Advertisement

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • Greatest Victory for Abortion Rights Since Roe v. Wade

    Posted by btomba_77 on June 27, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    [url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/27/supreme-court-s-texas-decision-is-the-greatest-victory-for-abortion-rights-since-roe-v-wade.html]
    [h1]Supreme Courts Texas Decision Is the Greatest Victory for Abortion Rights Since Roe v. Wade:[/h1] Red states like Texas have used womens health as an excuse to gut reproductive rights for the past 20 years. That’s all over now.  [/url]

    [link=http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/whole-womans-health-v-cole/][i]Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt[/i][/link] is the most monumental [link=http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/06/27/cautious-kennedy-saves-abortion-again-in-texas-case.html]abortion rights decision[/link] in decades. In time, it may prove to be nearly as significant to a rising generation of American women as [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] was to their mothers and grandmothers.
     

    In a [link=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/27/cautious-kennedy-saves-abortion-again-in-texas-case.html]5-3 decision[/link] authored by Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court ruled that a [link=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/18/abortion-barriers-hit-latinas-the-hardest.html]Texas abortion restriction [/link]passed in 2013 places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion and that it constitutes an undue burden on abortion access. Accordingly, the Texas law was found to be unconstitutional.
     

    The [link=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/18/abortion-barriers-hit-latinas-the-hardest.html]Texas law[/link], HB 2, required abortion providers to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers and to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The law has been stuck in legal limbo since Gov. Rick Perry signed it in 2013, ultimately getting appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

     
    well done!

    satyanar replied 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Members · 245 Replies
  • 245 Replies
  • kaldridgewv2211

    Member
    June 27, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    I think we’ll just start seeing states looking for the loopholes. Like we have the same rules for abortion clinics as facility XYZ, hence State is treating them the same.

    • btomba_77

      Member
      June 27, 2016 at 8:07 pm

      Quote from DICOM_Dan

      I think we’ll just start seeing states looking for the loopholes. Like we have the same rules for abortion clinics as facility XYZ, hence State is treating them the same.

      I think they will try.   But that’s precisely what the Texas law that was struck tried to do… it tried to force the clinics to be regulated as ambulatory surgical centers.  And SCOTUS swatted it down …. hard.  Today’s ruling was pretty solid in stating that if laws disguised as “safety” actually have the effect of limiting access they will be tossed.
       
       
      This is strong precedent that markedly limits the TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) strategy.  Lower courts will throw out the rulings quickly.

      • julie.young_645

        Member
        June 28, 2016 at 5:50 am

        Help me understand. Abortion is a medical procedure, and there are some risks involved. Probably more than liposuction and less than an appendectomy, but some risk exists. WHY is it limiting to require these clinics to operate within medical standards? 
         
        SCOTUS as currently composed will not allow anything to impact abortion, that much is clear. The opinion cites women’s health and claims rather ironically that holding clinics to higher standards limits care. I’m having trouble with that concept. 
         
        Seems to me abortion, the availability of which I find an unfortunate necessity, should be between the woman, the doctor, and G-d, and the state should not be a player. I get why the far Right is against it, but why has the Left adopted abortion as its main litmus test?

        • btomba_77

          Member
          June 28, 2016 at 6:05 am

          Quote from DoctorDalai

          Help me understand. Abortion is a medical procedure, and there are some risks involved. Probably more than liposuction and less than an appendectomy, but some risk exists. WHY is it limiting to require these clinics to operate within medical standards? 

          Had Texas decided to make [i]all[/i] outpatient procedures subject to the ASC standard the law would have been legal.
           
          It is that they specifically targeted abortion providers, despite the fact that other higher-risk procedures were not targeted, in an effort to limit access that was deemed unconstitutional since abortion has previously been held to be a constitutional right.
           
          The Bloomberg editorial board said it better than me:
           
          [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-27/supreme-court-calls-texas-abortion-bluff]Supreme Court Calls Texas’ Abortion Bluff[/url]

          Had the legislatures intent — to run abortion clinics out of business — been less blatant, the bill would have been a damning admission of negligence. Forty years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, Texas legislators were asserting that the state had failed for four decades to protect its womens health.

          The opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, which implicitly chastised the lower court for accepting the states feeble arguments, put an end to the charade. We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes, it reads. Childbirth, it notes, is 14 times more likely than abortion to result in death, but Texas law allows a midwife to oversee childbirth in the patients own home.


          The morality of abortion remains a subject of honest and vigorous debate in the U.S. But access to abortion, as the Supreme Court has once again confirmed, is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. [b]Opponents have every right to try to change hearts and minds on the issue. But cynical ploys such as the Texas law do them no favors.[/b]

          • julie.young_645

            Member
            June 28, 2016 at 6:22 am

            They should certainly make all procedures safe for all patients, and better late than never in doing so. So apparently it’s better to lower the common denominator as long as abortion isn’t impacted. Do I have that right?

