Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, January 24, 2014

A Texas judge ordered a Fort Worth hospital on Friday to remove a pregnant, brain-dead woman from respirators and ventilators. Judge R.H. Wallace ordered John Peter Smith Hospital to act on his order by 5 p.m. Monday. Marlise Munoz, 33, was 14 weeks pregnant when she collapsed Nov. 26. She was taken to JPS, where doctors told her husband that she was brain-dead. He and other relatives asked that life support be removed. JPS officials refused, citing a state law requiring that a pregnant woman remain on life support until the fetus is viable, usually at 24 to 26 weeks. The fetus, which was deprived of oxygen for "an indeterminate length of time, is gestating within a dead and deteriorating body as the horrified family looks on," the attorneys said.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That party of limited government strikes again.

#1 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-24 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Can anyone explain the evangelical theory of the sacredness of the unborn and the worthlessness of the living? Policies which protect blastulas and throw poor children to the wolves are mean and a violation of Christ's teachings.

There is a Christian sect which I was exposed to in my youth. It has no name, it is not incorporated, it owns no buildings, its ministers take a vow of poverty. It is joined by a national Bible reading schedule. Services take place in homes. Services consist of members sharing their thoughts on the weekly Bible Chapter reading and singing Hymns. There is no collection plate. Imagine that.

#2 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-24 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Now, why can't all women be good little silent incubators like this Munoz woman?
-GOP

#3 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-24 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"citing a state law requiring that a pregnant woman remain on life support until the fetus is viable, usually at 24 to 26 weeks"

WHAT?! Good lord.

#4 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-24 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

the hospital officials insisting that this fetus be brought to term--in opposition to the mother
who did not want life support in the event of brain death and the father because the fetus
had a long period without oxygen (both medical professionals)--should assume full
responsibility for the care of the infant.

with the problems which are apparent now, care of the infant will involve time & costs
which are colossal, if it survives or is itself kept on life support.

all potential parents should fear this over-reach into their private lives by hospital staff
influenced by their personal moral interpretations, at this stage (gestation) or any stage
of an infant patient's life.

#5 | Posted by kenx at 2014-01-24 09:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

"citing a state law requiring that a pregnant woman remain on life support until the fetus is viable, usually at 24 to 26 weeks"
WHAT?! Good lord.
#4 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-24 09:42 AM

I wonder if this law has been applied to any women who were raped and then beaten into brain death; it would be just spiffy if the Texas government insisted on keeping her on a ventilator because of a rape blastula. Capping off the Texas-GOP experience would be sticking her surviving husband and family with the bill, and forcing them into bankruptcy, for carrying an unwanted-retarded-rape-baby to term.

Do Texas GOPers know that The Handmaid's Tale was not meant to be a how-to manual?

#6 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-24 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"Do Texas GOPers know that The Handmaid's Tale was not meant to be a how-to manual?"

Somehow I doubt Margaret Atwood's on the reading list of most Texas GOPers. But that doesn't take away from the combination of humor and pathos your comment raises.

#7 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-24 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

This is at least partly about money. It costs A LOT of money to keep someone on life support and you can bet they're soaking the family's insurance company for the bill. Then they'll push the family into bankruptcy. And the family doesn't have as much to spend on lawyers as all the anti-abortion groups do. So it's a win-win. Their ICU makes money and they don't spend as much on legal fees.

#8 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2014-01-24 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Oh the rightly tighties love nothing more than to insist a person who will be part of the entitlement class survive indefinitely sponging off tax payers so they can feel sanctimonious and bitchy at the same time. It gives them something to wring their hands about.

They can cut another arts of sports program from a regular school so their mat kid can lay on the floor staring blankly into space in some SpEd class for 13 years while a teachers assistant flip it over every couple hours until the short bus comes to get it in the after noon.

#9 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2014-01-24 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

#9..you're right....Big difference is they won't care about that kid then

#10 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-01-24 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Distinctly abnormal"

Another GOTP voter in the oven!

No wonder the GOTP is having a fit.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-01-24 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

How about the husband requests his wife's body be transferred to another hospital, say, in a state that doesn't have this type of law? The government can't get in-between you and your doctor, right? Then, a separate institution can make the best decision for the patient. Can the government ban a transfer?

