CA Sues Hospital for Refusing Abortion

[Rebound]

California has sued Providence Healthcare for refusing to give a woman an abortion. Here’s what happened:

A woman carrying twins had her water break at 15 weeks. She went to the hospital where her doctor told her one twin was already dead, the other couldn’t make it, and she’d probably die if an abortion wasn’t performed.  
 

Because a fetal heart beat could allegedly be heard, the hospital’s policy prohibited an abortion. After several hours, her husband drove her to the next closest hospital, where she arrived hemorrhaging and passing a blood clot the size of an apple. She expelled one fetus and was rushed into the operating room so the other fetus could be removed, records show. She could have died as a result of this hubris.  
 

This is the price women pay when abortion is denied to them. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/health/california-abortion-lawsuit-st-joseph-hospital.html

[gatomontes99]

Of course the left wants to force people to do things that are morally reprehensible.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Of course the left wants to force people to do things that are morally reprehensible.

You sick f*ck, what’s morally reprehensible is nearly killing a woman to preserve a non-viable pregnancy against the wishes of the patient and her doctor. 

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

You sick f*ck, what’s morally reprehensible is nearly killing a woman to preserve a non-viable pregnancy against the wishes of the patient and her doctor. 

No. This was a mistake. They should have treated her. But your reaponsw is going to be to force hmthe hospital to perform all abortions.

[Deluge]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

California has sued Providence Healthcare for refusing to give a woman an abortion. Here’s what happened:

A woman carrying twins had her water break at 15 weeks. She went to the hospital where her doctor told her one twin was already dead, the other couldn’t make it, and she’d probably die if an abortion wasn’t performed.  
 

Because a fetal heart beat could allegedly be heard, the hospital’s policy prohibited an abortion. After several hours, her husband drove her to the next closest hospital, where she arrived hemorrhaging and passing a blood clot the size of an apple. She expelled one fetus and was rushed into the operating room so the other fetus could be removed, records show. She could have died as a result of this hubris.  
 

This is the price women pay when abortion is denied to them. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/health/california-abortion-lawsuit-st-joseph-hospital.html

True healthcare providers should know better than to open up shop in California. 

[West]

Vile Marxist scum

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Of course the left wants to force people to do things that are morally reprehensible.

Of course you want YOUR VERSION of "morally" to be forced on EVERYONE ELSE. 🤮

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. This was a mistake. They should have treated her. But your reaponsw is going to be to force hmthe hospital to perform all abortions.

You don't know what you're talking about. IN FACT saving the woman's life should ALWAYS take precedence.

NOTHING wrong with that morally.

[robosmith]

38 minutes ago, Deluge said:

True healthcare providers should know better than to open up shop in California. 

Truly intelligent people know better than to believe your BULLSHIT.

39 minutes ago, West said:

Vile Marxist scum

.... says West about things he doesn't understand.

[Deluge]

50 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Truly intelligent people know better than to believe your BULLSHIT.

Say it, don't spray it, roboscream; you're getting your mirror wet. 

And good for you for showing TRUE self-awareness.  

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Say it, don't spray it, roboscream; you're getting your mirror wet. 

And good for you for showing TRUE self-awareness.  

No mirrors on my keyboard/screen, DELUGINAL

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

You sick f*ck, what’s morally reprehensible is nearly killing a woman to preserve a non-viable pregnancy against the wishes of the patient and her doctor. 

Dude it's plainly a lie.

Providence said they would treat her if her life was in danger, it wasn't. They perform abortions if the mother is in danger.  Nor are they being sued for that.  She was fine. 

That's why cali is suing and NOT the patient. Cali says all hospitals must give abortions and cannot refuse under any circumstances. 

So once again you and the left are lying to support a political agenda. 
Makes me wonder if maybe the left is sad she DIDN'T die - would have made for even better politics. 🙄

[Deluge]

21 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No mirrors on my keyboard/screen, DELUGINAL

No mirrors anywhere in your vicinity, robodenial, and that's your problem. 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Of course you want YOUR VERSION of "morally" to be forced on EVERYONE ELSE. 🤮

Yes. Just like I want thounshalt not murder to be forced on everyone. I want thou shalt not steal forced on everyone. It's all morally acceptable to protect the rights of the victims.

[Black Dog]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Dude it's plainly a lie.

Providence said they would treat her if her life was in danger, it wasn't. They perform abortions if the mother is in danger.  Nor are they being sued for that.  She was fine. 🙄

She was hemorrhaging, dummy.

 

Quote

That's why cali is suing and NOT the patient. Cali says all hospitals must give abortions and cannot refuse under any circumstances. 