            • kaldridgewv2211

              Member
              June 28, 2016 at 6:24 am

              They can take the other way out and raise the standard for all providers.

              • btomba_77

                Member
                June 28, 2016 at 6:35 am

                Quote from DoctorDalai

                 

                They should certainly make all procedures safe for all patients, and better late than never in doing so. So apparently it’s better to lower the common denominator as long as abortion isn’t impacted. Do I have that right? 

                 
                 

                Quote from DICOM_Dan

                They can take the other way out and raise the standard for all providers.

                This.
                 
                 They could pass a law that targeted all procedures/ all providers/ all outpatient centers.  That could have a significant impact on abortion and would still be legal.
                 
                They simply can’t specifically target abortion. 

            • kayla.meyer_144

              Member
              June 28, 2016 at 6:37 am

              Quote from DoctorDalai

              They should certainly make all procedures safe for all patients, and better late than never in doing so. So apparently it’s better to lower the common denominator as long as abortion isn’t impacted. Do I have that right?

              It had nothing to do with lowering any standards as the standards were artificial created specifically to close down clinics, women’s health be damned. As the posts explicitly state, the laws were specific to abortions leaving even more dangerous procedures untouched to be done in an office or even in the home, as in home delivery with midwives, which incidentally can have a lower complication rate than hospital deliveries as well as costing less.
               
              After all is said and done, legal abortions are much safer than childbirth.
               
              From the NIH:
               
              [link=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271[/link]
               

              The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.
              [h4]CONCLUSION: [/h4] Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

               

               

              • julie.young_645

                Member
                June 28, 2016 at 7:41 am

                And it’s 100% fatal for the fetus but we won’t go there.
                 
                I am told the whole issue is choice. Bringing the baby to term or not is the binary choice that leads the woman down two very different paths. It is a rare situation where abortion is chosen to save the life of the mother, and the dangers of routine childbirth are generally not included in the equation. 
                 
                I would think we want the highest standards of safety for all procedures. It’s rather ironic that you are arguing against that simply to preserve one particular “right”. Were the Texas provisions designed to shut down abortion clinics? Probably, but if your daughter found herself in need, wouldn’t you prefer she go to the clinic with the highest standards? 
                 
                Again WHY is this the liberal mantra?

                • btomba_77

                  Member
                  June 28, 2016 at 7:43 am

                  Yes. The Supreme Court found that the Texas Provisions were meant to shut down abortion clinics.

                  That is a large portion of the basis of the Supreme Court ruling.

                • kaldridgewv2211

                  Member
                  June 28, 2016 at 7:50 am

                  “And it’s 100% fatal for the fetus but we won’t go there.”
                   
                  There in lies debate.  What’s legal and what’s moral?  I too don’t think abortion is the right way to go but legally my view doesn’t matter.  
                   
                  “The morality of abortion remains a subject of honest and vigorous debate in the U.S. But access to abortion, as the Supreme Court has once again confirmed, is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”

                  • btomba_77

                    Member
                    June 28, 2016 at 8:06 am

                    Exactly. The exactly. The anti-abortion side has to win the hearts and minds debate so that the nation and the courts agree that abortion should be illegal.

                    The back door restrictions won’t be tolerated.

                    • julie.young_645

                      Member
                      June 28, 2016 at 8:15 am

                      I’m not questioning legality, but if it’s going to exist, shouldn’t abortion be as safe as possible? It seems that at least some Texas clinics were/would have been able to meet the standards. 
                       
                      We all understand the mentality of those who rabidly oppose abortion. We don’t have to agree, but we understand. But I have some trouble with those who rabidly insist on it.  I am very upset with, for example, many older Jewish women I know who are adamant that we have to vote for Shrillary to “preserve women’s rights.” Just what right is it we need to preserve? As near as I can tell, the only right involved is the right to have indiscriminate unprotected sex and erase the consequences. 

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      June 28, 2016 at 8:23 am

                      No more out-patient procedures for anyone for anything as an argument can always be made in absolute terms about the increased dangers of out-patient procedures over hospital-based ones. So ban mid-wifes for instance.
                       
                      Hospital based procedures also bill & reimburse better.

                    • kaldridgewv2211

                      Member
                      June 28, 2016 at 8:50 am

                      Quote from DoctorDalai

                      Just what right is it we need to preserve? As near as I can tell, the only right involved is the right to have indiscriminate unprotected sex and erase the consequences. 

