WTF business is it of the government? They could probably pay for every needed abortion just by firing one patronage appointment.
5 women sue Texas over abortion ban, say it endangered their lives
Five women who said they were denied abortions even when pregnancy endangered their lives are suing Texas over its abortion ban.www.pbs.org
These women should NOT have to be going through this.
The doctor(s) involved should not have been scared to act.
Regardless of where one stands on abortion itself, there is no justification for any of this. Obviously this Texas law is endangering the lives of women, and Florida is looking to do something similar?
Roe v. Wade overturned?
- Thread starter Serryah
- Start date
The Texas Taliban did it fer Allah (thet thar's just Arabic fer "Gawd").
From what I understand from the Christian bible, Jee-zuss was a socialist. That would make all the believers extreme left.
Three Texas women sued for wrongful death after aiding in abortion
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Published Mar 10, 2023 • 2 minute read
AUSTIN, Texas — Three women in Texas are being sued for wrongful death by a man who claims they helped his now-ex-wife obtain medication for an abortion. It’s another test of state-enforced bans since the U.S. Supreme court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision.
In a lawsuit filed late Thursday in Galveston County, Marcus Silva alleges assisting in a self-administered abortion is tantamount to aiding a murder. Silva is seeking $1 million in damages.
The woman who took the medication in July – weeks after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion that had been in place since 1973 – is not named in the lawsuit. Texas law protects women who get an abortion from being held liable.
Abortion rights groups condemned the lawsuit, calling it an intimidation tactic.
“This is an outrageous attempt to scare people from getting abortion care and intimidate those who support their friends, family, and community in their time of need,” Autumn Katz, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Friday in a statement. “The extremists behind this lawsuit are twisting the law and judicial system to threaten and harass people seeking essential care and those who help them.”
Silva is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell – a former Texas solicitor general who helped create one of the state’s abortion bans – attorneys from conservative legal group Thomas More Society and state Rep. Briscoe Cain, a Houston-area Republican.
“Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion,” Cain said in a statement from the attorneys.
According to the lawsuit, the manufacturer of the pills will also be named as a defendant once it is identified in the discovery process.
The lawsuit claims it has text messages from among the women discussing how to obtain medication that could induce an abortion and how to aid the woman who was pregnant in planning to take the medication.
Lawsuits challenging abortion restrictions have arisen across the U.S. as clinics have shuttered in Republican-dominated states. Earlier this week in Texas – which has one of the strictest bans in the country, outlawing the procedure in nearly every case with the exception of medical emergencies – five women who said they were denied abortions even when pregnancy endangered their lives sued the state.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Published Mar 10, 2023 • 2 minute read
AUSTIN, Texas — Three women in Texas are being sued for wrongful death by a man who claims they helped his now-ex-wife obtain medication for an abortion. It’s another test of state-enforced bans since the U.S. Supreme court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision.
In a lawsuit filed late Thursday in Galveston County, Marcus Silva alleges assisting in a self-administered abortion is tantamount to aiding a murder. Silva is seeking $1 million in damages.
The woman who took the medication in July – weeks after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion that had been in place since 1973 – is not named in the lawsuit. Texas law protects women who get an abortion from being held liable.
Abortion rights groups condemned the lawsuit, calling it an intimidation tactic.
“This is an outrageous attempt to scare people from getting abortion care and intimidate those who support their friends, family, and community in their time of need,” Autumn Katz, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Friday in a statement. “The extremists behind this lawsuit are twisting the law and judicial system to threaten and harass people seeking essential care and those who help them.”
Silva is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell – a former Texas solicitor general who helped create one of the state’s abortion bans – attorneys from conservative legal group Thomas More Society and state Rep. Briscoe Cain, a Houston-area Republican.
“Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion,” Cain said in a statement from the attorneys.
According to the lawsuit, the manufacturer of the pills will also be named as a defendant once it is identified in the discovery process.
The lawsuit claims it has text messages from among the women discussing how to obtain medication that could induce an abortion and how to aid the woman who was pregnant in planning to take the medication.
Lawsuits challenging abortion restrictions have arisen across the U.S. as clinics have shuttered in Republican-dominated states. Earlier this week in Texas – which has one of the strictest bans in the country, outlawing the procedure in nearly every case with the exception of medical emergencies – five women who said they were denied abortions even when pregnancy endangered their lives sued the state.
Three Texas women sued for wrongful death after aiding in abortion
Three women in Texas are being sued for wrongful death by a man who claims they helped his now-ex-wife obtain medication for an abortion.
