Torture: Abortion law requires woman to carry fetus with fatal anomaly

'Torture': Abortion law means woman has to continue pregnancy despite fatal anomaly

Kylie Beaton was looking forward to having her second child later this year. Now, she's faced with carrying an unviable pregnancy to its end due to Texas' highly restrictive abortion ban.

According to a report from her doctor, Beaton's baby has a rare, severe condition impacting the development of its brain, but she is unable to access abortion care in her home state.

"To have a woman go through so much torture along the way that's going to stay with them forever," Beaton told ABC News. "Whatever the case may be, you have to look at things from a different perspective."

Texas has several abortion bans in place that prohibit nearly all abortions, except when a mother's life is at risk or there is a risk of serious bodily harm. The state has civil and criminal penalties for performing banned abortions.

Beaton, who has a 4-year-old daughter with her husband, Seth, said the couple had been actively trying to get pregnant when they conceived the unviable pregnancy. Seth had been hospitalized with COVID pneumonia in June 2021. When he was finally released six months later, the couple started trying to have a baby right away, Beaton said. Beaton has polycystic ovary syndrome, which can make it harder for women to get pregnant, so it was all the more joyful when she learned their efforts were successful.

"I was really excited when we found that it was a boy, but that was short-lived," Seth Beaton told ABC News. "Right now, I'm just terrified for my wife. She's the strongest person I know and she's just helpless right now. And it's not fair for her and other women. And we have a daughter, I couldn't imagine my daughter ever having to go through this."

At her 20-week ultrasound appointment, Beaton said her physician discovered the fetus had a rare, severe anomaly -- called alobar holoprosencephaly -- in which the fetus's brain does not develop into two hemispheres as it normally would, and the major structures of the brain remain fused in the middle.

The brain splitting into two hemispheres is a "critical stage in the development" and can impact the development of the nose, mouth and throat, Dr. Katie McHugh, an Indiana OB-GYN and abortion provider, told ABC News. The condition results in a very painful life and death for the fetus, McHugh said.

"Often times we will offer, if not recommend, pregnancy termination," McHugh said.

The anomaly occurs in about 1 in 250 fetuses, but in just 1 in 16,000 live births, according to the Cleveland Clinic. In her seven years practicing as a maternal fetal medicine specialist, Dr. Carrie Rouse, an OB-GYN and maternal fetal medicine specialist at Indiana University Health, said she has only come across five cases. Beaton's 28-week ultrasound shows the severity of her baby's anomaly.

"The inside appears very empty," said Rouse, who is not treating Beaton, but looked at her ultrasound. "The normal brain structures that we would see, that should have formed and then separated in the midline, are not there where they normally would be. This is a very concerning ultrasound."

Beaton said her physicians told her the baby could survive out of the womb for a couple of weeks, at most, in the event that the pregnancy ends in a live birth. Rouse agreed with this assessment, pointing to what she said is a lack of development of normal brain tissue and empty fluid filling the head.

"This anomaly is typically lethal for most infants within days to weeks," Rouse said. "Outliers are only able to survive with significant amount of invasive procedures and interventions."

Babies with this condition never reach developmental milestones, meaning they won't have any intentional interactions like smiling, and often can't see, have severe seizures and hormonal abnormalities, according to Rouse. Very few outliers are able to survive up to a year and the level of intervention needed for babies with this condition to survive is extremely high; they often need mechanical ventilation or a life support machine, multiple medications and repeated lab draws, Rouse said.

"They live to a year with basically heroic measures," Rouse said.

Beaton said her physician referred her to a specialist a week after her diagnosis. However, she said the specialist confirmed that due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and Texas' "trigger" law effectively outlawing nearly all abortions, the physicians' hands were tied. She said the specialist told her he could not do anything to end the pregnancy unless Beaton developed a severe health issue or if the fetus dies in the womb.

Anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life has routinely argued that fetuses should be "honored and protected in law no matter how long or short their lives may be," according to a statement earlier this month.

Representatives for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton and state Sen. Bryan Hughes, who authored one of the state's abortion bans, did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment about Beaton's situation.

Beaton said she wanted to have a vaginal delivery, feeling like a scar from a cesarean section would be a constant reminder of what she had lost. A C-section also means that the couple would be advised to wait 12 to 18 months before trying to get pregnant again, the typical time physicians recommend women wait so their uterus can recover from surgery, according to the Center for Advanced Reproductive Medicine and Fertility.