#12 | Posted by chuffy at 2014-01-24 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Big Gubmint GOPers believes that the responsibility to protect "life" begins at the moment of conception and ends at birth.

#13 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-01-24 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

The silence of the righties on this thread is deafening.

What's the matter? You don't want to take ownership for the tragedy caused by your foolish support for the GOP's fetus-fetish?

#14 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-24 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about the husband requests his wife's body be transferred to another hospital, say, in a state that doesn't have this type of law?

That kind of transport would be very very expensive.

#15 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-01-24 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

just like 'you people' talk about men and abortions and not serving prevents you from an opinion on that sort of thing...

if you have never had to actually go through something like this, you really have no knowledge of the whole issue. but I'm sure that won't prevent many of you from saying anything you are told or think from your radical left wing position.

this is a difficult thing to be a part of and virtually impossible to 'get it right'

so good luck...I've already read a couple of completely irresponsible and trashy comments. maybe it will get better..

#16 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-01-24 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its pretty f'd up when a judge has more power than her husband. If it was his horse or his dog he could have been the one to be merciful. But instead he's probably prohibited from even being in the same room without someone there to prevent him from getting too close.

Sick.

#17 | Posted by reitze at 2014-01-24 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

And furthermore. Its my opinion as a Christian (Jesus is my hero) that he had/has a right to end her life in that situation no matter when the fetus was due. If its not already born its not a person its simply part of her, his wife. How dare the state and its enablers interfere with a man in such a situation.

#18 | Posted by reitze at 2014-01-24 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right on Reitze. The judge should have no power here. This decision should be totally up to her husband. Yet another example of government overreach.

#19 | Posted by taxslave5 at 2014-01-24 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

A truly horrible situation for everyone involved. Just sad. No right answer.

#20 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2014-01-24 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Off ventilators" isn't good enough.

Let the man be alone with his wife. If he chooses to end her life mercifully by ANY means of his choosing there isn't a jury anywhere that would go along with a satanic accuser trying to punish him. Rather his actions would be seen by most as heroic.

#21 | Posted by reitze at 2014-01-24 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Take Brain-Dead Woman Off Ventilators"

Funny, I didn't know Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Nancy Pelosi were using ventilators. Learn something new every day.

#22 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-01-24 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

No right answer.

#20 | Posted by gracieamazed

Yes there is. Let the family decide what they want and then do that.

#23 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-01-24 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

No right answer.

#20 | Posted by gracieamazed

Yes there is. Let the family decide what they want and then do that.

#23 | Posted by TFDNihilist a

I think that she and you are in agreement....

#24 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-01-24 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

if you have never had to actually go through something like this, you really have no knowledge of the whole issue. [...]
this is a difficult thing to be a part of and virtually impossible to 'get it right' #16 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-01-24 06:51 P

That was an excellent "pro-choice" argument. Good job, I knew you folks could do it if you put your mind to it!

#25 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-24 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

For the partisan idiots. The form required by Advanced Directives Act was enacted in 1989, the 71st Legislature was made up of 23D, 8R in the Senate and 91D, 59R in the House. The Act was amended in 1991, the 72nd Legislature was made up of 22D, 9R in the Senate and 90D, 60R in the House; in 1997, the 75th Legislature was made up of 17R, 14D in the Senate and 82D, 68R in the House; and, in 1999, the 76th Legislature was made up of 16R, 15D in the Senate and 78D, 72R in the House.

For the legal idiots. The Act applies to those who do not want extraordinary means employed to keep them alive. This lady was admitted and immediately diagnosed brain dead. The legal argument was whether the prohibition of the Act applying to someone pregnant but alive also applied to someone legally dead. The hospital thought it did (on pain of error that it would violate criminal law) the husband did not. The Court ruled in favor of the husband.

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-24 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see that the headline now indicates that the court has ordered the hospital to take Munoz off the ventilator. Hopefully her family can start putting their lives back together after having been forced to undergo this terrible ordeal which the GOP believes is necessary to appease their Anti-Abortion God.

#27 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-24 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

certain republikkkans are living proof that the brain dead can live without ventilators.

