Hours before the ruling, a group representing the woman, whose fetus received a fatal diagnosis, said she was leaving Texas for an abortion.

Hours before the ruling, a group representing the woman, whose fetus received a fatal diagnosis, said she was leaving Texas for an abortion.

  • @[email protected]
    18•2 years ago

    Non-paywalled article from ABC

    "Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function,” the opinion read. “The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.”

    What a ridiculous acknowledgement in a decision that overturned a doctor’s judgment. Just appalling across the board.

    • @[email protected]
      11•2 years ago

      It’s not really an acknowledgement, it’s more of a threat. With how the ruling went, it’s implicit understanding that says “We honestly don’t care, don’t try because if you do, we’ll make sure you get the chair.” Doctors can’t do jack and I bet you that if this ruling is used as precedent, they are going to use to start justifying why people who need healthcare the most should just die…

      Huh, that sounds little familiar. Kind of like a life decider… no, that’s not quite it. I’m sure it will come to me later.

    • raccoona_nongrata
      4•2 years ago

      It’s so they can maintain the chilling effect of the catch-22. The doctor doesn’t want to make the call because they’re not in a position to parse such vague legal language that can’tjust be overruled by a malicious judge, but then the lawyers and judges are like “Oh, well I’m not a doctor, don’t ask me.”

      It’s bullshit, but it’s working exactly as intended.