Three Texas women sued for wrongful death after aiding in abortion
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Published Mar 10, 2023 • 2 minute read
AUSTIN, Texas — Three women in Texas are being sued for wrongful death by a man who claims they helped his now-ex-wife obtain medication for an abortion. It’s another test of state-enforced bans since the U.S. Supreme court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision.
In a lawsuit filed late Thursday in Galveston County, Marcus Silva alleges assisting in a self-administered abortion is tantamount to aiding a murder. Silva is seeking $1 million in damages.
The woman who took the medication in July – weeks after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion that had been in place since 1973 – is not named in the lawsuit. Texas law protects women who get an abortion from being held liable.
Abortion rights groups condemned the lawsuit, calling it an intimidation tactic.
“This is an outrageous attempt to scare people from getting abortion care and intimidate those who support their friends, family, and community in their time of need,” Autumn Katz, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Friday in a statement. “The extremists behind this lawsuit are twisting the law and judicial system to threaten and harass people seeking essential care and those who help them.”
Silva is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell – a former Texas solicitor general who helped create one of the state’s abortion bans – attorneys from conservative legal group Thomas More Society and state Rep. Briscoe Cain, a Houston-area Republican.
“Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion,” Cain said in a statement from the attorneys.
According to the lawsuit, the manufacturer of the pills will also be named as a defendant once it is identified in the discovery process.
The lawsuit claims it has text messages from among the women discussing how to obtain medication that could induce an abortion and how to aid the woman who was pregnant in planning to take the medication.
Lawsuits challenging abortion restrictions have arisen across the U.S. as clinics have shuttered in Republican-dominated states. Earlier this week in Texas – which has one of the strictest bans in the country, outlawing the procedure in nearly every case with the exception of medical emergencies – five women who said they were denied abortions even when pregnancy endangered their lives sued the state.
Three Texas women sued for wrongful death after aiding in abortion
Three women in Texas are being sued for wrongful death by a man who claims they helped his now-ex-wife obtain medication for an abortion.
So, I'd have questions.
Was the marriage already on the rocks before the abortion?
Was the man abusive to his now ex wife, which is why she sought the abortion?
How did the man find out about these text messages?
Just because women talked about it, doesn't mean they 'helped' the ex do anything; or is Free speech not a thing?
There's more to this story, but it sounds... fishy.
Fire away.
Don't matter.
Don't matter.
There's no evidence there are any text messages.
Not in Texass
Yeah, it's called "cranking up the base." It's a good old-fashioned cross burning all gussied up the newspapers.
"Texas law protects women who get an abortion from being held liable."
That line was buried deep in the article but in reality should have been a subtitle.
That line was buried deep in the article but in reality should have been a subtitle.
His logic is like suing gun manufactures and sporting goods stores for someone getting shot by a criminal.Three Texas women sued for wrongful death after aiding in abortion
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Published Mar 10, 2023 • 2 minute read
AUSTIN, Texas — Three women in Texas are being sued for wrongful death by a man who claims they helped his now-ex-wife obtain medication for an abortion. It’s another test of state-enforced bans since the U.S. Supreme court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision.
In a lawsuit filed late Thursday in Galveston County, Marcus Silva alleges assisting in a self-administered abortion is tantamount to aiding a murder. Silva is seeking $1 million in damages.
The woman who took the medication in July – weeks after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion that had been in place since 1973 – is not named in the lawsuit. Texas law protects women who get an abortion from being held liable.
Abortion rights groups condemned the lawsuit, calling it an intimidation tactic.
“This is an outrageous attempt to scare people from getting abortion care and intimidate those who support their friends, family, and community in their time of need,” Autumn Katz, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Friday in a statement. “The extremists behind this lawsuit are twisting the law and judicial system to threaten and harass people seeking essential care and those who help them.”
Silva is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell – a former Texas solicitor general who helped create one of the state’s abortion bans – attorneys from conservative legal group Thomas More Society and state Rep. Briscoe Cain, a Houston-area Republican.
“Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion,” Cain said in a statement from the attorneys.
According to the lawsuit, the manufacturer of the pills will also be named as a defendant once it is identified in the discovery process.
The lawsuit claims it has text messages from among the women discussing how to obtain medication that could induce an abortion and how to aid the woman who was pregnant in planning to take the medication.
Lawsuits challenging abortion restrictions have arisen across the U.S. as clinics have shuttered in Republican-dominated states. Earlier this week in Texas – which has one of the strictest bans in the country, outlawing the procedure in nearly every case with the exception of medical emergencies – five women who said they were denied abortions even when pregnancy endangered their lives sued the state.
Three Texas women sued for wrongful death after aiding in abortion
Three women in Texas are being sued for wrongful death by a man who claims they helped his now-ex-wife obtain medication for an abortion.