                      So we need to police sexual encounters?  It would be great if everyone was a responsible adult but that’s just not the way it is.  I even think some of the unwanted pregnancies could be prevented with quaility sex ed.  That’s not really a luxury to students everywhere in this country.  They get abstinence only education.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      June 28, 2016 at 9:30 am

                      Quote from DoctorDalai

                      Just what right is it we need to preserve? As near as I can tell, the only right involved is the right to have indiscriminate unprotected sex and erase the consequences. 

                      A baby is a “consequence” for “unprotected” sex. You are showing your true colors, Dalai.
                       
                      Why are women the only ones who must suffer for unprotected sex and subsequently suffer the “consequences?” Serves them right?
                       
                      That’s been a large problem for me with Republican thinking since day 1, this antiquated paleo thinking about women & their expected role in life. Ask your women friends if they consider themselves nothing more than baby machines and vessels, who must be protected against their “baser” instances or suffer “the consequences.” I’m sure most will applaud your thinking on the issue.

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      June 28, 2016 at 10:08 am

                      xxxx-dup

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      June 28, 2016 at 10:10 am

                      Dalai’s comments in this thread show precisely why this is such a huge Supreme Court ruling.

                      People whose true motivations are rooted in moral opposition to abortion were attempting to use a veneer of safety in order to decrease access to the procedure, a clearly defined constitutional right.

                      That, thankfully, is now no longer an option.

                    • heenadevk1119_462

                      Member
                      June 28, 2016 at 4:45 pm

                      Quote from DoctorDalai

                      I’m not questioning legality, but if it’s going to exist, shouldn’t abortion be as safe as possible? It seems that at least some Texas clinics were/would have been able to meet the standards. 

                      We all understand the mentality of those who rabidly oppose abortion. We don’t have to agree, but we understand. But I have some trouble with those who rabidly insist on it.  I am very upset with, for example, many older Jewish women I know who are adamant that we have to vote for Shrillary to “preserve women’s rights.” Just what right is it we need to preserve? As near as I can tell, the only right involved is the right to have indiscriminate unprotected sex and erase the consequences. 

                       
                      When 93% of abortions, at least, are elective it is pure folly to act like the culture that has produced what Dalai refers to is anything but what he states.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      June 29, 2016 at 4:48 am

                      If “do no harm” is actually a truthful concern of yours, cigar, you have much bigger problems other than abortion. You have outright fraud and quackery and patients receiving bills and treatments that have everything to do with the profit motive and ignorance at best and nothing to do with “do no harm.”
                       
                      Cura te ipsum
                       
                      And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
                       
                      Abortion exists not because of lazy immoral women. Address the cause & the need will diminish.

                    • heenadevk1119_462

                      Member
                      July 1, 2016 at 4:23 pm

                      Quote from Frumious

                      If “do no harm” is actually a truthful concern of yours, cigar, you have much bigger problems other than abortion. You have outright fraud and quackery and patients receiving bills and treatments that have everything to do with the profit motive and ignorance at best and nothing to do with “do no harm.”

                      Cura te ipsum

                      And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

                      Abortion exists not because of lazy immoral women. Address the cause & the need will diminish.

                       
                      Notice what people do who have been deceived – they start talking about another issue to distract from the one at hand. This topic is abortion.
                       
                      The others can be treated in their own way, on their own time. My comments still stand, because they have nothing to do with me, but on the contrary – they stand on their own.

                  • kayla.meyer_144

                    Member
                    June 28, 2016 at 8:11 am

                    Quote from Dalai

                     
                    And it’s 100% fatal for the fetus but we won’t go there. 
                      
                    I am told the whole issue is choice. Bringing the baby to term or not is the binary choice that leads the woman down two very different paths. It is a rare situation where abortion is chosen to save the life of the mother, and the dangers of routine childbirth are generally not included in the equation. 

                     
                     

                    Quote from DICOM_Dan

                    “And it’s 100% fatal for the fetus but we won’t go there.”

                    There in lies debate.  What’s legal and what’s moral?  I to don’t think abortion is the right way to go but legally my view doesn’t matter.  

                    Legally, abortion is legal. If the issue is aborting the fetus, then that is the issue, no need to disguise it behind fake arguments about fake concerns of the health of the mother.
                     
                    There have been arguments made on the anti-abortion side that the life and health of the mother is secondary regardless. I absolutely disagree with this argument as well as anti-abortionists’ arguments in general.
                     
                    [link=http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/the-life-of-the-mother/]http://www.factcheck.org/…he-life-of-the-mother/[/link]
                     

                    Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh falsely claimed that there wasnt one instance where an abortion would be necessary to save the mothers life. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that more than 600 women die each year due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth, and more would die if they didnt have access to abortion. 
                     
                    Walsh made his controversial comments after an Oct. 18 debate with Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth. Walsh [link=http://news.yahoo.com/video/walsh-backtracks-controversial-abortion-comments-234000980.html]said[/link] that with modern technology and science, there wasnt one instance where an abortion would be necessary to save the mothers life. When a reporter asked him to clarify that he was saying it was never medically necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother, Walsh replied, Absolutely.
                     
