Josseli Barnica grieved the news as she lay in a Houston hospital bed on Sept. 3, 2021: The sibling she’d dreamt of giving her daughter would not survive this pregnancy.

The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”

For 40 hours, the anguished 28-year-old mother prayed for doctors to help her get home to her daughter; all the while, her uterus remained exposed to bacteria.

Three days after she delivered, Barnica died of an infection.

    • dessimbelackis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Anti-choice is gaining more traction and is more accurate. Anti-choice or pro-death is more appropriate and logically consistent

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    10 hours ago

    A texas woman didn’t die, a texas woman was murdered by the state’s ignorant, bigoted, christo-fascist policy - abbott, patrick, cruz, gohmert, that cock eyed AG and the rest of them along with every complicit texas republican voter… they all have blood on their cowardly hands.

    • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Ok, and? What consequences are they going to face? How will their quality of life be diminished in any way?

      I’ll answer for you: none, because we, the little people, do not matter. Period.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      And if she didn’t get murdered, she could have been charged for murder for having a miscarriage.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Somewhat ironic username considering that’s exactly what every conservative is, smile and vote to fuck your buddy over. I’d be another on the not guilty

  • neomachino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 minutes ago

    I see stories like this a lot and can’t believe it. My wife was in a similar situation and had to get an emergency dnc, and still came close to dying from sepsis.

    The doctors were so on it, we waited in the ER for a while because they were packed but as soon as they took her blood and realized what was going on she was in surgery within the hour.

    Our son want even 2 at the time. If we were 30 minutes west she would’ve died. It’s absolutely fucking wild.

    How could anyone think this is right?

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      A fetus cannot survive at 17 weeks.

      Regardless, the State is intimidating doctors into not providing necessary healthcare.

      • Kaput@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        14 hours ago

        My bad, can’t count in weeks. I really meant to pretend to save an unviable baby to save the mother, but I guess that early would be pushing it. Those lawmakers really really suck ass.

    • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Read your own link.

      The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” if the abortion is not performed. “Substantial impairment of a major bodily function” is not defined in this chapter.

      So, the words say that they can help, but because they (very intentionally) made the definitions of ‘life threatening condition’ and ‘Substantial impairment of a major bodily function’ undefined, there is no legal way for a doctor to bring harm to a fetus with a heartbeat without exposing themselves to the draconian Texas penalty laws https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/civil-penalties

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        11 hours ago

        The physician believed that a medical emergency had taken place, and therefore it would have been legal. And would you rather face legal consequences, or watch someone die in front of you because you could help them but didn’t?

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      It’s designed to be legal minefield. If I were a doctor I certainly wouldn’t do one. I don’t want to go to prison or be accused of murder for saving somebody’s life. It’s not worth it.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Can you please tell me how this is a legal minefield:

        Sec. 171.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

        (3) “Medical emergency” means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

        Sec. 171.0124. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY. A physician may perform an abortion without obtaining informed consent under this subchapter in a medical emergency. A physician who performs an abortion in a medical emergency shall:

        (1) include in the patient’s medical records a statement signed by the physician certifying the nature of the medical emergency; and

        (2) not later than the 30th day after the date the abortion is performed, certify to the department the specific medical condition that constituted the emergency.

        You do know that medical errors happens, right? People die from them all the time. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of it.

        • henfredemars@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          What happens if they thought it was an emergency but other physicians might not agree, or after the fact when more information is available it turns out not to be?

          So what happens is you wait and wait until your patient is going to die without a doubt… because you have to be sure, thus putting their life at risk.

          Emergencies are often not so easy to characterize in the real world. Sometimes you have to make assumptions. Those assumptions aren’t always correct.

            • henfredemars@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 hours ago

              I don’t think that’s what it says. Why include the medical records in the statement if we are meant to rely on the doctor’s belief at the time based on the information that was available? Shouldn’t it be enough to trust the expert? It rather looks like making sure there’s documentation for possible criminal prosecution (for murder!) if they’re wrong.

              Sure, I can accept there’s a theory of exceptions, but I think it’s liable to scare away providers. However, I suppose I’m not a medical expert. I can point to the well lack of care situation as my example of this concern and the chilling effect the law has on providers doing their jobs.

              • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                11 hours ago

                I’m not a medical expert either, but I rely very heavily on physicians to remain alive. You and I both have a vested interest in our doctors treating us well. This looks like a tragic case of a medical error. This was, in 2018, the leading cause of death in America. It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination. Even given the requirement to document it, with over a dozen people saying it would have been correct, it seems like it would be a very simple matter to prove in before a judge that it was necessary. The law also seems more geared towards collecting anonymous statistics as well.

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Notice how that law is vague on the medical emergency aspects. When exactly is a women with an nonviable pregnancy a danger to the mother?

