Gilead States Of America

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.


Blue Crack Addict
Nov 30, 2002
Edge's beanie closet
I'm making a separate thread about this because this is outrageous, and it's not just about politics. This is about this woman's health and her health care, her future ability to have children, and an incredibly painful loss for her.

This is about equal rights for women and our rights to autonomy over our own bodies. Our right to not have mostly men determining that, and mostly arrogant clowns.

She did travel to another state to have the abortion.

Here is a partial list of the not-medically-trained people who made the medical determination that terminating Kate Cox’s 20-plus-week-old pregnancy would not fall under an approved exception to Texas’ three overlapping abortion bans. Not one of these people, mind you, knows anything about pregnancy, medicine, or Kate Cox’s life, they each just decided that because she did not suffer from “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,” she could not access an abortion, despite the fact that her fetus did receive, from a physician, a diagnosis incompatible with life. The list of people with the moral certainty and medical acumen to restrict this woman’s access to the health care that would in fact preserve her fertility are:

Ken Paxton, Texas’ nearly impeached attorney general, who appealed a lower court order granting Cox permission to terminate her pregnancy, which she had received following a diagnosis of trisomy 18, a genetic anomaly that virtually always results in miscarriage, stillbirth, or infant death, and frequently causes severe physical pain for the mother and may impair her efforts to bear future children. Add to the list Paxton’s crack team of lawyers who argue—as ace physicians—that Cox should just have had her abortion in Florida if she wants one so badly, then threatened to prosecute her physician and any hospital which aided Cox in Texas despite the existence of a court order specifically shielding them from prosecution.

All nine justices of the Texas Supreme Court, who unanimously determined on Monday in a nine-page opinion that while “no one disputes that Ms. Cox’s pregnancy has been extremely complicated,” the problem was that when Ms. Cox’s physician expressed a “good faith belief” that her condition met the legal standard for an exception, this was not a sufficient quantum of legal certainty upon which to predicate a medical judgment. While noting in their opinion that “a pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a life-saving abortion in Texas,” the great minds of the court determined that Ms. Cox could not receive a life-saving abortion in Texas without a court order.

Among those nine eminent medical experts, one must single out Justice John Devine, a radical Christian fundamentalist who has bragged of being arrested 37 times for protesting at abortion clinics. His election campaign included a video depicting his wife’s decision to continue a high-risk pregnancy (her seventh), which was said to likely end in the deaths of both mother and child. The mother lived. The child lived for an hour.

Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion in Dobbs in such a way as to arrogate vast sums of medical authority to himself, his colleagues, eminent historical medical experts such as Sir Matthew Hale (M.D. ostensibly received from Witch Burner College sometime in the 17th century), and amicus brief spider monkey Robert George. While it’s true that Alito neither knew nor cared about women’s medical needs in his Dobbs opinion, it’s also true that without the Dobbs opinion, the Texas Supreme Court and Ken Paxton wouldn’t be telling Katie Cox that she is, in effect, an ambulatory coffin for the duration of her pregnancy, because government was getting itself out of the abortion-regulation business.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who concurred in the Alito opinion in Dobbs that cared not a whit about any actual living human pregnant person, but nonetheless Kavanaugh managed to congratulate himself on the depth of his feeling, empathy, and perception in making the decision: “Amidst extraordinary controversy and challenges, all of [the justices who have historically grappled with abortion rights] have addressed the abortion issue in good faith after careful deliberation, and based on their sincere understandings of the Constitution and of precedent. I have endeavored to do the same.” Oh, good. No doubt Kate Cox is deeply grateful for his good-faith grappling with her nonviable, dangerous pregnancy.