#28 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-01-24 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-24 07:37 PM

Pro-Life is a GOP position. Deal with it.

#29 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-24 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Did I say otherwise, no. Deal with it.

#30 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-24 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

More local news turned into country dividing, country shaking news by the same racist media cabal that got us into Iraq, and who now wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the USA Constitution, and along with the right of USA citizens to demand that corrupt NYC financiers be held accountable.

A corrupt government for the benefit of only political favorites, cronies, and those of wealth instead of equally for all Americans is not a democracy.

#31 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-24 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | Posted by reitze
"Its pretty f'd up when a judge has more power than her husband. "

The judge ruled against the hospital, not against the husband.

She was taken to [John Peter Smith Hospital], where doctors told her husband that she was brain-dead. He and other relatives asked that life support be removed. JPS officials refused, citing a state law...

#19 | Posted by taxslave5
"The judge should have no power here. This decision should be totally up to her husband. Yet another example of government overreach."

It's not "government overreach". It's the judge's job to rule on the case. And the judge sided with the husband.

#32 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-01-24 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Another International embarrassment created by true believing US Evangelicals comes to a close. They are extremely dangerous because they are prepared to die for their cause, which is a lie, just like the Muslims they complain about.

#33 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-24 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#32 and if the husband had been with his wife and taken care of her with love what then? The hospital violated him and her. That's just wrong. They wouldn't even let her leave with him either - so they kidnapped her away from her own family. Healthcare has become a bigger problem.

#33 right-on nut.

#34 | Posted by reitze at 2014-01-24 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

¡Dios mio! Free at last. At least it wasn't another Shaivo circus

#35 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2014-01-24 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Deal with it.
#29 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2014-01-24 07:47 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

He did. He showed you where this is in fact not a result of GOP legislation as the law that was in question was enacted by Texas Dems. He showed you where you were completely wrong with your #14 and #27. Instead of recognizing your error, you doubled down on your foolishness. Great job.

It's also interesting to note that the judge that ruled in the family's favor to remove this lady from life support was appointed by a big bad GOP governor. Deal with it.

#36 | Posted by bartimus at 2014-01-24 08:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#33

What "US Evangelicals," nut case. The litigation involved a county hospital and a para-medic husband with no religion based intervention. But don't let that stop you from getting your stupid on.

Stupid like this:

The hospital violated him and her. That's just wrong. They wouldn't even let her leave with him either - so they kidnapped her away from her own family.
The lady was admitted brain dead. Where would he take her, your house for a night of music and dance?

#37 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-24 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

So why is this national news? I see it as a family and private matter.

#38 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-24 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have said more than once how I believe abortion is murder and that too many women misuse abortion. It is not supposed to be a "birth control method". It is a last resort.

You know...something funny I've noticed is how many women secretly keep up with the age of their aborted child. How old would it have been if it were still alive. Don't tell me abortion is nothing more than having a wart removed. It is a woman killing her child and in her heart she knows it.

That being said, keeping this woman and child alive is just stupid.

Leave it to wack-a-do Texas to have such a law written in such a way.

#39 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-01-24 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#38 because the 'healthcare' establishment got between a man and his wife at her most desperate time. They're lucky he didn't bring down the whole freaking place by any means possible.

#40 | Posted by reitze at 2014-01-24 09:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

So why is this national news?

Because it involves Texas envy, the misfortune of a woman and a fetus and butt load of misinformation, and outright stupid, that nut cases cannot resist spinning in favor of their agenda.

#41 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-24 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can't we all just let Bachmann go on her own?

One would think anybody believing in an all-powerful God might say, pull the plug and let God decide. After all, He does supply about 1/3 of all abortions anyways.

#42 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-01-24 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#38 & 41

See, two more after yours and before mine.

#43 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-24 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

#34 | Posted by reitze
"and if the husband had been with his wife and taken care of her with love what then?"

I'm sure the power and purity of his love would have brought her dead brain straight back to life.
Are you serious??

He requested that she be taken off life support!

See what happens? You get italics AND bold.

Read. The. Article.

"...she was found unconscious on her kitchen floor around 2 a.m. November 26. She was rushed to the north-central Texas hospital. Once there, Erick Munoz said, he was told his wife 'was for all purposes brain dead.'"