                    A dated [link=http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html]1998 study[/link]  published by the [i]International Family Planning Perspectives[/i] journal reported that a 1987-1988 survey found that 2.8 percent of 1,773 women who had had an abortion that year said the reason for the abortion was risk to maternal health.

                     
                     
                    There is a lot of ignorance in general about the issue, women and pregnancy in general. We don’t need to talk about Republican’s statements about “women’s bodies can prevent pregnancies in the event of rape” of instance.
                     
                     

  • btomba_77

    Member
    June 28, 2016 at 7:44 am

    And if the clinics were already adequately safe, then adding additional burdens and regulations that do not truly increase the safety is merely a cynical attempt to decrease access.

    That is what the Supreme Court found. I agree with the Supreme Court.

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    June 28, 2016 at 10:39 am

    My wife and daughter and all the other women of the world deserve to live their lives as they please, making decisions as well as any man & not be limited by narrow-minded people and laws and customs that are from the past and disguised as moral superiority. Women deserve to live their lives as they choose as free as men with out artificial encumbrances “protecting” them from themselves and their baser instincts. Eve disobeying God’s will and tempting poor innocent Adam is an outdated story not based in reality.

    • heenadevk1119_462

      Member
      June 28, 2016 at 4:39 pm

      “First, do no harm”
       
      Anyone who believes that abortion isn’t harm is deluded by idolatry, and what’s worse, it’s an ideology and idolatry revolving on selfishness and death, under the guise of “medicine”.
       
      The Hippocratic Oath, and thus Hippocrates, always recognized that abortion was wrong. That’s why they changed, or omitted the language entirely.
       
      It is really quite sad but very informative, if you don’t have an agenda to fulfill.

    • julie.young_645

      Member
      June 29, 2016 at 7:08 am

      Quote from Frumious

      My wife and daughter and all the other women of the world deserve to live their lives as they please, making decisions as well as any man & not be limited by narrow-minded people and laws and customs that are from the past and disguised as moral superiority. Women deserve to live their lives as they choose as free as men with out artificial encumbrances “protecting” them from themselves and their baser instincts. Eve disobeying God’s will and tempting poor innocent Adam is an outdated story not based in reality.

      You will note that I said I reluctantly agree that abortion is necessary. But as is typical with you folks on the Left, if I don’t go along completely with your mindset, your orientations, your delusions, well, then, I’m just a knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed, gun-toting, Bible-reading Neanderthal. Did I leave out any epithets?
       
      In essence, you are restating what I said above. You want women to live their lives as they choose. And when they choose to have unprotected sex, you want them to be able to erase the consequences thereof. (Letting the man involved off scot-free by the way…did you think of that in your rage?) In your world, there isn’t anything at all wrong with anyone having sex with anyone else, so why are you getting so upset? Because I might not approve? No one really cares if either one of us approve. I’m simply calling a spade a spade, and you don’t like facing reality. Sorry about that. 

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        June 29, 2016 at 7:19 am

        Specifically your comment I was addressing had nothing to do with 100% agreement or whether you recognize the need for abortions to any degree. This was the comment I addressed specifically.
         

        As near as I can tell, the only right involved is the right to have indiscriminate unprotected sex and erase the consequences.

         
        “Indiscriminate sex” remains a bragging right for many men of all classes. And “erase the consequences” for whom? Obviously only the woman as if women always have a choice including there are never any accidents or criminal acts and “safe sex” is always their responsibility? Yes, should be both but you know how that sometimes goes if the consequences are the responsibility of only 1 partner.
         
        Like I said, ask your female friends how they feel about babies being the consequences of “indiscriminate sex” and see if they fully accept your point without further mansplaining, just say it exactly as you wrote here.

        • julie.young_645

          Member
          June 29, 2016 at 7:47 am

          Perhaps you never took anatomy in high school, or perhaps your parents never told you about the birds and the bees. Babies are indeed the consequence of “indiscriminate unprotected sex”. I don’t see how you can possibly dispute that.  This reminds me of the usual discussion about the Civil War. Southerner says, “It wasn’t about slavery, it was about States’ Rights!!!” And which right did you wish to maintain? “….[size=”1″]Slavery[/size]…”
           
          So we get deeper into your mindset. And it really isn’t very pretty or even supportive of women. You view men as opportunistic brutes who will jump on any woman that allow them to do so. And your solution is not to punish those particular men, but to allow women the same opportunities to debauch themselves as well as the already debauched men. Really uplifting thought. 

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            June 29, 2016 at 9:28 am

            You make pretzel logic, Dalai.

