Biden Invites Texas Woman Who Sued for an Abortion and Lost to State of the Union
The obsession with dead babies is terrifying and gross.
Our “devout Catholic” President Joe Biden invited the woman who sued Texas for an abortion and lost to the State of the Union.
Kill your baby and meet the “devout Catholic” president!
The Bidens THANKED Katie Cox for taking on the “extreme abortion ban.”
On Sunday, @POTUS and @FLOTUS spoke to Kate Cox, who was forced to go to court to seek permission for the care she needed for a non-viable pregnancy that threatened her health. They thanked her for speaking out about the impact of the extreme abortion ban in Texas. pic.twitter.com/i7jDcIug5c
— Karine Jean-Pierre (@PressSec) January 24, 2024
Cox was pregnant with her third baby. The doctors told her and her husband the baby had Trisomy 18.
Cox’s life was not in danger. Trisomy 18 is not a 100% guaranteed death sentence.
The Texas courts all told Cox no because, as I said, her life was not in danger. But by the time the Texas Supreme Court denied Cox, she already left the state and had one.
Cox and her lawyer claimed her life was “deteriorating” and went in and out of the hospital.
Obviously, physicians didn’t think her life was in danger even though she leaked amniotic fluid. It could lead to life-threatening complications…if you don’t take proper precautions:
If you leak amniotic fluid and your membranes rupture earlier than 37 weeks, and your practitioner determines it’s too soon for your baby to be safely delivered, you’ll most likely receive antibiotics to ward off infection and may need to be hospitalized.
You’ll also likely get a dose of steroids to help your baby’s lungs quickly mature for an early delivery. Depending on how early you deliver, your baby may need to be in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for some time before coming home.
So don’t use infections and sepsis as an excuse. Modern medicine can help you with this.
For crying out loud, all pregnancies carry risks, even if you and the baby are 100% healthy.
There is so much I want to say, but I don’t like revealing personal information. Just know that someone I know very close to me who had a horrific pregnancy. The birth of the child was just as bad.
Cox was 20 weeks pregnant. It’s rare, but they could have done an emergency C-section.
All I see are excuses.
It sounds like someone used her situation to become the new “Roe.”
The “devout Catholic” president announced on the Roe v. Wade anniversary that he wants his administration to “strengthen access” to abortions and contraception.
Vice President Kamala Harris is on an abortion celebration rally tour. The lady said abortion is “an integral part of the country’s tradition of personal liberty.”
THE LIES. A miscarriage is not an abortion:
“In America, freedom is not to be given. It is not to be bestowed. It is ours by right,” she said. “And that includes the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body — not the government telling you what to do.”
Harris shared stories of women who have miscarried in toilets or developed sepsis because they were denied help by doctors concerned about violating abortion restrictions.
“This is, in fact, a healthcare crisis,” she said. “And there is nothing about this that is hypothetical.”
Wisconsin faces an ongoing legal battle over abortion. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, Republicans argued that an 1849 law that was still on the books would effectively ban the procedure except in situations where a mother’s life was at risk.
“These extremists want to roll back the clock to a time before women were treated as full citizens,” Harris said.
Um, the Declaration of Independence says, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Our creator provided us with those unalienable rights, woman, including LIFE.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Abortion is the Democrat’s best issue. And I am convinced that the Abortion Pill case before SCOTUS, to be decided before July, will rock the election. Just like in 2022, when people didn’t see Dobbs coming until it actually leaked, this one is a sleeper too. Everyone on our Red side is giddy at the prospect of Biden’s numbers going down, but if this decision is anything other than a complete denial of standing and dismissal, it will shock and terrify women even more than Dobbs did, because any ruling that abortion pills can’t be mailed will affect every state at once. Republicans underestimate this impact at their peril.
But at least there will be dead babies. That’s a plus, huh?
The more the better. Margaret Sanger would be proud.
Ron Paul wrote an article for Liberty back in 1988 that convinced me RU-486 should be legal and unrestricted. He pointed out that it has legitimate off-label uses that have nothing to do with killing babies, so if a woman wants to buy it who’s to say she doesn’t intend to use it for one of those conditions? If she were then to use it, in the privacy of her own home, to murder her baby, that would be a terrible crime, but how could the state find out about it, and how could it possibly prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
Are you trying to say that women should be able to buy abortion pills for off label use without a prescription? When did they earn these medical degrees to allow them to prescribe drugs?
I think everyone should be able to buy any medicine that is good for anything, or that they think is good for anything. If they’re interested in actually improving their health rather than killing themselves they can consult a doctor for guidance on what they should and shouldn’t take, but it should be up to them. And anyone should be able to provide medical advice, with or without a degree; it should be up to consumers whether they wish to consult someone who actually knows medicine, or a witch doctor.