I DO think the hospital should have simply let her go, but I also have the ability to grasp that they were acting in their own legal interest in accordance with the state law as they understood it.

"Healthcare has become a bigger problem."

Objection: Irrelevant.

Not every story has a dragon to slay. This one might, but it has yet to be found.

#44 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-01-24 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#44 what if he had just taken her off of the machine himself. Do you think the damn staff and PIGs would have accused him of 'murder'? IMHO he either flinched or got stopped. It was a victory of evil.

Revelation|12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
And yea, a surprise the judge didn't double down the evil.

#45 | Posted by reitze at 2014-01-24 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

He did. He showed you where this is in fact not a result of GOP legislation as the law that was in question was enacted by Texas Dems.
#36 | Posted by bartimus at 2014-01-24 08:49 PM

@ Bartimus and Et_Al

I'm not going to debate history with you on the party breakdown of the final legislative votes or the legislative horsetrading that went on over the various provisions of the law.

Your arguments are more of the same-old, same-old of the GOP; can't own up to the hateful, ignorant, one-trick-pony, joke of a bible-thumping party it has become. For your next trick, tell us how the GOP is the true party of civil rights because Lincoln freed the slaves.

Right now, and for the last 35 years, the GOP has favored banning abortion. Hating abortion, gays and non-christians is their thing. Deal with it, or try to tell us more stories of how some pro-life southern democrats 25 years ago breaking ranks with their party transforms this quintessentially Republican provision into democratic legislation. You're not fooling anyone.

#46 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-24 11:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm not going to debate history...
#46 | Posted by censored

I have no such intent either. May point was to, and did, dispel the regurgitation that the Texas legislature is, and always has been, "GOP." That is not true historically and was not true when the law that is the subject of this thread was enacted and amended. Refute the above numbers if you can.

Your arguments are...

I assure you, I require not your explication of my arguments nor my beliefs.

[T]ell us how the GOP is...

Why should I bear that cross?

[T]he GOP has...[hated] abortion, gays and non-christians...

If I espouse those views, you may chastise me. As of now, you may not. In the mean time, F... Y..., stronger remonstration to follow.

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-25 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

the Texas legislature is, and always has been, "GOP."
Keep moving those goal posts. I never said anything about the legislature.

stronger remonstration to follow.
#47 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-25 12:18 AM

Truth hurts? Good chatting with you. Maybe for your next trick you can tell us how up is down and black is white or perhaps try to distract from the issue at hand with some more superfluous verbiage. Toodles!

#48 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-25 12:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Can anyone explain the evangelical theory of the sacredness of the unborn and the worthlessness of the living? Policies which protect blastulas and throw poor children to the wolves are mean and a violation of Christ's teachings."

It's the governments job to enforce the law. If the law is to prosecute murder, and if a fetus is a human, then it stands to reason that the government should prosecute people who do that. If it is not the government's job to take care of social issues, it is because it's the job of private individuals, churches, and other non-goverment groups. Just because a person doesn't believe in huge, sweeping social programs run by the government doesn't mean they think poor children should be "thrown to the wolves." That's just a nasty, straw-man argument. Christ never said, "Vote for your government to have social programs." He talked all about what individuals should do and how we as individuals should live. That certainly doesn't preclude social programs. You like social programs, but do you yourself help those in need? Realistically, Christians don't lean specifically toward one political extreme or another, it's just issues like abortion that have pushed many to one side of the political spectrum, which the Republicans shamelessly exploit.

#49 | Posted by LEgregius at 2014-01-25 12:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

I never said anything about the legislature.

I did, the point you assailed. No goalpost moved.

Truth hurts?

Apparently, why else would you toddle away?

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-25 02:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Can anyone explain the evangelical theory of the sacredness of the unborn and the worthlessness of the living?"

Can anyone show me the Evangelical theory, or doctrine, of the "worthlessness of the living"??

#51 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-01-25 02:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

I did, the point you assailed. No goalpost moved.
#50 | Posted by et_al at 2014-01-25 02:35 AM |

So you raised a point no one had made and then you "dispel[ed] the regurgitation that the Texas legislature is, and always has been, "GOP"" but you were the only one doing that particular bit of regurgitating? Your rhetorical skills are impressive. Do you also play tic-tac-toe against yourself to enjoy the thrill of victory?