            • julie.young_645

              Member
              June 29, 2016 at 10:50 am

              So you are reduced to childish babbling. This is one case where you absolutely positively KNOW I’m correct. And you hate that someone actually said (typed?) it out loud. 

              • kayla.meyer_144

                Member
                June 29, 2016 at 11:11 am

                Dalai, the only right you’ve ever been is your politics. It is impossible to argue against fake arguments like babies coming from sex (usually). But “consequence?” Our 2nd born was a surprise pregnancy – due to sex BTW – but my wife & I never, and I mean never ever referred to him as a “consequence.” Yet you refer to children as consequences and I am supposed to argue the merits of that?
                 
                You then refer to irresponsible sex and “consequences” in the same sentence. Freudian slips are for you to answer, not me.
                 
                That is your “pretzel logic.” You explain it. I am happy we have our “consequences.” the difference is that we call them our children.
                 
                As for punishing men, again your pretzel logic. I only asked why you thought only women engaged in irresponsible sex and why only the women should be responsible for the “consequences” of sex.
                 
                Again, why do I have to explain your stilted and biased view of things? Your statements are anti-women, not mine. I only think men are also responsible for “consequences.” As you said, sex is involved & always it takes 2 to tango. Even in vitro requires both sexes.
                 
                 

                • julie.young_645

                  Member
                  July 2, 2016 at 6:37 am

                  Quote from Frumious

                  Dalai, the only right you’ve ever been is your politics. It is impossible to argue against fake arguments like babies coming from sex (usually). But “consequence?” Our 2nd born was a surprise pregnancy – due to sex BTW – but my wife & I never, and I mean never ever referred to him as a “consequence.” Yet you refer to children as consequences and I am supposed to argue the merits of that?

                  You then refer to irresponsible sex and “consequences” in the same sentence. Freudian slips are for you to answer, not me.

                  That is your “pretzel logic.” You explain it. I am happy we have our “consequences.” the difference is that we call them our children.

                  As for punishing men, again your pretzel logic. I only asked why you thought only women engaged in irresponsible sex and why only the women should be responsible for the “consequences” of sex.

                  Again, why do I have to explain your stilted and biased view of things? Your statements are anti-women, not mine. I only think men are also responsible for “consequences.” As you said, sex is involved & always it takes 2 to tango. Even in vitro requires both sexes.

                   

                  Quote from Miriam Webster Dictionary

                  Consequence: Something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions

                   
                  Consequences can be good as well as bad. The word has no moral connotation, it simply denotes a logical progression.
                   
                  Your own biases come through, and you calling me anti-woman is a joke, and a window into your own personal demons, many acquired from your dabbling with the far Left mentality. Engaging in unprotected, irresponsible sex does indeed take two (or more) and the consequences, positive and negative, are to all parties involved. And so it may be in the interest of all to erase said consequence. 
                   
                  I think demanding that women sink to the level of horny teenage males is about as anti-woman as you get, but then I am of the age where we put women on pedestals. 
                  [*]  

              • heenadevk1119_462

                Member
                July 1, 2016 at 4:26 pm

                Quote from DoctorDalai

                So you are reduced to childish babbling. This is one case where you absolutely positively KNOW I’m correct. And you hate that someone actually said (typed?) it out loud. 

                 
                The larger agenda, I think Dalai also knows, is that all of these progressive “wins” are just wins for the top — to control the population. Every single item they push (look around) is about controlling reproduction of the people they find dangerous.
                 
                Think about it. Long and hard.
                 
                Depending on how old Frumious and Dergon are, they may or may not finally see the errors of the ways when guys like them are just pawns in the end, expendable, useful idiots.

                • btomba_77

                  Member
                  July 1, 2016 at 6:41 pm

                  Quote from Dr. ****er

                  Quote from DoctorDalai

                  So you are reduced to childish babbling. This is one case where you absolutely positively KNOW I’m correct. And you hate that someone actually said (typed?) it out loud. 

                  The larger agenda, I think Dalai also knows, is that all of these progressive “wins” are just wins for the top — to control the population. Every single item they push (look around) is about controlling reproduction of the people they find dangerous.

                  Think about it. Long and hard.

                  Depending on how old Frumious and Dergon are, they may or may not finally see the errors of the ways when guys like them are just pawns in the end, expendable, useful idiots.

                     
                   
                   
                  This useful idiot will take the huge SCOTUS win on women’s reproductive rights with a satisfied grin.

                  • btomba_77

                    Member
                    July 1, 2016 at 8:03 pm

                    Indiana:
                    [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html]Federal Judge Blocks Indiana Abortion Law[/url]

                    A federal judge on Thursday blocked an Indiana law that would have banned abortions based solely on a fetuss disability or genetic anomaly, suggesting that it was an illegal limit on a womans long-established constitutional right.

