Pro-life Dr. Christina Francis Breaks Down Kate Cox Abortion Case
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Kate Cox’s pro-abortion doctor told her she needed an abortion after her unborn baby was diagnosed with Trisomy 18. Pro-life O.B.G.Y.N. Dr. Christian Francis shares the truth about a Trisomy 18 diagnosis.
--------
EWTN Pro-Life Weekly with Prudence Robertson airs on EWTN every Thursday night at 10 pm ET. It re-airs on Sundays at 10:30 am and Tuesdays at 1:30 pm.
This TV show seeks to inform and engage on life issues. It is produced by EWTN News www.ewtnnews.com
--------
Don't miss an episode of EWTN Pro-Life Weekly. Get updates here:
www.ewtn.com/t...
--------
Sign up today to receive the Pro-Life Weekly newsletter: ewtn.com/prolife
Subscribe to EWTN UA-cam channel here: / ewtn
--------
Follow EWTN Pro-Life Weekly on Social Media:
Facebook: / ewtnprolife
Twitter: / ewtnprolife
Instagram: / ewtnprolife
-------------
You can support the EWTN News mission:
bit.ly/3qDR1qf
Smh. Do they even consider the COST of care for a pregnancy that has a 70 percent survival until one year of age, as stated by the doctor. Again. You have beliefs and biases? That’s great for YOU. That ain’t got s#** to do with someone else who’s not in the same mental, emotional, financial, or physical state as YOU.
Killing innocent humans doesn’t affect you and you shouldn’t care? Good to know.
still 15% survival rate with what constant doctor visit and medicine and more, that is a lot to go thr for only 15% chance. and still you say the child will be fighting to live everyday. that's too much. let the mother decide and move on
A mother who was very pro life at the time had given birth to a baby with trisomy 18. 48 hours later, the baby had died even with medical treatment. Death of the baby was confirmed ahead of time and the mother was left with a kinda big hospital bill. Mother no more biological children after the incident. I side with Kate Cox.
'Give' appropriate health care? In America? lol....
At what cost????
I'm pro medical freedom, and others' medical decisions are none of my business, but I will say that every single confirmed pregnancy should also result in immediate tax status change for an additional dependent then. Currently, tax breaks only begin at live birth not during pregnancy, so that needs to change immediately. The government can't have it both ways. Live birth defines a dependent in 2023. According to the government, it's not a dependent yet.
One thing to add though. At one point the doctor mentions that the court documents allege that the condition is an immediate risk to the mother’s health and then she says “IF that were the case, the courts would have allowed the procedure”. Therefore, the allegations of the court documentation are false and the mother’s health must not be in immediate danger. Now maybe that really is the case, but seems like she has more faith than a lot of people these days that the court would definitely have made the right decision based only on the mother’s health. Is it possible the court could be so staunchly prolife that it would deny the request for the abortion even despite their being merit for it based on health ?
The court is so clearly biased, it's Texas.
What’s the definition of “health?” Could it be the docs are so “pro-abortion” they could exaggerate the situation?
@@EpoRose1 Not conservatives not only thinking their smarter than medical professionals who studied for 8+ years, and asking for definitions of things that can be googled. If something inside your body could kill you/greatly injure you in an abnormal way obviously you're in bad health.
That doctor has never had children. So she never experienced pregnancy, a mis-carriage or a life threatening pregnancy!!!!!
I wish some of the pro choice side could watch this and respond. Seems like both sides of this issue just talk to themselves and don’t actually talk to and explain themselves to those who disagree with them.
I’m moderate and pro rationality. As far the law is concerned, the doctor for Cox was mostly worried about Cox losing her future fertility, which would be a major bodily function, and possibly qualify Cox for an exemption under the law. I agree legally that wanting an abortion because the fetus likely has an undesirable defect is not sufficient under Texas law. But if the issue is that Cox’s future health (fertility) would likely be lost (at “serious risk”) then that would rise to the level of an exemption.