The only assailing I did was your interesting definition of what makes an anti-abortion rights legislation signed into law into Democratic legislation, particularly when it's current incarnation was drafted with the aid of such firm Democratic allies as a Catholic archdiocese and Texas Right to Life and signed into law by George W. Bush.

#52 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-25 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I hope the "death panel" my wife and I worked with in the guise of an attorney when we created our wills and living wills a few years ago will be held as a valid demand. I meant what I said when I told the lawyer I wanted someone to be empowered to pull the fxxkin' plug.

#53 | Posted by john47 at 2014-01-25 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

ET AL and Bartimus are being intellectually dishonest trying to paint the law as passed by Democrats by failing to mention that liberal Democrats barely existed in the Texas Legislature twenty years ago, and liberals certainly didn't make up the majority. At that time, Texas Democrats were dominated by what would later be known as Blue Dogs.

The liberals in the Senate when that bill was passed consisted mostly of what was left of the Killer Bees from the 70s.

#54 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-01-25 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

sure diablo, since you can't figure it out we can start with the latest $20 billion in food stamps and subsistence payments cuts. Then move on to all the efforts to kill universal healthcare, pre-K programs for kids, the class war against a living wage, the resegregation of schools using privatization, public school closures, throwing the uninsured out of hospitals, letting the homeless freeze to death...........then blame your victims

#55 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-25 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

How many other states have laws similar to the one in Texas regarding situations like this?

#56 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-01-26 01:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

#55, that's quite a laundry list of partisan talking points.

#57 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-01-26 01:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

How dare the state and its enablers interfere with a man in such a situation.

That's a very interesting point. In this case the father is effectively having an abortion by seeking to withdraw life support from his pregnant wife.

#58 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-01-26 02:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Can anyone show me the Evangelical theory, or doctrine, of the "worthlessness of the living"??

#51 | POSTED BY DIABLO

Can you show us where Jesus (God) spoke against abortion? I am pretty sure He was aware of it. Being God and all.

#59 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-01-26 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can you show us where Jesus (God) spoke for or against men being made of straw?

#60 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-01-26 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

That party of limited government strikes again.

First post.

How are politics involved in this at all, censored? Can you stop that jerking knee just long enough to explain this bizarre knee-jerk statement?

It's clear that the hospital was acting on state law (presumably counseled by its legal staff) and kept the woman alive. How is a political party involved?

Looks more like the party of knee-jerk is striking in this thread again.

#61 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do Texas GOPers know that...

???

What does the GOP have to do with this story?

Proggies and their uncontrollable jerking left knees. LOL

#62 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

" In this case the father is effectively having an abortion by seeking to withdraw life support from his pregnant wife."

Actually, he is probably trying to carry out what he believes his wife would have wanted in this situation and he doesn't want a bunch of people he doesn't even know getting involved in his very personal business.

#63 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-26 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

How are politics involved in this at all, censored? Can you stop that jerking knee just long enough to explain this bizarre knee-jerk statement?
It's clear that the hospital was acting on state law (presumably counseled by its legal staff) and kept the woman alive. How is a political party involved?
#61 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 05:37 PM |

The hospital may believe that it was following the law, but that law did not fall from the sky. Politicians enact laws and most of those politicians belong to a party.

I understand that you are "nonpartisan" but ask yourself which party prides itself on being pro-life, exploiting this position for political gain, to the point that for many years its official party platform favored banning it in all circumstances, even in case of rape, incest and jeopardy to the life of the mother. Then ask yourself which party is currently lined up to seek the counsel of the anti-abortion forces in drafting laws such as this one which provides that "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment [...] from a pregnant patient."

If the GOP wants to stick it's big fat anti-abortion nose into people's private medical decisions, it can't then run away from the ramifications when those ramifications evidence themselves. The GOP is the anti-abortion party and any time a woman is denied abortion it is the GOP that can reasonable be named as the cause. Own it.

#64 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-26 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

The hospital may believe that it was following the law, but that law did not fall from the sky. Politicians enact laws and most of those politicians belong to a party.