                    Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, of Federal District Court for Southern Indiana, also held up a state ban on abortions motivated solely by a fetuss race or sex. In the preliminary injunction, Judge Pratt said limiting the reasons for an abortion was inconsistent with the notion of a right rooted in privacy concerns and a liberty right to make independent decisions.

                    Indiana would have been the first state to have a blanket ban on abortions based solely on race, sex or suspected disabilities, including evidence of Down syndrome. A handful of states have bans on abortion based on sex, one state has a ban based on race, and two have bans based on genetic anomalies, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit abortion rights group that tracks state laws.

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      July 1, 2016 at 8:12 pm

                      Louisiana might be the next to go: 

                      [url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/suit-challenges-abortion-restrictions-louisiana-40287725]Clinics Challenge New Louisiana Abortion Restrictions[/url]

                      Abortion clinics and their doctors in Louisiana are challenging new abortion restrictions that include making women wait longer and barring a common second-trimester procedure. The federal lawsuit filed Friday in Baton Rouge seeks to keep the new rules from taking effect on Aug. 1.

                      Among other restrictions, lawmakers voted to force many women to wait 72 hours and undergo ultrasounds before getting abortions, and they banned a procedure called dilation and evacuation.

                      The lawmakers say they only want to safeguard women’s health, but judges may decide otherwise following Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which declared that it’s unconstitutional to impose medically unnecessary rules that place an undue burden on access to abortion.

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    June 29, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    Interesting article.
     
    [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/opinion/from-uruguay-a-model-for-making-abortion-safer.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ng-abortion-safer.html[/link]
     

    With the announcement in April that the Zika virus spreading across Latin America can cause microcephaly in the womb, leaders across the region have come under increased pressure to relax some of the worlds most restrictive laws against abortion.

    Only two countries in Latin America have made abortion legal and widely available. Cuba was the first, in 1979; Uruguay the second, in 2012. But its the experience of the latter, one of the most democratic countries in Latin America, that offers a lesson in reform or at least a picture of what is possible.

    It started 10 years before the law was passed, with a medical protocol called the Uruguay Model. Described by its architects as a intermediate step toward allowing abortion, the protocol was designed to make safer the many abortions then being carried out clandestinely.

    Indeed, by the late 1990s, unsafe abortions were a leading cause of maternal mortality in Uruguay, accounting for nearly 30 percent of maternal deaths.
     
    Nowhere was the problem more pronounced than at the Pereira Rossell Hospital, Uruguays main public maternity hospital, which serves a primarily low-income population in the capital, Montevideo. There, nearly half of all maternal deaths were because of unsafe abortions, and in 2001 a group of gynecologists, psychologists, midwives and social workers decided to act.
     
    As in other countries where abortion was criminalized, women in Uruguay had turned to the drug misoprostol (Cytotec), which was originally developed as an anti-ulcer therapy.
     
    Out of 675 women who attended the before visit between March 2004 and June 2005, 495 returned for the after visit. Of the 439 women for whom there was information, almost 90 percent had decided to terminate their pregnancies, all of them by using misoprostol. (The rest had chosen to continue the pregnancy, had not been pregnant in the first place, had miscarried, or had met the requirement for a lawful abortion in the hospital.)

    [b]The results were striking: Among women who participated in the program, there were no maternal deaths or severe complications because of abortion. Nor were there any cases of post-abortion sepsis, which had been a leading cause of death from unsafe abortion, at an average of 10 cases per year, at Pereira Rossell.[/b]

    [b]Harder to quantify, though perhaps more important, was the extent to which the program altered public perceptions. Before it began, Briozzo said in a telephone interview, abortion had been written about only in the crime section of the newspaper. But afterward, the articles were about health and human rights. With harm reduction, you make it possible to change how people think about the problem, he said. The potential of this model is the potential to change public policy in the country.[/b]

     
    But harm reduction for the mother is definitely not the concern here so this does not apply.
     

  • btomba_77

    Member
    July 1, 2016 at 9:47 am

    The first ruling after the Supreme Court ruled on Texas abortiosn restrictions.
    [url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-judge-blocks-florida-abortion-law-40267717]Federal Judge Blocks New Florida Abortion Law[/url]

    A federal judge late Thursday put on hold key portions of a new Florida law that would block public funding for Planned Parenthood and greatly increase inspection requirements for abortion clinics.  
     

    Hinkle in his ruling said the provision is “based not on any objection to how the funds are being spent … but solely because the recipients of the funds choose to provide abortions separate and apart from any public funding.”  “The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that a government cannot prohibit indirectly by withholding otherwise-available public funds conduct that the government could not constitutionally prohibit directly,” Hinkle wrote.