"With this condition, in particular, because the head, the fetal head, develops at a different rate, often because of fluid collections, most of the time vaginal delivery is not an option. And so cesarean delivery is required," McHugh said. "And this is going to be major abdominal surgery, with risks associated with it -- for a baby that has maybe no chance of a normal life or potentially of survival at all, depending on the severity."

Unable to get care in Texas, Beaton said she booked an appointment to get an abortion at a clinic in New Mexico in February.

But, she said when she went in for an ultrasound days before her appointment, she was told her baby's head had grown too big and she could no longer get the procedure. The facility's cutoff for abortions is 23 weeks and six days she said and the fetus's head was already measuring at what it typically would at over 23 weeks of pregnancy.

"From there, we were pretty let down," Kylie Beaton said.

She said she was referred to a clinic in Colorado that provides later-term abortion care, but that facility told them it would cost between $10,000 to $15,000 for the procedure, which was financially out of question, Beaton said. The New Mexico clinic would have provided the same procedure for $3,500, Kylie Beaton said. Neither estimate includes the cost of travel and accommodation.

Since then, the fetus's head has continually increased in size, filling with fluid, she said. At her appointment on Monday, when she was 28 weeks pregnant, the fetus's head size was measuring at what it typically would be at 39 weeks, a full-term pregnancy, the ultrasound showed.

"On that ultrasound, the head is measuring significantly larger than it should be. It's measuring about 10 weeks further along than she actually is, which is very concerning," Rouse, the Indiana Health System OB-GYN, said.

Rouse said Beaton's C-section could be more complicated and risky as her pregnancy continues.

"You worry about ongoing growth of the fetal head of causing more complications at the time of delivery, like hemorrhage, needing a blood transfusion, needing to use a larger incision on her abdomen in order to to remove the infant, needing to use a larger and different incision on the uterus in order to remove the infant," Rouse said. "There's a risk of possibly uterine rupture just because of the stretch on the uterus. All of these things would make me pretty worried."

"For a condition for which we expect the baby to pass away soon after birth, that baby is going to pass away because of the alobar holoprosencephaly, whether they are born at 39 weeks or earlier," Rouse added.

Beaton said her physicians in Texas contacted other doctors in the state, hoping they had heard of an alternative regarding the state's laws that would permit them to induce her labor since the baby's head was at full term. Ultimately, Beaton said, doctors determined the size of the baby's head was not a good enough reason to induce labor because her health is still not at risk.

"And if the state were to find out, they would most likely press charges," Kylie Beaton said.

Texas' anti-abortion law makes it a second-degree felony for any attempt by a medical professional to perform, induce or attempt an abortion, and a first-degree felony if the abortion is carried out.

"My specialist and my OB both had said I had to go essentially full term to at least 37 weeks unless something happens to either the baby or I, then they could induce," Kylie Beaton said.

The couple said the law has left them feeling helpless and frustrated over not being able to make a humane decision for their baby.

"I mean, for them to say, 'Well, you need to wait until you're in a health crisis, a health issue to where your life's in jeopardy, then that's when we can take it.' Well, then why do we have doctors?" Kylie Beaton said.

"Why are we taking medications for things like high blood pressure? Why don't you wait until you have a heart attack? Or until you have, you know, the signs that you're having a stroke to be on medication? All those things? It's kind of the same way, if you look at it from our perspective," she added.

Before this pregnancy, Beaton said she never would have considered getting an abortion. Now, she believes abortions should be allowed in cases like hers and for women with other health conditions to get the care they need.

"I'm personally not for it being a way of birth control. I do believe that there are certain instances where I deem that it is necessary," she said. "Never in a million years would I expect or believe that we will be going through what we're going through now."

So, go to another state. Or whine publicly to make a political statement. It's a choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
So, go to another state.

Why should a woman in that situation be required to? Oh, and there are legislative efforts underway to make going to another state to get an abortion illegal too.

People cannot just move. Go where? Oklahoma?

Going to NY is not an option to get necessary medical care.

Assume, your wife or daughter was bleeding profusely. These are young married couples w limited income. That should not matter.

No more then going to Texas should be necessary to exercise 2nd Amendment Rights.

These far right State are moving to make going to other state illegal. I have listed sources for that bf.