OK. So what was the party breakdown of the legislators who made this law? You have no idea. The rest of your post proves it by providing nothing but speculation.

Admit it -- you are the victim of uncontrollable knee jerking. Be a man and admit it.

#65 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Knee-jerk jerks.

sheez

#66 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The GOP is the anti-abortion party and any time a woman is denied abortion it is the GOP that can reasonable be named as the cause. Own it.

???

What does this have to do with abortion?

Own it

???

Why would I, knee jerk? I am not a member of the GOP and I am pro-abortion. I've been very clear and unwavering on that point since I started posting here. Again, your knee-jerk is controlling you fingers in making assumptions about me that are 180° from my views.

Own it.

#67 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

OK. So what was the party breakdown of the legislators who made this law? #65 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 06:04 PM
Ah yes, the old, "the Democrats supported slavery and Lincoln freed the slaves, ergo the GOP is the 'civil rights party' argument." In any event, I take it that the today's GOP dominated government of Texas will prove me wrong by striking this travesty of a law in the near future and make it clear that pregnancy status has no bearing on private medical decisions. Unless the mean old Dems won't let them because the Dems are such meanies and hate abortion so much. For now, though, I guess we'll have to let the inaction speak for itself.

What does this have to do with abortion?
If you don't see it, I can't show you, but you can see below for a some discussion of the GOP's fetus-love.

??? Why would I, knee jerk? I am not a member of the GOP
LOL, I know you like to trot that 'fact' out. No, you may not be a member of the GOP but you're another one of those who favor them at every opportunity, to the point that you can't handle it when their chickens come home to roost. Like now, when it is clear that the GOP's "fetuses are people too" silliness results in tragic and horrific invasions into personal and family matters.

The GOP has exploited the fetus-worshipping, bible-thumping ignoramuses to gain power by declaring their love for fetuses at every opportunity, but go scurrying into the shadows when the GOP's policies bear its inevitable fruit.

#68 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-26 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ah yes, the old, "the Democrats supported slavery and Lincoln freed the slaves, ergo the GOP is the 'civil rights party' argument."

???

Um, no, the old, " So what was the party breakdown of the legislators who made this law?" Did you research it and see who passed it? Is it possible for you to address the question without throwing up strawmen?

"What does this have to do with abortion?"

If you don't see it, I can't show you

Nope I can't see it and it goes without saying it is just another strawman because the two issues are unrelated. That they both involve a fetus is irrelevant. The big difference is that in an abortion, the mother is making a choice. This article deals with a woman who is unable to make that choice. You honestly didn't know this, or you knew and it's just a ham-handed troll? No wonder you are relegated to pathetically throwing strawmen deflections around.

I know you like to trot that 'fact' out.

Well, duh. What, does the truth offend you? Given all else you've puked out on this thread, I'm convinced it does.

No, you may not be a member of the GOP but you're another one of those who favor them at every opportunity,

???

Like on this thread where I said I am pro-abortion? And my opposition to the death penalty and prayer in school and my pro-environmental stances? My pro-euthenasia beliefs? My beliefs in gay rights and gay marriage? Really? Every opportunity? Christ, you've got the Goatman Derangement Syndrome bad, censored. What compels you to be so taken with me that you feel the need to lie about my personal beliefs, especially since I've made all the above quite clear many times in the past.

Even if you can't get over your pathological need to lie, at least wean yourself from your lies about me, censored.

How. Very. Weird.

#69 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 08:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Needless to say you have failed miserably to prove your assertion in post #64 and that all you are doing is posturing, knee-jerking, and making things up as you go along.

I'll be glad to entertain a link to back up your claim, however. Until then, I thank you for your opinion, knee-jerking, strawmen, and deflections notwithstanding, censored.

#70 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

>>"What does this have to do with abortion?"
>If you don't see it, I can't show you
Nope I can't see it and it goes without saying it is just another strawman because the two issues are unrelated. That they both involve a fetus is irrelevant. The big difference is that in an abortion, the mother is making a choice. This article deals with a woman who is unable to make that choice. You honestly didn't know this

It's called an "advance directive." The woman made the choice before becoming incapacitated. You honestly didn't know this? The law prevents her wishes from being carried out because fetuses are apparently life.