    Hinkle also blocked enforcement of another part of the new law that would have required an annual state inspection of the medical records of half of all clinic patients, which Planned Parenthood estimated would be about 35,000 people a year. Hinkle did leave intact a provision that redefines dates of gestation and pregnancy trimesters, which could affect when abortions can be performed. Hinkle said he did so because state officials insisted the change would not have any impacts, though Planned Parenthood had argued the change was yet another attempt to limit abortions.

    I’ll be interested to watch future challenges to various state laws to see how many fall and how quickly.

    Also interesting will be what new strategy abortion opponents decide to take now that TRAP (Targeted  Regulation of Abortion Providers) seems to be off the table.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    September 18, 2016 at 4:46 am

    [url=http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/09/ohio_to_fight_ruling_that_stat.html]Ohio to fight ruling that state abortion regulation is unconstitutional[/url]

    The state will fight an appellate court ruling that regulations governing an abortion clinic, and the way Ohio enacted them, are unconstitutional.  The Ohio Department of Health, represented by lawyers in Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office, filed notice Monday with the Ohio Supreme Court that it would  appeal the case, a lawsuit by Capital Care Network. 

    [b]What did the lower courts say? [/b]

    Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Myron Duhart ruled in June 2015 that the way the state enacted the regulation violated the Ohio Constitution’s requirement that legislation be limited to a single subject. The abortion clinic regulations had nothing to do the state’s budget, although they were inserted in that legislation at the last minute.  He also found that the regulation were not in line with federal rulings protecting a woman’s right to chose an abortion. 

    In July 2016 the 6th District court emphatically upheld that ruling 3-0, citing a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned some Texas regulations on abortion clinics. 

    • btomba_77

      Member
      April 4, 2018 at 8:52 am

      [b]Jared and Ivanka offered a ‘bribe’   to  Planned Parenthood if it would stop funding abortions[/b]

      Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards writes in her [link=https://amzn.to/2q5PVEW]new memoir[/link] that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump offered the organization increased federal funding if it stopped providing abortions, [link=http://people.com/politics/planned-parenthood-ceo-says-jared-kushner-and-ivanka-trump-offered-bribe-to-stop-abortions/]People[/link] reports.

      Writes Richards: If it wasnt crystal clear before, it was now. Jared and Ivanka were there for one reason: to deliver a political win In their eyes, if they could stop Planned Parenthood from providing abortions, it would confirm their reputation as savvy dealmakers. It was surreal, essentially being asked to barter away womens rights for more money.

      • heenadevk1119_462

        Member
        April 5, 2018 at 8:51 am

        “Reproductive rights” meaning killing the children of men not deemed worthy also meaning = female hypergamy.
         
        Which fits perfectly with planned parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a eugenics supporter and promoter.
         
        Every movement of the left has hurt not only women, but also men and the society in which they make part. You act like a cubicle job, multiple sexual partners, and single moms are a woman’s dream. All they do is damage the culture and everyone around it. All the cat ladies are begging you to wake up. Oh yeah, I forgot, you don’t care about the 1st world not having a replacement rate fertility.
         
        Open the borders! Logic isn’t a strong suit of the left, because its globalist, elitist agenda is chaos and thus, control. Always has been.

        • btomba_77

          Member
          October 4, 2019 at 8:32 am

          [h1]Supreme Court Will Consider Louisiana Abortion Law[/h1]  

          The Supreme Court will review a restrictive Louisiana law that gives the justices the chance to reconsider a recent ruling protecting abortion rights, the [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-review-ruling-on-louisiana-abortion-law/2019/10/04/85eaf2b0-e6ab-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html]Washington Post[/link] reports.

          The court said Friday it would consider whether the 2014 law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals unduly burdens womens access to abortion. Clinic owners said the effect of the law would be to close most of the states abortion clinics and leave the state with only one doctor eligible to perform the procedure.

          [link=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/supreme-court-term-preview-conservative-revolution.html]Slate[/link]: This Supreme Court term will launch a conservative revolution.
           

    • btomba_77

      Member
      May 19, 2020 at 1:51 pm

      [link=https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/19/norma-mccorvey-roe-v-wade-plaintiff-paid-to-lie-changing-mind/]https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/19/norma-mccorvey-roe-v-wade-plaintiff-paid-to-lie-changing-mind/[/link]
       
      Roe .v Wade plaintiff Norma McCorvey, who publicly came out against abortion in the 90s, now says she was paid to do so by pro-life groups.
       
       

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        May 19, 2020 at 3:42 pm

        WOW! I always wondered about that what with a 180 degree turnabout from fighting for her right to saying it was all a mistake.
         
        SHOW ME THE MONEY!

        • heenadevk1119_462

          Member
          May 20, 2020 at 8:38 am

          Let’s say it’s true, either way she was commoditized her whole life, which is sad in itself. First a political pawn, then a paid operative.
           