The doctor in the video seems to think that the court and Cox’s doctor think Cox doesn’t meet an exemption for an abortion. Not true if the court opinion. The court just said that it is not in the business of prohibiting or green-lighting medical decisions. Only doctors make abortion exemption medical decisions. That’s explicit in the law and the court can’t refuse that.
Furthermore, the language Cox’s doctor used in the pleading did not dot the i’s and cross the t’s sufficiently to track the language of the exemption. That’s a nitpick and legal detail but not the thrust of the opinion, which instead is the more general claim that only doctors make medical decisions, not courts. Addressing the nitpick, think of it like this: imagine if Cox’s doctors had used beautiful language to make it clear that Cox should get an exemption for an abortion. The court still would say the same thing - “don’t bother asking us to sign off on your medical decisions. Doctors can perform legal abortions without telling us or asking us, and we don’t give permission or prohibition on it.”
The doctor in this video makes the false assumption that Cox’s doctor doesn’t think Cox meets the exemption requirements. It’s possible that the doctor thinks Cox meets the second exemption about serious risk of harm to a major bodily function without that being a risk of death. In other words, the doctor on tv says accurately that it doesn’t seem Cox is at risk of dying from this. True , but if she’s at risk of losing her fertility, that could be enough to warrant the abortion.
Lastly, if a doctor thinks Cox needs an abortion and that would satisfy the exemption requirements, why doesn’t Cox get a doctor?? Answer: doctors are terrified of getting prosecuted and sued, even they are right. It would cost too much money and there’s plenty of downside risk and basically not upside risk. So this situation creates and huge disincentive to getting an abortion.
@@RC-qf3mp arg, lost my comment
Seen that last point brought up multiple times in the news and podcasts. Usually with the angle that the courts are abdicating their responsibilities in defining what exceptions are allowed, and creating a situation where it’s too risky for a doctor to perform and abortion for any reason, even if it might be necessary. Basically that the courts are saying “we won’t define what a medically necessary abortion is, that’s for doctors to decide. BUT if they’re wrong they will face severe consequences, AND we won’t define when they are right or wrong”. But then who decides if an abortion performed by a doctor was necessary? If it was really the doctor then they would be immune from criminal consequences. As I understand it, the Texas law works that regular citizens can sue a doctor for performing an abortion? So I guess in the end, legally speaking, it’s “the people” who decide if an abortion is medically necessary? Like, if a doctor performs and abortion and no one sues them, then it was necessary, but if someone does sue them, then it was unnecessary?
@@Kenta455 you are almost correct. Your outrage is proper and gets the main issue but your focus on the COURT as a source of ire is misplaced. The court has to follow the law, and the law says only doctors can make the medical decision. AFTER doctors make the medical decision, they can be sued anyway, in fact, you can’t sue a doctor for performing an illegal abortion if the doctor doesn’t form any abortion, and that’s why doctor in Texas would rather not perform any abortion. Basically, they can get sued after ANY (attempted) legal abortion. And after being sued, the court (judge or jury) will decide if the doctor’s decision was really “reasonable” or not. Now, it’s perfectly normal for people to see other for not being “reasonable”. But strange to see that law in something as volatile as abortion where performing one that is medically successful and does hurt the mother and wasn’t botched up, but you can still be sued by a third party who is just a rabid pro lifer. That’s the problem. The law- it incentives radical pro life citizens to effectively punish anybody involved in the abortion by making them spend money on lawyers and go to court . It’s punishment even if the doctor wins. It’s a waste of time, money and the torment of thinking you might go to jail for 99 years .
So to repeat…. As bad as this law is, the Texas Supreme Court can’t rewrite the law and can’t just make medical decisions beforehand for every time a woman wants a medical exemption abortion. That’s an absurd role for a court to play and against the actual letter of the law which is clear- only doctors make the medical judgment.
@@RC-qf3mp seems like it makes sense from a certain perspective. How do you make sure that a doctor really truly believes that performing an abortion is absolutely necessary; you force them to have to risk their career on it. Like, if you worked at a hotel and there was an emergency button you could push to bring the police and the fire department running, but your boss told you “only push this if it’s a REAL emergency, and if it’s not, then you are fired”. If you are afraid of being fired, you are going to be really really picky about pushing that button, and probably you are only going to push it if the situation becomes SO BAD that you are no longer worried about or thinking about the consequences of being fired, you just know you have to push that button, no matter what happens. Wonder if that was basically the thought process. If a doctor is willing to perform an abortion even knowing that it could ruin their career and result in harsh penalties, that truly “proves” that the doctor believes it was medically necessary. Like, if a doctor is going to perform an abortion, they want that doctor to be SO SURE that it’s the right choice that they would risk everything on that choice. If you wouldn’t stake your reputation on your decision, then you aren’t really sure it’s the right decision.
Does make a little bit of sense, but of course doctors are not perfect and infallible, they can make mistakes. Nor does it seem like all doctors will ever be able to fully agree on when it’s justified to perform an abortion. If we can sue a doctor for performing an illegal abortion, shouldn’t we also be able to sue a doctor for refusing to perform one that was necessary, especially if the women dies or suffers extreme health issues?
But it also still seems a little like circular reasoning, with the court thing. They SAY Only doctors can make medical judgements, but the court can judge after the fact if the medical judgment was right or wrong, therefore the court IS making the medical decision in cases brought to it, either confirming the doctor’s decision or overriding it. And seems like logically speaking (which I guess is different from legally speaking), there is no difference between decided before an abortion if it was allowable vs deciding after the abortion. If you can make a decision about if something was allowable after the fact, you can make the same decision about it before the fact too.
Very very sad. Very complicated. I feel sorry for them.
She will have to live the consequences
What consequences?
Of not dying?
That's a stupid comment. of course she knows she has to live with the consequences. don't you think her heart is broken?? what a stupid thing to say. Good grief
Oh piss off.
BS
😢😢😢
"to end unborn baby's life".. the little girl is practically dead. Even the your doctor is quoting just 15% chance into teens and she hasn't seen and assessed her and the little girl's condition.
don't be pro unnecessary suffering. let the little girl come back to God's arms in peace.
I knew a girl who was born with a genetic disorder, and it eventually killed her at age 14. She did have some suffering, but she also had a lot of fun and a lot of joy. Her life was worth something. She was worth something. She loved life. I'm grateful to her mother and father, who suffered and sacrificed to make her short life happy and fulfilling. They are good people, and never thought of killing her in the womb. No human being, even a parent, has the right to decide if a child lives or dies. Only God has that right.
@@isoldam What good is God if the child dies and the mother as well? The father would be left with two kids and be on his own. Would that be His will too?
just because some people have survived and had okay lives doesn't mean that everybody will and nobody else has any business telling someone else. well my friend had a baby and it was fine. it's not fine for anybody to but their noses into any of this. keep your own opinions to your own body and leave other people alone and stop saying freedom and liberty and everything if this is the case. shame on all of you people who who are judging with terrible hypocrisy.
“Die in peace?” More like “pieces.” How ignorant are you? The baby will either be cut up, stabbed in the heart and delivered dead, or delivered early purposefully enough and suffocate. Please, do a little research.
@@jemiinouYou sound like someone who sells abortions. Why not kill every unborn child if there’s a risk to the mother? Why not kill one child to let the others live?
Love this thorough analysis and breakdown of this heart-wrenching case. I remember being asked whether we would want to have a procedure to determine if our baby might have Down Syndrome, given my wife's older age in pregnancy. We told the doctor no because we trust God completely. I heard of a case where a doctor recommended aborting a baby due to having been confirmed to have Down Syndrome. With a strong faith in God, the couple decided to have the baby. They had a healthy child and have been very thankful for that decision.