Regardless of who passed what, the ball is in the GOP court and they own this issue. If this fetal-worshipping, family-privacy-violating provision was an oversight by the legislature, I'm sure that the GOP powers that be in Texas will set about fixing it immediately (if this were a blue state, it would likely have been resolved before the judge in this case even issued his ruling). I won't hold my breath.

#71 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-26 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#63, and that's different from what I said how?

#72 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-01-26 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Regardless of who passed what, the ball is in the GOP court and they own this issue.

???

What ball? What are you talking about? Again, you base this on assumptions. You've yet to prove this is a "GOP thing". You can't even cite the Texas law, much less prove the parties involved who voted for it. My guess is that it was largely democrat as well. But I don't know, so I'm certainly not going to base an argument on not knowing as you are.

*sigh*

It's called an "advance directive." The woman made the choice before becoming incapacitated. You honestly didn't know this?

No, I didn't. Nowhere in the article did it state that she left advance directive that if she was brain dead while pregnant it was OK to terminate her life. Please show that part to me.

Better yet, I won't make you squirm. With every post you've sent me on this you've either outright lied or made stuff up. I really don't feel like continuing to prove you wrong. There are a lot of threads here where I don't have to do that or put up with nonesense and lies about me like, "No, you may not be a member of the GOP but you're another one of those who favor them at every opportunity," and don't even bother to apologize for your lies when proven to you.

Have your last word/lie/assumption/ whatever. Your lack of anything valid in this thread and dependence on lies and suppostion bores me.

Later.

#73 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

What ball? What are you talking about? Again, you base this on assumptions. You've yet to prove this is a "GOP thing".

As I noted previously, the statute was drafted with the aid of a Texas Catholic archdiocese and Texas Right to Life (and you know what pals they are with the Democrats). In addition, from: here: "The case has been noted by Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the two leading candidates running to replace him, but none of them has called for any new laws yet or action as a result of the case."
In addition, (from: here ) "Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who was instrumental in passing a far-reaching anti-abortion bill in the state, weighed in on the side of the fetus."

So even assuming that Dems unanimously voted for the law originally, there is a chance it never occurred to them that this horrible factual situation would arise (at least one Repub who helped draft it has said so, and that the provision should not apply to Munoz). In the event that the law was poorly worded, the ball is now in the GOP court to fix the law as the Dems are powerless in Texas (or do you non-partisanly disagree with that statement as well?). The fact that nothing has been done to remedy this matter over the last two months as this matter dragged out in court makes this a "GOP thing" as they are the only ones who can do anything about it.

No, I didn't. Nowhere in the article did it state that she left advance directive that if she was brain dead while pregnant it was OK to terminate her life. Please show that part to me.
#73 | Posted by goatman at 2014-01-26 10:08 PM |

Read the statute, which I posted above. Her advance directive on that subject would be invalid under the law because "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment [...] from a pregnant patient."

Good night.

#74 | Posted by censored at 2014-01-26 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

States with similar laws to Texas: Wisconsin, Washington, Utah, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Missouri, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Idaho, Connecticut, Alabama.

States which do not allow withdrawing life support if the fetus can be brought to term: South Dakota*, Pennsylvania*, Ohio, North Dakota*, New Hampshire*, Nevada, Nebraska, Montana, Iowa, Illinois, Georgia, Delaware, Colorado, Arkansas, Alaska.

(*) indicates statutes explicitly say patient must not prolong severe pain that cannot be alleviated by medication.

States which do not allow health care representative to make this decision: Michigan.

States with no statute: Wyoming, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Oregon, North Carolina, New York, New Mexico, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Maine, Hawaii, D.C., California

States where an advanced directive can withdraw life support when pregnant: Vermont, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Minnesota, Maryland, Florida, Arizona

#75 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-01-26 11:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The judge should have no power here. This decision should be totally up to her husband. Yet another example of government overreach."

It was the judge who helped the family from government overreach by telling the hospital it had to follow the family's wishes. The family had to go to court for help.

#76 | Posted by DCinMA at 2014-01-26 11:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort