Punish the harlot
The first commandment is: always punish the woman first.
The Texas Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a pregnant woman from obtaining an emergency abortion in a ruling issued late Friday.
The court froze a lower court’s ruling that would have allowed Kate Cox, who sued the state seeking a court-ordered abortion, to obtain the procedure. “Without regard to the merits, the Court administratively stays the district court’s December 7, 2023 order,” the order states.
The court noted the case would remain pending before them but did not include any timeline on when a full ruling might be issued. Cox is 20 weeks pregnant. Her unborn baby was diagnosed with a fatal genetic condition and she says complications in her pregnancy are putting her health at risk.
It’s sheer vindictive sadism to prevent a woman from aborting a doomed fetus. What is the point? The fetus is not going to grow up to donate to Republicans, so what is the point? Just abusing women, because they can. Her health doesn’t matter; only revenge against women matters.
The ruling came just hours after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton petitioned the high court to intervene in the case.
Paxton’s petition stemmed from a ruling on Thursday by a Texas judge who granted a 14-day temporary restraining order against the state’s abortion ban, so Cox could legally terminate her pregnancy.
…
In a letter to three hospitals in Houston where, according to the Texas Medical Board, Cox’s physician has privileges, Paxton wrote Cox has failed to demonstrate she has a “life-threatening” medical condition related to her pregnancy or that her symptoms place her “at risk of death” or major bodily harm.
The state attorney general also warned the hospitals Thursday’s ruling “will not insulate you, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability,” including first-degree felony prosecutions and civil penalties of at least $100,000 for each violation.
All for the sake of making women helpless victims of their own bodies.
My mother’s best friend, more like a sister (we called her Auntie) had four children pretty much the same ages as myself and my siblings, each born not long after us. I’m the eldest of the eight of us; however, she was pregnant before Mum was pregnant with me. My aunt’s first was stillborn, which is tragedy enough. But the baby actually died in her womb and she was forced to carry that little corpse for FOUR WEEKS until her body finally decided to end the pregnancy; and then she had to go through a full, heartbreaking labour.
That this could have been done to a woman in the nineteen fifties is horrible enough, but that a group of men in 2023 actually went to court to ensure a young woman would also have to go through this torture – knowing that the longer a pregnancy lasts, the more dangerous it is for the mother – is an act of cruelty beyond imagining.
tigger, a friend of mine had the same experience…in the late 1970s, nearly seen years after Roe v Wade. This was in Oklahoma, so probably shouldn’t be too surprised.
My mother was denied a tubal ligation in 1967, after court rulings established it as a right for married women (and she was married; it was her 5th child, too.) Why? Her doctor was Catholic. It was not a Catholic hospital, it was a Naval hospital, and they permitted the surgery, but he was the only OB/GYN there, so there was no second opinion. He wouldn’t give her birth control, either. Her 6th and final pregnancy almost killed her.
These damned men don’t care. My father cared; we cared. I cared about my friend. But the men who make the laws don’t give a flying fuck. They can do it, so they do.
The astonishingly ridiculous thing about this case is that Cox apparently very much wants to have a baby, but being forced to carry this pregnancy to term has significant risk of making future pregnancies impossible.
If we didn’t already know that these laws were simply about gratuitously punishing women, this situation makes it starkly clear. (Maybe some people who actually know about how the law works could comment on whether there are tactics behind this draconian stance – are the regulators worried that if they allow this case to “slip through” that might open the floodgates to further challenges that might cite it as precedent?)