My test wasn’t “wrong,” and my son does have Down syndrome. He’s quite healthy, thank you, and it’s not “less tragic” if a baby is killed because of a disability.
@@EpoRose1 Thank you for sharing. I work at a high school where I see kids with special needs daily. The joy and love I see from their parents inspire me a lot.
Now that surgery is possible in-utero, and can be performed to correct structural heart abnormalities prior to birth (such structural defects as may be common in trisomy babies), there may be BENEFITS to ultrasounds to detect structural organ anomalies. The doctor interviewed here is clearly an advocate for both patients; however, far too many lack a sense of obligation to the unseen patient. Docs should do a better job of counseling patients about the advanced treatment options they may have never heard of. The perfect time to surgically correct organ deficiencies for baby is while Mom is still doing the work for baby's organs. Modern medicine has paved the way for this, and it's amazing!
I appreciate this thorough explanation as well as honing in on the apparent deception that Mrs. Cox has been subjected to in lieu of proper informed consent. I hope that many more people will watch!
But if our medical advances in medical intervention allow for us to extend life for a child who would normally die - as it sounds like this dr. is describing - then our medical advances should also allow this mother to decided to terminate the pregnancy. She has two children at home and having all of them have to suffer emotionally and financially due to this terribly disabled child isn't for us to say. I don't agree that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, but I also think situations like this are for the mother/father to decide what is best for them and their familiy, not us.
This case is problematic because it’s basically euthanasia for a fetus, based on the intent of not wanting a baby with this defect. And for the same reason euthanasia is illegal for adults in the US, is even more illegal for a fetus like this (in Texas).
The main legal justification under Texas law for an abortion would be under the exemption re: serious harm to a major bodily function. Here, that would be loss of fertility.
@@RC-qf3mpKilling a disabled child in the hopes of having another, “normal” one. Gee, that’s not eugenics.
This is what happened when you don't realize that you have a soul and not just flesh and blood. And not knowing that there's a Creator who loves us. This is what happened if you don't belong to a community of people who believe in God that loves you and love one another
no, it doesn't mean that at all. it means that medical things happen and biology happens and things get messed up and it's none of your damn business. she wants kids and she wants more kids and she wants to be a mother to the kids she already has so you guys need to get a grip
@@vintihar03 it's her business with her Creator
@@vintihar03 the greatest destroyer of peace today is the cry of the innocent unborn child. For if a mother can murder her own child in her own womb, what is left for you and for me to kill each other?
What is the obsession with the word "absolutely" in this video?
So sad. I feel so bad that the state and Ken Paxton would make these people watch their baby die a terrible death. They really dont care about people.
Are you saying it needs to be OK for a parent to kill their newborn that is born with a disability?
What do you think happens during an abortion? 🙄
@@EpoRose1 A human being is killed
.......
I’ve heard of far too many cases where a pregnant mom would be told their baby had trisomy and then went on to have the baby and it did not have it let alone anything wrong!
Really???
@@thewanderingamerican5412 yes, really. Actually one of my best friends was told her baby had it a few years ago and they pleaded with her to terminate. She refused and went on and they swore up and down if the baby even made it full term she would die shortly after birth in severe pain. She was born full term and not a single issue! She’s now four years old and thriving. She has absolutely nothing wrong and super smart and healthy, I have a cousin who was also told the same and had the same outcome. I’ve heard it a few times throughout my life. It’s actually common for them to be wrong. Their test has a high failure rate.
@@thewanderingamerican5412 as a matter of fact out of all the times I’ve heard it, the one and only time it was actually true was my friends who had a son with Down syndrome which is trisomy 21. Other than that not a single person I’ve heard of actually had a baby with it, thankfully!
Doesn’t really matter if the test was “right or wrong”: abortion kills a human being.