Donald J. Trump, who ran for the 2016 presidency on the promise that women who terminate their pregnancies should receive “some form of punishment,” until he reneged on that and clarified that only their physicians should be punished. It was, after all, his three Supreme Court nominees—none of whom know anything about maternal health, trisomy 18, fetal viability, or really anything medical at all—who came together to decide that the right to an abortion, enshrined for 50 years in the lives of all the people who had no such rights at the founding of our country, was no longer a right, because Matthew Hale and Spider Monkey George believe this to be science. As a result of this science, Kate Cox decided she had to flee her home state so she might terminate her nonviable pregnancy.

So here we are. It’s 2023 and Texas has elected an all-Republican Supreme Court that is now asserting in a written opinion that the judiciary shouldn’t be deciding reproductive rights questions because such questions should be left to medical experts, at the exact same time that it is second-guessing a real, live medical expert and granting to itself the sole power to decide which acute medical conditions are life-threatening and which are just jolly good fun. It’s 2023, and Ken Paxton is accusing the pregnant mother of two children, who desperately wants more children, of being untruthful with the courts, while he terrorizes her physician and the hospitals at which she has admitting privileges. What is “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” if not the impairment of future childbirth? The only way Kate Cox can persuade a bunch of elected judges and lawyers (who have never met her and don’t care about her health or her reproductive future) that she should be allowed to end an excruciating, doomed pregnancy is by either: 1) dying; or 2) having a physician certify that she will die without treatment. And this macabre pretzel is what we are advised is definitionally “pro-life.”

The article continues even further if anyone wants to read it

The country’s war against Roe v. Wade has taken a complicated turn in the case of Brittany Watts, 33, a Warren, Ohio woman headed to grand jury on charges that she allegedly attempted to discard the remains of her baby.

Watts was handed a felony charge after the traumatizing events of Sept. 22, when she sat on the toilet at 22 weeks of pregnancy and felt the baby passing through, according to the Warren Police Department. Watts heard a “big splash,” a detective said in court last month. By the time police responded to her home, they said the fetus’ remains were stuck in the toilet.

Read more from WKBN News:

Forensic pathologist Dr. George Sterbenz testified an autopsy found no injury to the fetus, and that the unborn fetus had died before passing through the birth canal. He said Watts’ medical records showed she visited the hospital twice before the delivery.

“This fetus was going to be non-viable. It was going to be non-viable because she had premature ruptured membranes — her water had broken early — and the fetus was too young to be delivered,” Sterbenz said.

Watts is now out on $5,000 bond and facing a felony abuse-of-corpse charge, according to court records. She entered a not guilty plea. If convicted, she could face two years in prison.
FRANKFORT, Ky.AP — A pregnant woman in Kentucky who filed a lawsuit demanding the right to an abortion has learned her embryo no longer has cardiac activity, her attorneys said Tuesday.

The plaintiff’s attorneys signaled their intent to continue the challenge to Kentucky’s near-total abortion ban, but did not immediately comment on what effect the development would have on the lawsuit.

The complaint was filed last week in a state court in Louisville. The plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, was seeking class-action status to include other Kentuckians who are or will become pregnant and want to have an abortion. The suit filed last week said she was about eight weeks pregnant.

The complaint was filed last week in a state court in Louisville. The plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, was seeking class-action status to include other Kentuckians who are or will become pregnant and want to have an abortion. The suit filed last week said she was about eight weeks pregnant.

The flurry of individual women petitioning a court for permission for an abortion is the latest development since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year. The Kentucky case is similar to a legal battle taking place in Texas, where Kate Cox, a pregnant woman with a fatal condition, launched an unprecedented challenge against one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the U.S.

But unlike the Texas case, little is known about the Kentucky plaintiff. Her attorneys have insisted they would fiercely protect their client’s privacy, stressing that Jane Doe believes “everyone should have the right to make decisions privately and make decisions for their own families,” Amber Duke, executive director for the ACLU of Kentucky, said last week. Her legal team also declined to disclose whether Jane Doe still needed an abortion.

Instead, Jane Doe’s attorneys urged other women who are pregnant and seeking an abortion in the Bluegrass State to reach out if they are interested in joining the case. The lawsuit says Kentucky’s near-total abortion ban violates the plaintiff’s rights to privacy and self-determination under the state constitution.