This is the consequence, among other things, of the Organized Evangelical Right’s advocacy. It is worse than what we had with Plan Parenthood v Casey.

This case is where the pro life folks go way too far.

But again, you seem to conflate issues. If the woman is bleeding profusely, then her life is in danger and it is not against TX law to proceed with life saving care.

Lots of folks are trying to use scare tactics about this like claiming L&D departments closing when it’s really a lack of staffing and money…

Or claiming that care can’t be given because they are afraid of a prosecution.

I’m not in favor of total bans because of this situation documented above, but the leftists need to understand the abortion on demand stance they took and allowed orgs like planned parenthood to do like 3rd trimester abortions for pretty flimsy ground are the cause of this overreach.

I think you two would agree trying to write a law that covers nuances is difficult, and no matter what you do, one of either side’s fringe lawyers will try and get rid of it.

How many times have there been postings of the consequences of this TX law now, all of which were somewhat misrepresented? Now you have a pretty clear cut case where common sense is violated by the Texas law.

This one should get some attention from the legislature, if not the courts.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
People cannot just move. Go where? Oklahoma?

Going to NY is not an option to get necessary medical care.

Assume, your wife or daughter was bleeding profusely. These are young married couples w limited income. That should not matter.

No more then going to Texas should be necessary to exercise 2nd Amendment Rights.

These far right State are moving to make going to other state illegal. I have listed sources for that bf.

This is the consequence, among other things, of the Organized Evangelical Right’s advocacy. It is worse than what we had with Plan Parenthood v Casey.

These women have sued in Court. I have been telling you guys about this for 3 weeks.

Now, since the S. Ct. has de federalized abortion, I doubt the suit to interpret the law will be successful; even if the allegations are true.

This is why Plan Parenthood v Case structure which allowed states to regulate abortion and abolish it at viability was so more appropriate.

The fact is she was bleeding profusely and sent home to bleed.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
So, go to another state. Or whine publicly to make a political statement. It's a choice.

Show some thoughtfulness and compassion. Or, be a dick. It's a choice.

Religion gone amok!

American version of the Taliban!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Religion gone amok!

American version of the Taliban!

Yep. Conservative religious busy-bodies sticking their self-righteous noses into other folks' business.

quote:

when it’s really a lack of staffing and money…

and do not forget-
the liability, and malpractice lawsuits that have and will continue to drive facilities
(and physicians) away from obstetrics and emergency care of obsterics.

(ie, not having OB/Gyn physicans on staff and not having OB/GYN units in the facilities)

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

when it’s really a lack of staffing and money…

and do not forget-
the liability, and malpractice lawsuits that have and will continue to drive facilities
(and physicians) away from obstetrics and emergency care of obsterics.

(ie, not having OB/Gyn physicans on staff and not having OB/GYN units in the facilities)

Utterly uninformed statement regarding the state of the law in Texas.

ER doctors are pretty much completely insulated from any liability in relation to care and treatment that happens in an ER in Texas unless it was grossly negligent, i.e. Willfull and wanton.

>>>The Texas legislature in 2007 amended the laws that deal with medical malpractice cases. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 74.151, entitled Liability For Emergency Care, now states that a person who in good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed during the emergency unless the act is wilfully or wantonly negligent. The legislature has raised the level of proof required to file a lawsuit to the highest possible degree of negligence: Wilfull or wanton negligence, which means the “medical error” must have been intentional. That’s right. To hold the emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff accountable for any serious injury or death, you must be able to show that the treatment or lack of treatment by emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff totally disregarded or was totally indifferent to the known consequences which the patient suffered. It requires proof of actual or deliberate intention to harm the patient, or at a minimum an absolute and complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the patient’s safety. That standard is insurmountable, and it slams shut the courthouse door on the innocent victims.<<<<

There is no liability for an ER physician in the state of Texas unless he basically intended the harm or showed up drunk in the ER.

OB/GYN liability law is not much more favorable.

If an ER doc kills your loved one because he/she was negligent, you have no remedy.

I've never figured out why such laws don't violate the US Constitutional right to trial by jury, to the extent it existed at common law.

Common law has long held a negligent party liable for damages they cause to the injured party.

There must be some flaw in my legal reasoning, something I've overlooked.

The Short Answer is the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Right to Jury as found in the Bill of Rights to extend beyond criminal matters.

State Constitutions and State Bill of Rights may, might, confer such a right in civil cases.