Strike that. That’s what I would like to see, and I’m sure what Dr Paul and most readers of Liberty would have liked to see, but his argument in that article was more modest. Given the current system of medical licensing, in which drugs need to be prescribed by a licensed doctor but doctors are allowed to prescribe for off-label use, RU-486 should be available on prescription and doctors should be able to prescribe it. Medical privacy should prevent the government from inquiring into what condition the woman has and why the doctor thinks the drug will be useful in treating it.
I’m with Milhouse on this one.
If I want to consult a mechanic about a problem with my car, I’m always free to do this. Or I can (try to) fix it myself in my backyard. Similarly, I can consult a doctor if I wish, to get his advice about whether I should line up to get a “vaccine” that damages my heart and fills my veins with Play-Doh, or whether I should take “horse wormer” instead… or I should be that free to use my own best judgment, without government coercion or prohibition.
But stupid people will make bad decisions? Stupid people still make a lot of bad decisions, and they always will. As Gandhi observed, if you are not free to make mistakes, you are not free. And for too many years, Americans have not been free.
Take the pure evil of Tony Fauci, piled atop the craven cowardice and corruption of all the “highly degreed” researchers who independently deduced his treason against humanity but let their silence be bought off with suitcases of free government money… are these the people you want to make absolute gatekeepers over your health and safety? Teach your brain to unlearn the reflex assumption that a government license assures either competence or honesty.
While I would disagree whether there was a “drug crisis” back then, the quoted material is mostly correct. The fact there were people who were hooked on this stuff (“opium dens” anyone?) is what drove the Prohibitionists to their sandwich boards. There were plenty of drunks prior to Prohibition, too. What Prohibition did was make some of them criminals and drove them to underground establishments and criminals in order to enjoy their addiction.
And this is why I speak of “self governance” in terms of what’s necessary to regain our freedom. If you can’t govern yourself. you can’t be free – you must be governed by someone else. If society can deal with issues without resort to criminal statutes, then freedom flourishes. Otherwise, you must be given strict rules on behavior and they must be enforced via punishment.
Except, the only reason this drug is talked about is because it is used by women for the purpose of murdering unborn babies.
However, I happen to agree with you.
Nuclear material has other uses besides blowing up and killing people too, so we should be able to buy that too, right?
Milhouse’s argument translates directly onto the rational treatment on gun availability as well.
What’s the only reason AR-15s are “talked about?” Oh, yeah… so maybe that isn’t a great indicator of why something should be automatically restricted.
Nuclear material is in fact available for quite mundane consumer purposes. You buy some whenever you buy a smoke detector at Home Depot, or a tritium gunsight for your Glock. Oh, but it’s a really small sample size? Tell that to the allergy sufferers who can’t buy “real” Sudafed anymore.
Consistency is instructive. The only real question is — are you a free man, capable of making your own decisions about your own life, or are you not?
Biden wins the election owing to Republican states with 6-week abortion laws establishing prohibition of abortion as the Republican brand and hostile to women.
It’s actually 75%-25% for a 15-week ban owing to half of the Republicans agreeing.
It’s a snatch defeat thing that the Republicans are so good at.
So Dems will hit this hard
Closest thing to an issue that’s ‘winning’ for them
It’s all they have, and imo a hail-mary
Dont’ underestimate the number of single issue voters.
Not really, the economy, Trump and what a shit show GOP is in general are all pretty big vote winners too.
15 weeks, have you seen a 15 week old child?
That is not the point. Rhhardin’s point is that a large majority of Americans do support banning abortion at 15 weeks, so Republicans should concentrate on getting that banned in as many states as possible, perhaps even by passing a federal law if that can be done constitutionally. But an equally large majority seem to oppose banning it at 6 weeks, and that majority seems to feel so strongly about it that it will put Democrats in power forever rather than see such a ban — Democrats who want abortion to be legal until several hours after birth — so rhhardin feels it’s foolish and suicidal for Republicans to be pushing such a ban (let alone banning it even earlier, which many Republicans want but nobody has yet proposed).
It’s a fair point, but must be balanced against the moral imperative of depriving murder of the stamp of legal approval.
That’s a gross distortion of what Americans think on abortion. The fact is that whenever abortion is voted on the pro life lobby loses even in quite conservative states.
Bull hockey.
@GWB
Facts buddy, feel free to point out where a vote has gone the prolife way
Of course, this argument hinges entirely on “if you cave on this one number, the proggies will stop pushing.” Anyone born more than 15 weeks ago should know better.