Judge in abortion-pill lawsuit schedules hearing but delays announcing it
Author of the article:Washington Post
Washington Post
Perry Stein, Ann E. Marimow and Caroline Kitchener, The Washington Post
Published Mar 11, 2023 • 4 minute read
The Texas judge who could undo government approval of a key abortion drug has scheduled the first hearing in the case for Wednesday but took unusual steps to keep it from being publicized, according to people familiar with the plans.
The hearing will be an opportunity for lawyers for the Justice Department, the company that makes the drug and the conservative group that is challenging it to argue their positions before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. After they do, the judge could rule at any time.
Kacsmaryk scheduled the hearing during a call with attorneys Friday, said multiple people familiar with the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. Kacsmaryk said he would delay putting the hearing on the public docket until late Tuesday to try to minimize disruptions and possible protests, and asked the lawyers on the call not to share information about it before then, the people said.
Public access to federal court proceedings is a key principle of the American judicial system, and Kacsmaryk’s apparent delay in placing the hearing on the docket is highly unusual. The judge and his staff did not respond to emails requesting comment on Saturday evening.
The lawsuit seeks to revoke Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in a medication abortion. The case has garnered widespread attention and protests.
A decision by Kacsmaryk to suspend FDA approval of mifepristone would immediately prompt major changes in how many abortion clinics across the country provide care. Some are planning to immediately switch to a misoprostol-only protocol, while others are planning to offer only surgical abortions. Any decision would likely be appealed to the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and possibly to the Supreme Court.
Attorneys on the planning call with Kacsmaryk on Friday included representatives from the Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed the lawsuit; the Justice Department, which represents the FDA; and the drug company that makes mifepristone. Representatives for each declined to comment or did not immediately respond to requests for comment Saturday evening.
Kacsmaryk told the attorneys that he also wanted to delay publicizing the hearing because courthouse employees have received threats in the wake of the lawsuit, according to the people familiar with the call. Several people close to Kacsmaryk say the judge and his family have faced security threats since he ascended to the federal bench in 2019, and those threats have intensified ahead of the abortion pills ruling.
Before and after the Friday phone call with lawyers, The Washington Post repeatedly called and emailed Kacsmaryk’s chambers seeking information about it, but received no response. Kacsmaryk’s chambers also did not respond to a request that reporters be allowed to join the call.
Kacsmaryk was nominated by President Donald Trump and is known for his conservative views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.
By waiting to publicize the time of the hearing, Kacsmaryk and his staff could make it difficult for the public, the media and others to travel to the courthouse in Amarillo, Tex. The rural, deeply conservative city is far from major airports and at least a four-hour drive from any of the state’s major, heavily Democratic cities. Still, over 150 abortion rights advocates gathered there on a Saturday in mid-February to voice their support for abortion pills.
Alliance Defending Freedom filed the lawsuit in November on behalf of four antiabortion medical organizations and four doctors who say they have treated patients with mifepristone.
The FDA has repeatedly deemed the two-step medication abortion protocol to be safe and effective. But the lawsuit argues that the regulatory agency never should have approved mifepristone back in 2000, claiming the government purposely ignored what the plaintiffs contend are harmful side effects.
Leading organizations of physicians and other public health professionals have strongly disputed those allegations and have told Kacsmaryk that reversing FDA approval of mifepristone would “cause profound and irreparable harm to patients across the country.”
Medication abortions with mifepristone – which account for more than half of the abortions performed in the United States each year – have “an exceptionally low rate of complications,” according to their brief.
A patient first takes one mifepristone pill, which blocks the hormone progesterone, preventing a pregnancy from progressing. About 24 hours later, the patient typically takes a four-pill dose of misoprostol, a drug introduced in 1973 to treat stomach ulcers, to soften the cervix and prompt contractions that expel the embryo or fetus.
The two-step procedure is standard in the United States and is approved as safe for the first 10 weeks of gestation, which begins on the first day of a person’s last menstrual cycle. (The World Health Organization says medication abortion is safe in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.)
It is also possible to terminate a pregnancy using just misoprostol, a procedure that requires three doses of four pills each. While misoprostol is widely used on its own to perform abortions around the world, studies show it is less effective than the two-step regimen, and usually causes more cramping and bleeding.
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, eliminating a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy and triggering abortion bans in more than a dozen states, many antiabortion advocates have focused on trying to limit the availability of medication abortions, even in states where the procedure is legal.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Washington Post
Washington Post
Perry Stein, Ann E. Marimow and Caroline Kitchener, The Washington Post
Published Mar 11, 2023 • 4 minute read
The Texas judge who could undo government approval of a key abortion drug has scheduled the first hearing in the case for Wednesday but took unusual steps to keep it from being publicized, according to people familiar with the plans.