Here is a decent primer on when the 7th may trigger jury right.
https://crsreports.congress.go...uct/pdf/LSB/LSB10884

The 7th Amendment is currently only partially incorporated. The focus being on if the suit existed at Common Law when the Amendment was ratified. The analytical focus is not on what suits the state permits in the present.

I doubt many states allowed Med Mal Practice suits in the early 1800s.

I know in KY such actions were created by statute much later than the Federal 7th Amendment being ratified.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

when it’s really a lack of staffing and money…

and do not forget-
the liability, and malpractice lawsuits that have and will continue to drive facilities
(and physicians) away from obstetrics and emergency care of obsterics.

(ie, not having OB/Gyn physicans on staff and not having OB/GYN units in the facilities)

Utterly uninformed statement regarding the state of the law in Texas.

ER doctors are pretty much completely insulated from any liability in relation to care and treatment that happens in an ER in Texas unless it was grossly negligent, i.e. Willfull and wanton.

>>>The Texas legislature in 2007 amended the laws that deal with medical malpractice cases. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 74.151, entitled Liability For Emergency Care, now states that a person who in good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed during the emergency unless the act is wilfully or wantonly negligent. The legislature has raised the level of proof required to file a lawsuit to the highest possible degree of negligence: Wilfull or wanton negligence, which means the “medical error” must have been intentional. That’s right. To hold the emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff accountable for any serious injury or death, you must be able to show that the treatment or lack of treatment by emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff totally disregarded or was totally indifferent to the known consequences which the patient suffered. It requires proof of actual or deliberate intention to harm the patient, or at a minimum an absolute and complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the patient’s safety. That standard is insurmountable, and it slams shut the courthouse door on the innocent victims.<<<<

There is no liability for an ER physician in the state of Texas unless he basically intended the harm or showed up drunk in the ER.

OB/GYN liability law is not much more favorable.

If an ER doc kills your loved one because he/she was negligent, you have no remedy.

Typical-
another lying (please , excuse the redundancy) POS attorney -

The 2007 law has not allowed negligent “ER doc”’s from being quite successfully sued and or sanctioned -
PERIOD.

That term ,nor inference,however was not contained in ANY manner whatsoever in the quoted statement.


I realize of course,
reading comprehension for you is a true problem,
and particularly from your biased position, it is beyond difficult,
actually, nigh on impossible.

However, in a second
( and I am painfully aware it will be in vain)
attempt to clarify-

the statement was about facilities no longer having OB/GYN coverage or departments.

“Er doc” was not found anywhere in the statement.

Besides ,
you appear advocating that in your esteemed medical opinion
that “ER docs” should be performing emergency D&C‘s
or even more complicated “emergency abortions”
since they have NO liability, as you state.
Rather than having a properly Gynecologicaly trained surgeon perform these procedures.

Please, continue.
I can hardly wait to see your next erudite contribution.

Does anyone actually understands politics in America?

Some religious freaks impose their will on others.

Some try to over turn the results of what s supposed to be "free" voting elections?

Some are appointing blacks to decide how much blacks get from white people who have never done them any wrong.

What an untterly fucked up society!

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

when it’s really a lack of staffing and money…

and do not forget-
the liability, and malpractice lawsuits that have and will continue to drive facilities
(and physicians) away from obstetrics and emergency care of obsterics.

(ie, not having OB/Gyn physicans on staff and not having OB/GYN units in the facilities)

Utterly uninformed statement regarding the state of the law in Texas.

ER doctors are pretty much completely insulated from any liability in relation to care and treatment that happens in an ER in Texas unless it was grossly negligent, i.e. Willfull and wanton.

>>>The Texas legislature in 2007 amended the laws that deal with medical malpractice cases. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 74.151, entitled Liability For Emergency Care, now states that a person who in good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed during the emergency unless the act is wilfully or wantonly negligent. The legislature has raised the level of proof required to file a lawsuit to the highest possible degree of negligence: Wilfull or wanton negligence, which means the “medical error” must have been intentional. That’s right. To hold the emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff accountable for any serious injury or death, you must be able to show that the treatment or lack of treatment by emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff totally disregarded or was totally indifferent to the known consequences which the patient suffered. It requires proof of actual or deliberate intention to harm the patient, or at a minimum an absolute and complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the patient’s safety. That standard is insurmountable, and it slams shut the courthouse door on the innocent victims.<<<<

There is no liability for an ER physician in the state of Texas unless he basically intended the harm or showed up drunk in the ER.