The Supreme Court is reentering the abortion wars.

The justices announced Wednesday they will decide how patients can access a widely used abortion pill — placing the issue back in the political spotlight in the lead-up to the 2024 election that will decide control of Congress and the White House.

In an order, the high court said it will hear a case brought by a conservative group challenging recent policies expanding access to the drug mifepristone. Those policies, issued in recent years by the FDA, have allowed the pills to be prescribed online, mailed to patients and dispensed at brick-and-mortar pharmacies.

The court turned down a broader challenge by the same group targeting the decades-old approval of the drug for use in abortions — a case that could have effectively banned the pills nationwide.

The justices will likely hear arguments in the spring and issue a decision by the end of June. Under an earlier order from the high court, current access to the medication will remain in place until the final ruling.

The outcome could affect health care for millions — even those in states that protect abortion rights — because the abortion pill is the most common method of terminating a pregnancy.

The abortion pill case is the Supreme Court’s first significant return to the abortion issue since it overturned Roe v. Wade — the landmark precedent that guaranteed a federal constitutional right to abortion for nearly a half century.

The future of abortion rights in Arizona is now in the hands of the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments Tuesday over whether a Civil War-era law banning almost all abortions supersedes current law.

The case is not about whether there is a right to an abortion in the state, but rather how the court should interpret conflicting statutes.

Currently, abortion is banned in Arizona after 15 weeks under a law signed by then-Gov. Doug Ducey (R) in 2022 and enforced after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The law contains exceptions for medical emergencies, but not for rape or incest.

But a separate law that’s been on the books since 1864—before Arizona was even a state and when it was still a territory—bans abortions in almost every circumstance. The law makes abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who performs or helps a woman obtain one. It includes a narrow exception to save a woman’s life.

If that law is upheld, Arizona will have one of the strictest abortion bans in the country
agreed this is outrageous.

if the state of TX plans to force women to carry to term babies who will suffer and die all so they can feel righteous, then the state of TX needs to be willing to pay for every dollar of medical care and funeral expenses and counseling for the trauma they will be inflicting on Kate Cox, her husband, and especially their children.
My wife manages a Planned Parenthood clinic and let me tell you, the amount of bs protesting she has to listen to every day is ridiculous, but it also pumps her up to continue to provide proper care to women in our city.
Sorry, I haven't been on it n a while, and missed this!

TY for a separate thread, Mrs Springsteen.

It is like Gilead for women in these States. Especially women who can't afford to go elsewhere.

While I don't have worry about this issue for myself...
It is hedious, henuous, and horrific to deny women choice on when, or whether to have a child/children. To deny women full personhood!

How many more women, and the people who love them will suffer till we (women) get full first class citizenship?!

I think they've done quite an amazing job w The Handmaid's Tale! Oh, yeah, it's hard to watch. Probably couldn't if it hadn't been crafted so well.
Waiting on ?Season 6!
Everyone, even if you think he's OLD or NOT LIBERAL enough better vote BIDEN or WE ARE FUCKED.

Guns have more rights than women.
Freaking moron. Not enough words for the anger and resentment that people/clueless misogynistic idiots like him are controlling the medical decisions and life decisions and bodies of women. And I include in that the women in power who are doing that too.

Washington Post

More than 80,000 women get an abortion in Florida in a typical year — accounting for about 1 in 12 abortions in the country.
Now, most of those women will need to find somewhere else to go.

With the Florida Supreme Court’s decision Monday night upholding an existing 15-week ban and allowing a strict new six-week ban to take effect in 30 days, the court has cut off nearly all abortion access across the South, where all other states have either implemented similar bans or outlawed abortion entirely since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

The new law will affect more women seeking abortions in the first trimester than any other single abortion ban to date, upending an already precarious new landscape for abortion access that has developed in the wake of the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Top Bottom