    • wjrii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The woman died of sepsis. It’s extremely likely when you have a dead or dying fetus hemorrhagically working its way out of a uterus, but until you have it, you don’t. By the time people realize what’s going on, it’s often too late.

      The law is disgusting because it is medically uninformed and constraining, and it assumes anyone considering abortion is just some gleefully slutty baby murderer.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 hours ago

        From the article:

        At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

        This would mean it was legal to perform an abortion. They should have known about this risk.

        • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Yes they should have but didn’t because of a vague law that does not lay out exactly when the mothers life is in danger. Does she have to be in pain? Conscious? Bleeding? Irregular heartbeat? Does the fetus have to viable? The law does not allow for interpretation so hospitals literally have to wait until the women is in cardiac arrest to act. So yes if this women was in any normal state with normal defined laws that don’t restrict how doctors decide what their patients need. So yes they should have acted but couldn’t.

        • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 hours ago

          I am trying to work on being less confrontational on here, but it really feels like you are being willfully obtuse. Playing devil’s advocate for you, it seems like you are struggling with the gap between the text of the law and the enforcement context of the law. In this case there is a very wide gap between the two.

          You aren’t going to change any minds here by arguing that the law technically allows abortions in this case. The issue is the enforcement and underlying context of the law.

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I think the text of the law is quite plain. It’s not a huge reach to imagine that this is yet another terrible instance of a medial error. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year because of them. If you want to talk about enforcement, then we have at least one case of a doctor having a lawsuit against him dismissed after he was accused of providing an abortion. Also, as of 2023, nobody had been arrested for providing an abortion.

            I appreciate you trying to see things from my perspective, but the facts of the case seem pretty clear to me. Arguing that this is because of the abortion law doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If the law says “you can shoot someone if they invade your home,” much the same as this law does, it’s not the legislators’ fault if I freeze up when my home is invaded and die. Medical error, either because of bad legal advice or a poor understanding of medicine, is more reasonable as an explanation.

            • orcrist@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              If the facts of the case are clear to you but they aren’t clear to doctors who actually live and work in the state, and are risking getting locked up for years or decades, and large hospitals that are part of gigantic corporations that have expensive lawyers working for them, maybe it’s because they know more than you, or maybe it’s because they are more worried about being cautious, because they know that the cops and the DAs down there are eager to arrest people.

              All of which is to say, we don’t even have to look at the text of the law, because people are telling us the actual effect of the law. You’re pounding the statute but the statute’s not the problem. The enforcement of the statute is the problem. So you can keep on pounding it, but your energies are misdirected.

              • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                If the law is being interpreted in court in such a way that the text of the law is being ignored for the sake of scoring more convictions, the state of Texas is begging to be smacked down for doing so. And that smackdown would be perfectly justified. The longer this obviously incorrect interpretation of the law goes unchallenged, the longer it will cause a chilling effect on the medical community that is truly trying to save lives. No, it is not easy to be the tip of the spear, but the state of Texas would owe them a great debt.

    • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” if the abortion is not performed.

      The problem is that legal jargon and medical jargon are very different animals. The legal is deliberately ambiguous, and the medical is hyper-specific… so doctors are left scratching their heads about things like “is the white blood cell count high enough for a lawyer to call this life threatening?” “Is the blood pressure low enough?” meanwhile the mother waits and dies.

      “During a medical emergency” or “life threatening” are copouts that don’t actually mean shit, and no doctor is going to risk going to prison to find out.

        • dgmib@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Any doctor that performs an abortion in Texas is risking a minimum $100,000 fine and permanently losing there license to practice medicine if lawyers, who are not medical professionals, decide it was medically necessary yet.

          As a result, doctors in TX have been advised by their lawyers not to perform abortions unless the mother is literally minutes away from death, because otherwise you can’t prove that it was medically necessary.

          In the case, the patient died of sepsis. Doctors couldn’t perform the abortion when she needed it because they couldn’t prove that it was medically necessary yet.

          They knew that not performing the abortion would put mom at a much high risk of dying later. But they couldn’t legally prove that risk exists because all pregnancies involve some degree of risk.

          If you want doctors to perform medical procedures when it’s medically necessary, you need doctors making that decision, not lawyers, not the state. That’s what Texas had before this law went into effect.

          It’s literally created a trolly problem, it’s now better for the doctors to let some women die so they can save more lives later.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Sure sure. Perfectly legal to do an abortion in Texas in a case of a medical emergency.

      And then the case gets reviewed by a board of religious zealots who believe unwanted pregnancies (and by extension, pregnancy related deaths) are part of their god’s divine plan. They determine if this was an abortion, or a murder. In Texas, a state where the only thing liberal is their application of the death penalty.

      Can you see why what the law says and what the law does can be very different?

      • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The definition of emergency is absurdly specific though. The corpse inside you can’t just be dead, it can’t just be decomposing, the fragments of putrefying corpse matter must be coursing through your blood at a sufficient concentration before anything can legally be done.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          If she dies, then it was an emergency and you should have saved her. Jail.

          If she doesn’t die, then it wasn’t an emergency and you shouldn’t have done the abortion. Jail.

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The hospital knew that they had to protect themselves against the jagoffs who prosecute people who provide women with healthcare.

      The law is what created this situation; if the doctors and hospital administration didn’t have to worry about the fascists in the State government, this never would have been an issue.

      Or do you just think the doctors didn’t perform the procedure because they didn’t feel like it?

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        56
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The law is perfectly clear in allowing this. I’m not going to guess why they didn’t do it, but your point is like arguing a cop watching a mass shooting happen right in front of him would be right to blame the law against excessive use of force if he chose not to kill the mass shooter even though there was an explicit clause saying it would have been permitted.

        • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          49
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          I’m not going to guess why they didn’t do it

          We all know why they didn’t do it, and your willful ignorance is telling.

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            12 hours ago

            I’m not comparing them in terms of moral status, I’m comparing them in terms of what they can and can’t do by law.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Hundreds of doctors and their lawyers disagree with you. Of course they could provide medical services, and see if local law enforcement decides to arrest them and lock them up. Or they could withhold medical services, because that’s what their lawyers say is a reasonable interpretation of the law.

          In other words, it doesn’t really matter what you or I think. It matters what doctors and their lawyers believe is likely to occur. And we know what that is, because they’re telling us out loud, and they’re showing us through their actions.

          Of course you’re entitled to interpret the law however you want to. I think many of us have done that over time, and sometimes we realize that we got it wrong, because we see that lawyers and courts don’t agree with us. Probably this is one of the times that you need to recognize what’s actually happening, and realize that your wishful thinking is just that. I’m sure many people would be happier if reality matched your thoughts, but it doesn’t.

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Can you please tell me how this is confusing:

            Sec. 171.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

            (3) “Medical emergency” means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

            Sec. 171.0124. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY. A physician may perform an abortion without obtaining informed consent under this subchapter in a medical emergency. A physician who performs an abortion in a medical emergency shall:

            (1) include in the patient’s medical records a statement signed by the physician certifying the nature of the medical emergency; and

            (2) not later than the 30th day after the date the abortion is performed, certify to the department the specific medical condition that constituted the emergency.

            You do know that medical errors happens, right? People die from them all the time. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of it.

            • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              12 hours ago

              It wasn’t a “medical error.”

              It was the State of Texas intimidating doctors into not performing life-saving healthcare.

              You can try to reframe it all you want, but this it the truth of the situation.

                • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  Yeah, they probably were just taking a long lunch instead of treating a patient.

                  Are you really asking how a law can be intimidating? That’s like… The reason we have laws, man.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              12 hours ago

              It’s confusing because Ken Paxton doesn’t actually care about the law. His goons will show up at your door and accuse you of violating the law whether you did the right thing or not.

              • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                12 hours ago

                That’s worth watching an innocent person die? Besides, how likely is it that “even though she was literally dying of the infection and the hospital knew it, that didn’t constitute a medical emergency” would hold up in court?

      • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I don’t give a flying fuck why they didn’t help her or what the law says.

        They’re monstrous torturers and murderers, regardless of their reasons or lack thereof.

        You don’t let someone suffer and die when you have the means to save them, regardless of the consequences, except possibly if those consequences would lead to greater suffering and death (trolley problem). Especially if you call yourself a doctor. (And no, the possibility of going to prison does not count as greater suffering and death, no matter how much of a sociopath you are).

        • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          It’s easy to sacrifice someone else to the system. I’m not saying it was the right thing to do, but if these doctors have to stop practicing medicine then more women will die.

          Point the blame at the right people.

          • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            but if these doctors have to stop practicing medicine then more women will die

            Whatever these so called doctors are practicing is the opposite of medicine.

            If they were to stop practicing it, at least they wouldn’t have the opportunity to torture and murder more victims, and maybe some real doctors would get their jobs and be able to help.

            There’s no excuse for collaborating with a fascist regime. The ones obeying the orders are just as guilty as the ones giving them.

            • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Do you really think OB/GYN are lining up to be doctors in Texas?

              Why are you not taking it into your own hands? You’ve not exhausted your own extralegal options, but you’re calling on others to do it.

              • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                I’m lucky enough to live in a relatively civilised country (comparatively at least; everything can be improved), not some fascist hellhole like the USA.

                Unlike the monsters who tortured and murdered this woman, however, I do use the opportunities and means I have to help people around me, but said people are lucky enough to not be anywhere near the USA.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” if the abortion is not performed.

      So, therein lies the problem.

      They couldn’t take action before her life was in danger even though they knew it would be. So they have to wait until it’s an “emergency” which is far more risky. And this woman died was a result.

      This law greatly increased the risk of the situation needlessly.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        12 hours ago

        She died, so that’s an emergency. If someone is having a stroke and somehow doesn’t die until three days later, that doesn’t make it any less an emergency.

        • dgmib@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Do you hear yourself?

          It was an emergency because she died?

          She died days after it was too late for an abortion to save her.

          If they performed the abortion when it would have saved her life, she wouldn’t have died, by your own logic it would’n’ve been an emergency.

          And you’d be here arguing that the doctor should lose his license for performing an abortion when it wasn’t an emergency.

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Yes. If someone is going to die soon after the problem is discovered, it’s an emergency. I don’t think this is a controversial claim. If someone gets hit by a car or has a stroke and has days to live, that doesn’t mean we hold off on providing healthcare so they survive the incident.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        11 hours ago

        [Can you point to which law before this happened prohibits abortions in cases of medical emergency?(https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/history-of-abortion-laws#s-lg-box-wrapper-34155545) Let’s go through the list:

        • The 1925 laws were found unconstitutional.
        • Roe v. Wade happened in 1973.
        • In 1992, the “viability” standard was introduced. This baby was clearly unviable.
        • The 1999 law is specific to minors, and the victim here wasn’t a minor.
        • The Woman’s Right to Know Act didn’t prohibit abortions.
        • The 2011 law stated that a sonogram must be performed. Because the baby was suffering from an irreversible medical condition, though, this wouldn’t apply.
        • The only part of the 2013 law that was upheld was the ban after 20 weeks “with some exceptions.” The rest were overtuned in 2016, and this event occurred before the 20th week.
        • The 2017 law was found unconstitutional in 2018, well before this happened.
        • The 2021 law went into effect on September 1, 2021. However, in Sec. 171.205, it states that the prohibition of abortions on a fetus with a detectable heartbeat “do[es] not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.” This was a medical emergency.
    • Fester@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      15 hours ago

      There’s always an acceptable number of deaths with the GOP. It’s just happens to be infinite when it comes to healthcare, pandemics, poverty, guns - basically anything that won’t result in punishing innocent brown people. In that case the number is extremely low.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Not only will they not care, they will dismiss it and joke about it. From the article (regarding a different woman who died from being denied life saving medical care):

      Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp called the reporting “fear mongering.” Former President Donald Trump has not weighed in — except to joke that his Fox News town hall on women’s issues would get “better ratings” than a press call where Thurman’s family spoke about their pain.

    • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      The hospital’s hands are tied by dystopian laws - this is what “pro life” looks like.

      These are becoming way more common the more we let this right wing evil shit sink in.

      • mostdubious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        they don’t mind killing you and your loved ones for their beliefs. what use is there in taking the high road with them? pacifists will lose this battle.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Right, I don’t disagree with you, but there is no legal ground on which to sue the hospital. They acted as they were legally required, the law will be on their side. I’d say go after the politicians involved for wrongful death, if it weren’t for qualified immunity.

          Honestly, I just hope anyone able and willing to leave such shithole states are able to do so, although that’s obviously much easier than done. Their leadership has clearly failed them and does not care about them. :(

      • blarth@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’m sorry but humans refusing to save the life of another human because of an obtuse law is unconscionable. They should have done what needed to be done and let the lawyers sort it out later.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      The hospital was following Texas law. Any doctor who helped her would have been arrested.

      • ArtificialLink@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 hours ago

        “I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug. I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.”

        • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Instead of blaming doctors for not martyring themselves for the Hippocratic oath, we should be putting the blame on the lawmakers that created this scenario to begin with.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Greg Abbott and Donald Trump should be sued for maliciously causing death.

  • RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Dear pro lifers. This is her blood. It’s on your hands now. It’s not the first blood that got spilled unnecessarily, and it won’t be the last. And it’s on your hands. YOU made this happen.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Republicans: “God’s will.”

    As long as there was no abortion, their view is she deserves it.

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Its funny how religious people love invoking their holy books to justify hatred and violence while ignoring the parts explicitly saying to not judge others and that human life is more valuable then any commandment from god (also the torah/old testament allows abortion in many cases). Its almost as if those “religious people” don’t care about religion and just want an excuse to hate.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Fuck your God.

      Well, actually there is no god, or gods, but you know, fuck your idea of what a God would be like

  • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Omfg I get it now… “All life is sacred” as in all life must feel the fearful embrace of God.

    I was gonna put a “/s” at the end, but I’m honestly not too sure anymore… Seems like that’s exactly what they want. Like what’s the point if not the cruelty?