OB/GYN liability law is not much more favorable.

If an ER doc kills your loved one because he/she was negligent, you have no remedy.

Typical-
another lying (please , excuse the redundancy) POS attorney -

The 2007 law has not allowed negligent “ER doc”’s from being quite successfully sued and or sanctioned -
PERIOD.

That term ,nor inference,however was not contained in ANY manner whatsoever in the quoted statement.


I realize of course,
reading comprehension for you is a true problem,
and particularly from your biased position, it is beyond difficult,
actually, nigh on impossible.

However, in a second
( and I am painfully aware it will be in vain)
attempt to clarify-

the statement was about facilities no longer having OB/GYN coverage or departments.

“Er doc” was not found anywhere in the statement.

Besides ,
you appear advocating that in your esteemed medical opinion
that “ER docs” should be performing emergency D&C‘s
or even more complicated “emergency abortions”
since they have NO liability, as you state.
Rather than having a properly Gynecologicaly trained surgeon perform these procedures.

Please, continue.
I can hardly wait to see your next erudite contribution.

Go fuck yourself. Your comment indicated that OB/GYNS stay away from the practice because of their exposure to lawsuits. As a practical matter, there is no more medical malpractice in Texas because the republican legislature has passed laws basically immunizing doctors for malpractice, either through changing the burden of proof (emergent care) or limiting the damages that are recoverable.

And, by the way, you just make yourself look stupid when you try to string sentences together that look like a six year old is typing for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
So, go to another state. Or whine publicly to make a political statement. It's a choice.

Show some thoughtfulness and compassion. Or, be a dick. It's a choice.

I am, and always have been, a pragmatist. You do what is necessary and possible. It is possible for this woman to get the care she needs, and it appears to be necessary. So, do it. I can send some money to help out with gas. The alternative is to make a political statement instead. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

when it’s really a lack of staffing and money…

and do not forget-
the liability, and malpractice lawsuits that have and will continue to drive facilities
(and physicians) away from obstetrics and emergency care of obsterics.

(ie, not having OB/Gyn physicans on staff and not having OB/GYN units in the facilities)

Utterly uninformed statement regarding the state of the law in Texas.

ER doctors are pretty much completely insulated from any liability in relation to care and treatment that happens in an ER in Texas unless it was grossly negligent, i.e. Willfull and wanton.

>>>The Texas legislature in 2007 amended the laws that deal with medical malpractice cases. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 74.151, entitled Liability For Emergency Care, now states that a person who in good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed during the emergency unless the act is wilfully or wantonly negligent. The legislature has raised the level of proof required to file a lawsuit to the highest possible degree of negligence: Wilfull or wanton negligence, which means the “medical error” must have been intentional. That’s right. To hold the emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff accountable for any serious injury or death, you must be able to show that the treatment or lack of treatment by emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff totally disregarded or was totally indifferent to the known consequences which the patient suffered. It requires proof of actual or deliberate intention to harm the patient, or at a minimum an absolute and complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the patient’s safety. That standard is insurmountable, and it slams shut the courthouse door on the innocent victims.<<<<

There is no liability for an ER physician in the state of Texas unless he basically intended the harm or showed up drunk in the ER.

OB/GYN liability law is not much more favorable.

If an ER doc kills your loved one because he/she was negligent, you have no remedy.

Typical-
another lying (please , excuse the redundancy) POS attorney -

The 2007 law has not allowed negligent “ER doc”’s from being quite successfully sued and or sanctioned -
PERIOD.

That term ,nor inference,however was not contained in ANY manner whatsoever in the quoted statement.


I realize of course,
reading comprehension for you is a true problem,
and particularly from your biased position, it is beyond difficult,
actually, nigh on impossible.

However, in a second
( and I am painfully aware it will be in vain)
attempt to clarify-

the statement was about facilities no longer having OB/GYN coverage or departments.

“Er doc” was not found anywhere in the statement.

Besides ,
you appear advocating that in your esteemed medical opinion
that “ER docs” should be performing emergency D&C‘s
or even more complicated “emergency abortions”
since they have NO liability, as you state.
Rather than having a properly Gynecologicaly trained surgeon perform these procedures.

Please, continue.
I can hardly wait to see your next erudite contribution.

Go fuck yourself. Your comment indicated that OB/GYNS stay away from the practice because of their exposure to lawsuits. As a practical matter, there is no more medical malpractice in Texas because the republican legislature has passed laws basically immunizing doctors for malpractice, either through changing the burden of proof (emergent care) or limiting the damages that are recoverable.

And, by the way, you just make yourself look stupid when you try to string sentences together that look like a six year old is typing for you.

genius child, under your theory,
there should be a lackidasical OB/Gyn on every corner ,
since by your perception they HAVE ZERO liabiltity.

not the reality is it?

futhermore ,
poor, poor, little barister-
what do i care, if morons such as yourself attempt to "grade" my papers.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

when it’s really a lack of staffing and money…

and do not forget-
the liability, and malpractice lawsuits that have and will continue to drive facilities
(and physicians) away from obstetrics and emergency care of obsterics.

(ie, not having OB/Gyn physicans on staff and not having OB/GYN units in the facilities)

Utterly uninformed statement regarding the state of the law in Texas.

ER doctors are pretty much completely insulated from any liability in relation to care and treatment that happens in an ER in Texas unless it was grossly negligent, i.e. Willfull and wanton.

>>>The Texas legislature in 2007 amended the laws that deal with medical malpractice cases. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 74.151, entitled Liability For Emergency Care, now states that a person who in good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed during the emergency unless the act is wilfully or wantonly negligent. The legislature has raised the level of proof required to file a lawsuit to the highest possible degree of negligence: Wilfull or wanton negligence, which means the “medical error” must have been intentional. That’s right. To hold the emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff accountable for any serious injury or death, you must be able to show that the treatment or lack of treatment by emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff totally disregarded or was totally indifferent to the known consequences which the patient suffered. It requires proof of actual or deliberate intention to harm the patient, or at a minimum an absolute and complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the patient’s safety. That standard is insurmountable, and it slams shut the courthouse door on the innocent victims.<<<<

There is no liability for an ER physician in the state of Texas unless he basically intended the harm or showed up drunk in the ER.

OB/GYN liability law is not much more favorable.

If an ER doc kills your loved one because he/she was negligent, you have no remedy.

Typical-
another lying (please , excuse the redundancy) POS attorney -

The 2007 law has not allowed negligent “ER doc”’s from being quite successfully sued and or sanctioned -
PERIOD.

That term ,nor inference,however was not contained in ANY manner whatsoever in the quoted statement.


I realize of course,
reading comprehension for you is a true problem,
and particularly from your biased position, it is beyond difficult,
actually, nigh on impossible.

However, in a second
( and I am painfully aware it will be in vain)
attempt to clarify-

the statement was about facilities no longer having OB/GYN coverage or departments.

“Er doc” was not found anywhere in the statement.

Besides ,
you appear advocating that in your esteemed medical opinion
that “ER docs” should be performing emergency D&C‘s
or even more complicated “emergency abortions”
since they have NO liability, as you state.
Rather than having a properly Gynecologicaly trained surgeon perform these procedures.

Please, continue.
I can hardly wait to see your next erudite contribution.

Go fuck yourself. Your comment indicated that OB/GYNS stay away from the practice because of their exposure to lawsuits. As a practical matter, there is no more medical malpractice in Texas because the republican legislature has passed laws basically immunizing doctors for malpractice, either through changing the burden of proof (emergent care) or limiting the damages that are recoverable.

And, by the way, you just make yourself look stupid when you try to string sentences together that look like a six year old is typing for you.

genius child, under your theory,
there should be a lackidasical OB/Gyn on every corner ,
since by your perception they HAVE ZERO liabiltity.

not the reality is it?

futhermore ,
poor, poor, little barister-
what do i care, if morons such as yourself attempt to "grade" my papers.

You'd get an F if I did. Insults with a word spelled incorrectly in almost every line are just not effective.

My intel tells me there is no change in how non-elective ob/gyn medicine is practiced in Texas.

I am skeptical of all of this.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

when it’s really a lack of staffing and money…

and do not forget-
the liability, and malpractice lawsuits that have and will continue to drive facilities
(and physicians) away from obstetrics and emergency care of obsterics.

(ie, not having OB/Gyn physicans on staff and not having OB/GYN units in the facilities)

Utterly uninformed statement regarding the state of the law in Texas.