No, the argument isn’t based on that at all. It’s based on the observation that a 15-week ban is achievable and politically prudent despite the proggies’ opposition, because the majority of voters support it, while a 6-week ban is political suicide because the majority of voters strongly oppose it, and will vote Democrat to prevent it. None of this has anything to do with persuading proggies of anything.
I’m not agreeing with rhhardin, but it’s a fair point.
In 2033, Desantis can invite her after she goes public that she regrets the decision.
Our daughter was delivered via C-section @ 34 weeks due to pre-eclampsia and only needed the standard NICU unit. Earlier than that, lung development is problem but advanced NICU’s can handle it.
Bless you and your family!
Modern medicine is God’s gift to human understanding.
How dare we misuse this to destroy His creation?
OF COURSE, if the pregnancy became physically toxic to the mother, save the mother. Otherwise, counsel the mother and have the baby adopted.
This overt Republican stance abortion is what is going to deliver us all to Democrat Overlords. Medical decisions should never be decided by politicians or judges – only by patients and their medical teams. The morality of abortion needs to be left to G-d.
Murder is not a medical decision. The only time it becomes a medical decision is when the baby is threatening the mother’s life, so killing it becomes justified homicide in defense of others. And as in any other case of justified homicide, it’s judges and juries who examine the evidence for the necessity and decide whether it’s sufficient.
The question of when is life is a medical/scientific decision or at least one that allows for opinion from these sectors (when they are being honest and unbiased).
Both political sides are guilty of injecting tidbits of rationality with a heaping dose of emotional manipulation.
If the country will EVER move forward undivided on this issue that has to stop.
There is nothing other than interpretations of words from religious texts (that only some people believe in) as evidence that life begins at conception. So let’s try to get a consensus from rational thinking people on when life actually begins. If people come to that discussion with shields up and ready to fire the emotion phasers, it ends before it can even bear fruit.
Hence the “radical” Republicans are only trying to ban it from six weeks, because it’s easier to form a majority around that than conception (let alone dealing with the issue of which part of conception, and what exactly one means by conception). At six weeks there is a detectable primitive heartbeat and brain activity, and when someone is dying we can’t cut them up for spare parts until both of these have ceased, so it should be relatively easy to explain to people why killing the baby after that should be considered murder.
Partially agree and partially disagree
In physiology lectures, I try to subtly slip in the EEG at 6 weeks after the neural tube closes as a way of getting them to think about when life begins.
However,
“At six weeks there is a detectable primitive heartbeat and brain activity,..” this is true
“…and when someone is dying we can’t cut them up for spare parts until both of these have ceased, so it should be relatively easy to explain to people why killing the baby after that should be considered murder.” this is not
Remember the Terry Schiavo case? A persistent vegetative state doesn’t mean zero brain activity. In fact, sleep and wake still occur as well as some other things that can only be driven by neural commands. However, that person in PVS lacks awareness of their surroundings and higher brain functions.
As to how this relates to unborn babies, it basically means that not all EEG activity is created equal. Around 15 weeks is when a higher cognitive brain starts to materialize and EEG activity matches “brain wave” patterns as opposed to random electrical discharges. Do I want to argue 15 weeks is the beginning of life? Not necessarily but it shows that the discussion is a bit more complex.
Terry Schiavo was not pronounced dead and available for salvage until after her heart and brain had permanently ceased all activity. While she was in a PVS she was legally alive, and anyone who tried to kill her would have been charged with murder. Which is why her husband needed to starve her to death first rather than simply burying her as she was.
Its an electrical pulse at six weeks and the brain hasn’t formed in any meaningful respect. To compare that to someone who has gained personhood isn’t really comparable is it.
To compare that to someone who has gained personhood isn’t really comparable is it.
Ah, and here we finally have it. This is ultimately what the “6 weeks” vs “15 weeks” thing is about. People want to determine whether that life (that is obviously and distinctly there) is worth something.
And that whole argument boils down to a “pragmatic” argument. Which is an awful sort of morality in almost any case.
“People want to determine whether that life (that is obviously and distinctly there) is worth something.”
Just throw the Carswell Rationale back at them: in America, even the worthless with absolutely no brain activity deserve representation. And we don’t even need to make our case, as these folks by and large elected the current administration, who demonstrates it every day.
@GWB With respect you haven’t actually demonstrated any form of moral case. No one credible cares about when life begins because its too vague and leads to silly conclusions. If you think that life is the overriding criteria then you think practically every women is a murderer because the frequency of miscarriages is extremely high. And no it doesn’t logically follow that its deliberate vs accidental this is not an excuse in the eyes of the law rather its a mitigation.
And no it doesn’t ‘boil down’ to a pragmatic case, far from it. Determining personhood is quite tricky. But it is philosophically coherent, especially on combination with bodily autonomy rights.
