Why are you attributing some emotion to text? Why is it that you can't answer something in context and instead just need to inflame some anti-cop nonsense when you know damn well the answer is basically "that's not happening, except in very very rare cases"?
I'm not mad, I don't give a shit. I'm just tired of seeing obvious nonsense. Claiming that you can't call 911 cause cops will be a cause of that is literally nonsense. That is the insinuation and you're furthering it.
I know you know how threads work. There is context before that post. You should read it.
The FBI estimates that between 2,000 and 2,500 people entered the Capitol Building during the attack, some of whom participated in vandalism and looting, including in the offices of then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Congress members.
So you think there's only 2000 police officers in the USA? That 100% of them are at polling places harassing people and have a coverage of all polling places in America?
The fuck looney world are you all going on about? Your own source says
Nearly 30 sworn police officers from a dozen departments
Okay so at worst that's 30 polling places. And somehow this is something to bring up like it's going to be a statistical probability. This constant ACAB bullshit has infected you all and it's disappointing.
30 out of 21000 polling places is not "quite possibly" get out of here.
Edit: There's an estimated 900k police officers in the country. 30 did something you think is shitty, therefore the other 899.999k are also bad and will be there to make you regret voting and harass you! What a silly stupid argument.
The fuck relevance is that? Where do you think police are sitting at polling places harassing people?
the delays at the 3rd hospital
My statement/arguments were more for the first two visits. I feel (and I'm no doctor) was that it was already too late by visit 3. I don't think she was going to make it at that point regardless.
is that they shouldn’t be hard cases
Sepsis IS ALWAYS a hard case unless you catch it very very early. They delayed her significantly and she was already down the path of symptoms. I'm not sure that shrugging of the hard case of potential sepsis (for the first one that didn't bother checking her thoroughly) and confirmed sepsis for the second hospital... is anyway at all related to the case being hard because of "abortion".
No. If you actively see someone harassing someone. That's a crime. Call 911. The fuck with calling a random 800 number.
Some said the first ER missed warning signs of infection that deserved attention. All said that the doctor at the second hospital should never have sent Crain home when her signs of sepsis hadn’t improved. And when she returned for the third time, all said there was no medical reason to make her wait for two ultrasounds before taking aggressive action to save her.
Hawkins noted that Crain had strep and a urinary tract infection, wrote up a prescription and discharged her. Hawkins had missed infections before. Eight years earlier[...]
This has nothing to do with abortion ban. This has everything to do with shitty doctors. None of this required or even remotely called for any abortion. And should that first doctor NOT have been allowed to keep their license from previous cases of being a bad doctor... A women and her child probably would be alive today.
The other facility that examined the case was also in Texas. Clearly the "ban" doesn't stop them.
The well-resourced hospital is perceived to have more institutional support to provide abortions and miscarriage management, the doctor said. Other providers “are transferring those patients to our centers because, frankly, they don’t want to deal with them.”
Can't blame a "ban" if there's places that can and do legally do it.
This is shitty doctors/hospitals blaming to the law to skirt around hard cases that they simply don't want to deal with.
But because the delays and discharges occurred in an area of the hospital classified as an emergency room, lawyers said that Texas law set a much higher burden of proof: “willful and wanton negligence.”
Now this is a shame... This is what TX should be fixing. Malpractice shouldn't need a higher standard in an ER
All in all, I'm not sure how this is related to the abortion "ban" in any way shape or form. So why is it in the article/OP at all? Especially since in this case, it would have been covered regardless...
Section 170A.002 prohibits a person from performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion. There is an exception for situations in which the life or health of the pregnant patient is at risk. In order for the exception to apply, three factors must be met: A licensed physician must perform the abortion.
The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function" if the abortion is not performed. "Substantial impairment of a major bodily function" is not defined in this chapter.
The physician must try to save the life of the fetus unless this would increase the risk of the pregnant patient's death or impairment.
I'm not... Building a private road on your 10 acre plot is also simply cheaper than maintaining a DOT Approved road that can handle a full semi+trailer.
The same thing exists virtually everywhere. When government is involved, there is some standard written somewhere on what standards need to be met. In order to guarantee to meet those standards/tests there's costs associated with that.
It’s common knowledge you can easily ask 300% of your default price if it’s the government.
primarily because government requirements are often way more strict than standard commercial or consumer... If someone sets up a contract with you that requires you do 100 things you normally don't do... you're going to charge more. 3x is likely fair in most cases where compliance becomes a thing just for the cost of talking to counsel about meeting those requirements.
If your vehicle isn’t disabled, what’s the big deal about stopping?
If you're just careening down the highway at 80, you're not really giving your car a fair chance to let you know that it's really in a disabled state now are you?
It's just common sense that after a major impact you should evaluate the safety of continuing in your current state. Stopping and doing the bare minimum of just looking at your car would be the first step of that process.
This flies in the face of the article though... it expounds quite a lot that it's hard to sue for this situation at all. With the reviewing hospital doing the procedures in house quite often as they get referrals all the time.
It's clearly NOT a lot of risk since the burden of proof for that lawsuit would be effectively insurmountable. To the point that the no lawyer is willing to take the case according to the article. If it's that hard to put a lawsuit together on the matter, why would a doctor be scared about conducting an abortion that was already covered as an exception to the law already? I'm not seeing it. I'm not buying the excuse.
It's not like sepsis is undocumented and unknown to the medical community. It's not hard to justify the required treatment through literal decades of medical cases that have been studied and there's specific exemptions in place for medical necessity in TX (and most[qualifier only because I have checked all] other states with a "ban"). The only way this situation make sense is if these places didn't actually have the doctor on hand/staffed and it was some other medical provider that didn't have power to actually make the decision. In which case there's a whole 'nother bag of worms of a problem that needs to be addressed. If it's not negligence on the doctor's behalf (whether that be due to laziness,ignorance,fear, whatever), it's because there wasn't a doctor at all like an RN calling the shots. But the article claims to have gone through everything and doesn't share with us, so I have to assume the former.
This smells a lot like "cops need immunity otherwise they won't investigate stuff". No... they need to do their job better.