ER doctors are pretty much completely insulated from any liability in relation to care and treatment that happens in an ER in Texas unless it was grossly negligent, i.e. Willfull and wanton.

>>>The Texas legislature in 2007 amended the laws that deal with medical malpractice cases. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sec. 74.151, entitled Liability For Emergency Care, now states that a person who in good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed during the emergency unless the act is wilfully or wantonly negligent. The legislature has raised the level of proof required to file a lawsuit to the highest possible degree of negligence: Wilfull or wanton negligence, which means the “medical error” must have been intentional. That’s right. To hold the emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff accountable for any serious injury or death, you must be able to show that the treatment or lack of treatment by emergency room doctor and/or the emergency room staff totally disregarded or was totally indifferent to the known consequences which the patient suffered. It requires proof of actual or deliberate intention to harm the patient, or at a minimum an absolute and complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the patient’s safety. That standard is insurmountable, and it slams shut the courthouse door on the innocent victims.<<<<

There is no liability for an ER physician in the state of Texas unless he basically intended the harm or showed up drunk in the ER.

OB/GYN liability law is not much more favorable.

If an ER doc kills your loved one because he/she was negligent, you have no remedy.

Typical-
another lying (please , excuse the redundancy) POS attorney -

The 2007 law has not allowed negligent “ER doc”’s from being quite successfully sued and or sanctioned -
PERIOD.

That term ,nor inference,however was not contained in ANY manner whatsoever in the quoted statement.


I realize of course,
reading comprehension for you is a true problem,
and particularly from your biased position, it is beyond difficult,
actually, nigh on impossible.

However, in a second
( and I am painfully aware it will be in vain)
attempt to clarify-

the statement was about facilities no longer having OB/GYN coverage or departments.

“Er doc” was not found anywhere in the statement.

Besides ,
you appear advocating that in your esteemed medical opinion
that “ER docs” should be performing emergency D&C‘s
or even more complicated “emergency abortions”
since they have NO liability, as you state.
Rather than having a properly Gynecologicaly trained surgeon perform these procedures.

Please, continue.
I can hardly wait to see your next erudite contribution.

Go fuck yourself. Your comment indicated that OB/GYNS stay away from the practice because of their exposure to lawsuits. As a practical matter, there is no more medical malpractice in Texas because the republican legislature has passed laws basically immunizing doctors for malpractice, either through changing the burden of proof (emergent care) or limiting the damages that are recoverable.

And, by the way, you just make yourself look stupid when you try to string sentences together that look like a six year old is typing for you.

genius child, under your theory,
there should be a lackidasical OB/Gyn on every corner ,
since by your perception they HAVE ZERO liabiltity.

not the reality is it?

futhermore ,
poor, poor, little barister-
what do i care, if morons such as yourself attempt to "grade" my papers.

You'd get an F if I did. Insults with a word spelled incorrectly in almost every line are just not effective.

again- the question-
in your version of reality, there is no need to worry-
any SOBER incompetent can practice OB/Gyn with no fear of liability--
just simply put-
THIS IS NOT the reality

I have no idea what legal changes were made, but the last time I was in Texas, it seemed like every other billboard on 35 was for some lawyer peddling himself for malpractice cases and auto injury cases.

There is a huge difference between elective procedures and medically necessary ones.

Like I said earlier… this case with an unsurvivable fetus is one that directly speaks to a failure in the law.

Trying to claim that severe bleeding is ignored because they don’t want to perform a necessary D&C to save a life is such a violation of medical standards that I can’t see it occurring. That’s plain malpractice. It’s also typical of zealots to claim that if we don’t let everyone do what they want, someone will have a bad outcome because of the law”…

I would expect to see women maimed and killed by botched abortions performed by unlicensed hacks before an actively bleeding out woman would be ignored and the law cited as a reason it was done… by the victim.

quote:

Trying to claim that severe bleeding is ignored because they don’t want to perform a necessary D&C to save a life is such a violation of medical standards that I can’t see it occurring. That’s plain malpractice. It’s also typical of zealots to claim that if we don’t let everyone do what they want, someone will have a bad outcome because of the law”…

I would expect to see women maimed and killed by botched abortions performed by unlicensed hacks before an actively bleeding out woman would be ignored and the law cited as a reason it was done… by the victim.

Yeah...well....none of that fits their narrative.....


.