of the issue cloud your otherwise better discernment.
They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ??
50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? they don't know because they didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case....
NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. _We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby_ "
in the written article and court documents, Amanda & husband claim they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive *8 hours* to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but instead waited *3 days* at home _w/o using her prescribed antibiotics_ and developed sepsis. REALLY? was that a smart choice?
now lets look at the law they cry over....
TX law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) *does not apply if:*
(1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the
abortion is a licensed physician;
(2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,
the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or
attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by,
caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at
risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and
(3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the
abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical
judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to
survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner
would create:
(A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's
death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function of the pregnant female.
(c) A physician may not take an action authorized under
Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced,
or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial
impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection
(b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage
in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial
impairment of a major bodily function.
*[and the big one]*
(d) _Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a
licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional
injury or death of the unborn child does not constitute a violation
of this section._
that last line there ........that's not so difficult to interpret that the hospital's lawyers and doctors would do what this article claims.
yawn
You have no empathy at all. What if it was your wife or daughter??? Don't claim to be with GOD about things you do not UNDERSTAND
@@Marie-vi6jg you’re absolutely correct. Men should never have a say in something like this.
Then go away to a different channel you little miserable bag of puke 😂
@@michaelaclements1418 - what if the "man" is in total agreement and wants to kill the baby, too?
oh, then he gets a pat on the back...
the problem is amanda (the woman featured in this media story) is lying. read the documents file in the court case and you see she didn't tell the whole truth.
this was a miscarriage, she had an incompetent cervix. she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and developed sepsis. that caused a spontaneous miscarriage. read the court transcripts. what she says to the media is not what actually happened.
This whole story is BS --- What happened to amanda was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda.
don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment.
They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ??
50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case....
NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby."
in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross state the line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis.
didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and wonders why she turned septic? REALLY? was that a smart choice?
read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story.
Texas law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) does not apply if:
(1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the
abortion is a licensed physician;
(2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,
the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or
attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by,
caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at
risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and
(3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the
abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical
judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to
survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner
would create:
(A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's
death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function of the pregnant female.
(c) A physician may not take an action authorized under
Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced,
or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial
impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection
(b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage
in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial
impairment of a major bodily function.
>>> key paragraph>>> (d) Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a
licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional
injury or death of the unborn child does not constitute a violation
of this section.
that's not so difficult to interpret that the hospital's lawyers and doctors would do what this article claims.
funny how when you read the actual law, you learn how the media lies.
@@Marie-vi6jg - he yawned because this whole story is a lie. it's propaganda. TX law allows for her to have the abortion in her condition. she chose to not do it.
This whole story is BS --- What amanda had was a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION. they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda.
don't let the emotional part of this issue cloud your otherwise better discernment.
They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ??
nope. doctors aren't that dumb. also, they all have attorneys and so do hospitals. I work at St. Luke's and we have an entire legal department
50% of their story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? notice the media didn't ask the doctors or attorneys any questions about the case....
NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby."
in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive 8 hours to cross the state line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state. but they waited 3 days at home w/o using her prescribed antibiotics and then developed sepsis.
she didn't take her prescribed antibiotics and then wonders why she turned septic. REALLY? was that a smart choice?
read the law and you'll know more than the media who wrote the story. if you want to skip all the legaleze, go to the bottom:
>> Texas law : (b) The prohibition [of abortion] under Subsection (a) does not apply if:
(1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician
(2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and
(3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner
would create:
(A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's
death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female.
(C) A physician may not take an action authorized under
Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection
(b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function.
>>>in Amanda's case this is the key to the whole law
No matter what the incompetent cervix would have lead to the baby coming out and not surviving hence giving her what she wanted….
Incompetent cervix does not always mean getting sick.
Somehow bacteria was introduced into her cervix making her sick which does not always occur. There are actually many many cases of women who can get through incompetent cervix provided that it’s caught in time to fix.
I still don’t see this as a reason to abort a child. It’s going to die either way…
@LadieKatie Exactly! And I’m so thankful you did all of that for your babies and thank you for sharing your experience so everyone else isn’t afraid.
Incomplete cervix is something you made up. She should have been able to have a d and c. Dillitage and curretage D-N-C. I think it's cruel to make women deliver a dead fetus.
@LadieKatie
I wouldn't dare put my body through that. Smh
@@SUGAR_XYLER That’s what a mothers love will do. You’ll do anything for your baby. If you can’t comprehend that I’d recommend never having children because there will be many times of sacrifice on your body throughout their life.
@@gabriellafaithmckenzie
Because you're not the baby that's suffering ‼️
God bless Texas
Goddamn Texas anti choice state
@@sidali2590You are probably the same kind of person who also thinks teens and young adults still jumping in a empty bouncy castle sometimes is okay too
Says a little boy who will never know what it’s like to be in a situation like this where something is living off of his body for it’s survival and it’s killing him and he can’t get the necessary procedure that he needs done to not die.
@@michaelaclements1418 You leave on 2 table lamps with 2 different kind of bulbs. You wait to see which type of bulb burns out first after a while and how long it takes.
Would you consider this example to be a scientific experiment ?
She is traumatized because of ridiculous laws !!!
You are probably the same kind of person who also thinks teens and young adults still jumping in a empty bouncy castle sometimes is okay too
this was a miscarriage,
This whole story is BS --- What they described is a miscarriage, NOT AN ABORTION and they are trying to conflate it as an abortion to forward an agenda. don't let the emotional part of the issue cloud your otherwise better discernment.
They claim the doctors told them, "Tough noogies. Our hands are tied because we can't read the law." ??
50% of the story wasn't told - Notice they have only the interpretation of 2 traumatized, biased, activist people with no legal or medical education.
What do the doctors have to say? they didn't ask the doctors any questions about the case....
NO doctor is going to send her home and say, "whoops! Maybe you'll live or maybe not. We don't know what to do with a pregnant woman or baby."
in the written article, the woman claims they reasoned that it would be too dangerous to drive *8 hours* to cross state the line to obtain a "legal" abortion in a neighboring state, but waited *3 days* at home _w/o using her prescribed antibiotics_ and developed sepsis. REALLY? smart choice?
TX law : (b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) does not apply if:
(1) the person performing, inducing, or attempting the
abortion is a licensed physician;
(2) in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,
the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or
attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by,
caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at
risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced;
and
(3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the
abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical
judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to
survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner
would create:
(A) a greater risk of the pregnant female's
death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
major bodily function of the pregnant female.
(c) A physician may not take an action authorized under
Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced,
or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial
impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection
(b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage
in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial
impairment of a major bodily function.
-----------> (d) Medical treatment provided to the pregnant female by a
licensed physician that results in the accidental or unintentional
injury or death of the unborn child *does not constitute a violation
of this section*
she wasn't traumatized. she's lying. read my post.
texas law allows for abortion in her conditions.