1. Life begins at conception.
2. Abortion is homicide.
3. Sometimes, homicide can be justified.
We should all be able to rationally agree on #1 and #2, and be very unhappy with people’s opinions on #3.
Case in point
It’s human (not wolf) but not a human. There’s a bright line nowhere – at the other end you can say that you learn to be a human so the birth thing is only a convention for when society takes an interest.
Where there’s agreement is on what’s cute. Protecting what’s cute can get a majority and it’s good for society to protect what’s cute. So when can a fetus be portrayed as cute with sonograms or whatever? There’s your voting majority.
1. No one cares about using life as the standard because lots of things are alive, we don’t give equal status to all living things.
2. Nope precisely because you haven’t actually established personhood
You aren’t making a rational case
“You aren’t making a rational case”
In actuality, it is you who are not making a rational case.
A human life begins at the conception of that human life. This is accepted as fact for all persons.
Personhood in this usage is a legal fiction devised to facilitate the acceptance of abortion.
To be logical and rational it has to work the same way in all cases.
The same woman, at the same stage of pregnancy can either be carrying a human or a clump of cells. depending on how she FEELS about it. That status can actually change if she suddenly FEELS differently.
You are defending, nay, championing– irrationality.
The only time it is EVER in question is in the case of mothers trying to kill the conceived humans they are carrying.
At no other time is the humanity of a conceived human questioned. A fertilized human egg is a human –unless the mother decides it is a ‘clump of cells.
Logically, rationally, the mothers feelings do not alter the biological reality.
“The same woman, at the same stage of pregnancy can either be carrying a human or a clump of cells. depending on how she FEELS about it. That status can actually change if she suddenly FEELS differently”
Even worse… as the original Roe proved, her FEELINGS about what it was never did stop flip-flopping, even long after it was ashes.
There is nothing other than interpretations of words from religious texts (that only some people believe in) as evidence that life begins at conception.
Not according to most actual biologists. It’s genetically distinct and meets the criteria of “life”. It’s really not hard.
It’s actually you who are injecting the irrational by trying desperately to avoid that simple definition and develop a “consensus”. (Which, BTW, existed in 1972. SCOTUS had to search far afield from actual biologists to obtain “scientists” who would claim “We don’t have any idea when life starts.”) None of this is emotion. None of it is based on Scripture.
The only “emotion” I get is anger at folks who try desperately to avoid the definition of “life” that biologists have used for well over a century in order to provide “rational” cover for their desire to murder the unborn in order to avoid the consequences of the reproductive act – while telling me they’re just being “rational.”
The morality of abortion needs to be left to G-d.
Well, then, and if He says “It’s evil and anathema”? What should we do about it then?
Will they have time to sniff one another and for her to grope his hairy legs, like fish or public pool pre-adolescent children?
Hunter might “hit it” if Joe goes first. Maybe they can get DOKTOR Jill to setup a family group setting, they are real on family connections.
Restricting abortions. The laws in play are about restricting abortions.
So, as predicted, if a woman want’s an abortion she can go to a different state and get one. I don’t see the big deal here outside of the abortion itself.
It’s funny that a President that tried to use OSHA to force Americans to get an experimental shot is all in on “body autonomy” when it comes to abortion. So which is it, do we have control of our bodies or not?
Democrats are nothing if not inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.
These women should be chaste and have sex only with their husbands, and only for the purpose of having babies.
Hmm, time to review that 19th Amendment, eh?
As a man who, along with his mother, almost didn’t survive the birth process, I find the concept of abortion incomprehensible.
.
“Devout Roman Catholic” continues to obsessed with promoting abortions.
In this context, neither “devout” nor “roman” nor “catholic” Kind of like the Holy Roman Empire.
There’s something weirdly disturbing about the color/tone, general skin appearance of these pro-unlimited abortion advocates. The picture in this piece is just an air-brushed version of reality. When seen in person, there is just something off with these women.
So she can travel to next state. Not sure why this is being demagogued, except its election year.
“It sounds like someone used her situation to become the new “Roe.””
I have to wonder if she has any awareness of the humiliating recantational history of the old Roe.
“This is, in fact, a healthcare crisis,”
Yes, it actually is. That so-called “healthcare experts” keep talking about killing an unborn child as “healthcare” is terrible. These are the people a lot of Americans trust to inform them. That makes it a crisis. We should solve it by removing these sorts of people from authority and replacing them with doctors and scientists who actually care for people (including “the least of these”) and understand basic biology.
Democrats are going to run on the same two issues that they did in 2022, and probably end up being more successful with those issues this time around.
If you ever wondered what became of Baghdad Bob after his “layoff,” worry no more.