The state is suing because the hospital violated state law requiring hospitals provide necessary emergency care and has the resources to back it up.

[herbie]

These people are simply vicious hateful wastes of skin posting these mor0nic responses simply to be a$$holes. They only stop when Mom comes in to pick up their crusty socks and underwear. Nobody is that sick.

'they should've 'treated her'- they did. That's how you treat situations like that since the 1900s FFS. As dumb as Trump about medicine.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

No mirrors anywhere in your vicinity, robodenial, and that's your problem. 

Only a problem for you and your BULLSHIT.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yes. Just like I want thounshalt not murder to be forced on everyone. I want thou shalt not steal forced on everyone. It's all morally acceptable to protect the rights of the victims.

ONLY if you completely IGNORE the CONFLICT with the woman's RIGHTS.

But why would you care about that when your rights are not threatened. 🤮

[gatomontes99]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

ONLY if you completely IGNORE the CONFLICT with the woman's RIGHTS.

But why would you care about that when your rights are not threatened. 🤮

Why should the woman have more rights than the baby? The baby didn't ask to be brought into existence. In the overwhelming majority of abortions, the baby is not the result of rape. So it isn't like the woman didn't know she could be pregnant. So why does she get to create them kill that human?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

She was hemorrhaging, dummy.

She was in no danger and in fact was operated on and did just fine.   But hey, lets lie about it and see if that makes it better 🙄🙄🙄

 

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

She was hemorrhaging, dummy.

 

The state is suing because the hospital violated state law requiring hospitals provide necessary emergency care and has the resources to back it up.

Doesn't really sound that way,  Sounds like they offered to get her to the best care for her condition and she was more worried about the price tag.

The lawsuit says Nusslock’s doctor recommended that she be airlifted more than 270 miles to the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center for an abortion, but Nusslock declined because she worried that her insurance wouldn’t cover the $40,000 cost of the helicopter ride.

So your argument is that she was in genuine fear of her life but.... was willing to die rather than pay a bill?

And again:

 

“Before we left Providence, a nurse came in, and she gave me a bucket full of towels, and she said, ‘they wanted me to give you these in case something happens in the car.’ ”

Nusslock said she did not take the towels because she didn’t know if she would be charged for them.

More worried about paying for some towels then her health it would seem. Doesn't sound like she thought she was in danger at the time. 

As to the state's case this is what they say

In a news release on Monday, Bonta said that “It is damning that here in California, where abortion care is a constitutional right, we have a hospital implementing a policy that’s reminiscent of heartbeat laws in extremist red states.

“With today’s lawsuit, I want to make this clear for all Californians: abortion care is healthcare. You have the right to access timely and safe abortion services. At the California Department of Justice, we will use the full force of this office to hold accountable those who, like Providence, are breaking the law.”

Not a word about providing emergency services. THey're claiming abortions are  a right and that's what the hospital violated. 

So unless you have different info than what's in this article, you're simply wrong. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So unless you have different info than what's in this article, you're simply wrong. 

That means he's a leftie, by your standards 🤡

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

That means he's a leftie, by your standards 🤡

Sure Kid 😊

🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

[Hodad]

28 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Why should the woman have more rights than the baby? The baby didn't ask to be brought into existence. In the overwhelming majority of abortions, the baby is not the result of rape. So it isn't like the woman didn't know she could be pregnant. So why does she get to create them kill that human?

A. The pregnant person is indisputably a person. 

B. The fetus is not a person

C. Even if the fetus were a person with full equal rights, it would no more entitled to inhabit the host's body--steal the blood and tissue, and inflict medical and psychological trauma--than any other person. 

Your mother brought you into the world, but you can't take her blood or her kidney, not any other part of her simply because of that relationship. She can willingly donate either, but you're not entitled to take them against her will.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Even if the fetus were a person with full equal rights, it would no more entitled to inhabit the host's body--steal the blood and tissue, and inflict medical and psychological trauma--than any other person. 

That much at least is absolutely patently untrue by Canadian work American law.

It is absolutely required under the law for parents to provide the "Necessaries Of life" To their children until they reach an age of maturity.

This is both in and out of the womb. You cannot allow your child to die by starving to death, and you cannot conduct an operation to kill them, even if they are inconvenient to you or reliant on you for those items necessary for survival.

This is already well established in Canadian and American law so you lose that one entirely

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Only a problem for you and your BULLSHIT.

There are no problems over here, robomarx. There's just me teaching you about your dependency on woke wankery. You're like a crack addict. lol