The hearing will be an opportunity for lawyers for the Justice Department, the company that makes the drug and the conservative group that is challenging it to argue their positions before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. After they do, the judge could rule at any time.
Kacsmaryk scheduled the hearing during a call with attorneys Friday, said multiple people familiar with the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. Kacsmaryk said he would delay putting the hearing on the public docket until late Tuesday to try to minimize disruptions and possible protests, and asked the lawyers on the call not to share information about it before then, the people said.
Public access to federal court proceedings is a key principle of the American judicial system, and Kacsmaryk’s apparent delay in placing the hearing on the docket is highly unusual. The judge and his staff did not respond to emails requesting comment on Saturday evening.
The lawsuit seeks to revoke Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in a medication abortion. The case has garnered widespread attention and protests.
A decision by Kacsmaryk to suspend FDA approval of mifepristone would immediately prompt major changes in how many abortion clinics across the country provide care. Some are planning to immediately switch to a misoprostol-only protocol, while others are planning to offer only surgical abortions. Any decision would likely be appealed to the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and possibly to the Supreme Court.
Attorneys on the planning call with Kacsmaryk on Friday included representatives from the Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed the lawsuit; the Justice Department, which represents the FDA; and the drug company that makes mifepristone. Representatives for each declined to comment or did not immediately respond to requests for comment Saturday evening.
Kacsmaryk told the attorneys that he also wanted to delay publicizing the hearing because courthouse employees have received threats in the wake of the lawsuit, according to the people familiar with the call. Several people close to Kacsmaryk say the judge and his family have faced security threats since he ascended to the federal bench in 2019, and those threats have intensified ahead of the abortion pills ruling.
Before and after the Friday phone call with lawyers, The Washington Post repeatedly called and emailed Kacsmaryk’s chambers seeking information about it, but received no response. Kacsmaryk’s chambers also did not respond to a request that reporters be allowed to join the call.
Kacsmaryk was nominated by President Donald Trump and is known for his conservative views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.
By waiting to publicize the time of the hearing, Kacsmaryk and his staff could make it difficult for the public, the media and others to travel to the courthouse in Amarillo, Tex. The rural, deeply conservative city is far from major airports and at least a four-hour drive from any of the state’s major, heavily Democratic cities. Still, over 150 abortion rights advocates gathered there on a Saturday in mid-February to voice their support for abortion pills.
Alliance Defending Freedom filed the lawsuit in November on behalf of four antiabortion medical organizations and four doctors who say they have treated patients with mifepristone.
The FDA has repeatedly deemed the two-step medication abortion protocol to be safe and effective. But the lawsuit argues that the regulatory agency never should have approved mifepristone back in 2000, claiming the government purposely ignored what the plaintiffs contend are harmful side effects.
Leading organizations of physicians and other public health professionals have strongly disputed those allegations and have told Kacsmaryk that reversing FDA approval of mifepristone would “cause profound and irreparable harm to patients across the country.”
Medication abortions with mifepristone – which account for more than half of the abortions performed in the United States each year – have “an exceptionally low rate of complications,” according to their brief.
A patient first takes one mifepristone pill, which blocks the hormone progesterone, preventing a pregnancy from progressing. About 24 hours later, the patient typically takes a four-pill dose of misoprostol, a drug introduced in 1973 to treat stomach ulcers, to soften the cervix and prompt contractions that expel the embryo or fetus.
The two-step procedure is standard in the United States and is approved as safe for the first 10 weeks of gestation, which begins on the first day of a person’s last menstrual cycle. (The World Health Organization says medication abortion is safe in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.)
It is also possible to terminate a pregnancy using just misoprostol, a procedure that requires three doses of four pills each. While misoprostol is widely used on its own to perform abortions around the world, studies show it is less effective than the two-step regimen, and usually causes more cramping and bleeding.
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, eliminating a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy and triggering abortion bans in more than a dozen states, many antiabortion advocates have focused on trying to limit the availability of medication abortions, even in states where the procedure is legal.
Judge in abortion-pill lawsuit schedules hearing but delays announcing it
The Texas judge who could undo government approval of a key abortion drug has scheduled the first hearing in the case for Wednesday but took unusual steps to…
Life is full of risks...
Obesity is associated with increased inflammation. Underlying inflammation is theorized as a contributor to preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) and subsequent preterm term birth.
Lose 30lbs if planning a pregnancy. That kid doesnt need to bury its mother at age 8.
Take responsibility.