          Either way, human sacrifice is the issue here. People who care about the reality of the issue, truly, don’t need or pay mind to someone like Ms. McCorvey, to be informed.

    • btomba_77

      Member
      September 15, 2021 at 3:21 pm

      [link=https://www.axios.com/texas-abortion-ban-hearing-block-ee7a48e6-1b8a-44cf-a481-5743e8da978e.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_content=politics-texas]https://www.axios.com/tex…content=politics-texas[/link]

      A federal judge will [link=https://twitter.com/reeseoxner/status/1438254343527059459?s=21]hold a hearing on Oct. 1[/link] to consider temporarily blocking enforcement of Texas’ restrictive abortion ban after an emergency request from the Biden administration.
       The hearing comes after the [link=https://www.axios.com/justice-department-lawsuit-texas-abortion-ban-4f282cfc-5594-4f84-a37e-7bbc85a90c7b.html]DOJ filed a lawsuit[/link] last week against Texas over the new law, which bans nearly all abortions and awards at least $10,000 to anyone who successfully sues a person that helps a pregnant person access an abortion after six weeks.
       

    • btomba_77

      Member
      June 22, 2022 at 2:03 pm

      Here it comes.

      SCOTUS just put Friday on the books as a option and the Jan 6 Committee decided to pause hearings after Thursday until July.

      Get ready for the end of [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] in less than 48 hours

      • satyanar

        Member
        June 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm

        Good. This and guns together could really drive voter turnout. The loss of Trump to hate and rally the troops could have been a disaster for the Dems in the midterms otherwise.

  • 19462008

    Member
    October 4, 2019 at 4:45 pm

    It’s always only a fetus to an abortion clinic employee until that are with Child. The never say “Everybody, we have an announcement… “Bob and I are with Fetus!”
     
    If our society would spend more money teaching actual Birth Control Methods besides latex barriers and chemicals to get our rocks off and teach our younger generation that intercourse is not the only option for Sexuality between two humans, then maybe we can reduce the killing of Children. I’m not saying abstinence is the only option. I was 15 once, I get it. But I was taught and educated on all other aspects of Sex besides intercourse. 

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      October 5, 2019 at 7:27 am

      WOW

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        October 5, 2019 at 10:05 am

        Let’s not forget the birth control for rape and incest and forcing girls of 9-12 to have the children of rape. But these girls are irresponsible! Like all women. Everyone knows contraception is a woman’s responsibility & not a man’s! Including for rape and incest.
         
        How about them frozen “babies?” They need to be thawed out & born because destroying frozen babies is also murder.

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          October 5, 2019 at 10:20 am

          Im not sure I can reasonably discuss issues with cuda

          Its like talking to a 1950s backwoods preacher

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            October 5, 2019 at 10:30 am

            He sees only what he wants to see & there’s always simple solutions that leave al the messy parts out. Like most out of wedlock births seem to be highest in Red states. 
             
            [link=https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/unmarried/unmarried.htm]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/…nmarried/unmarried.htm[/link]
             
            And what is “actual Birth Control Methods besides latex barriers and chemicals to get our rocks off and teach our younger generation that intercourse is not the only option for Sexuality between two humans” he speaks of? Masturbation? Dry humping? Oral & anal? Abstinence? 
             
            Still brings us back to the Red states’ level of out of wedlock pregnancies. Why are they failing so high?

            • Unknown Member

              Deleted User
              October 5, 2019 at 10:39 am

              Yup

              I didnt want to touch his last comments

              Sounds like something out of deliverance

            • 19462008

              Member
              October 8, 2019 at 3:37 pm

              Quote from Frumious

              He sees only what he wants to see & there’s always simple solutions that leave al the messy parts out. Like most out of wedlock births seem to be highest in Red states. 

              [link=https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/unmarried/unmarried.htm]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/…nmarried/unmarried.htm[/link]

              And what is “actual Birth Control Methods besides latex barriers and chemicals to get our rocks off and teach our younger generation that intercourse is not the only option for Sexuality between two humans” he speaks of? Masturbation? Dry humping? Oral & anal? Abstinence? 

              Still brings us back to the Red states’ level of out of wedlock pregnancies. Why are they failing so high?

               
               
              They aren’t, your comment is skewed and not making your point. You forget, Out of Wedlock means what? Single mother only? It doesn’t. It just means not registered as married. Yet Utah… a Religious State has the lowest. I know…I know… now religion is forcing them to Marry. 37% of California has far more numbers than 47% of Arkansas. Maybe it’s that fact that the Red States don’t kill their Children as much as the blue states and… take the responsibility of their own actions or release to adoptions. Again, the left is a throw away society regarding human rights.
               
              So I guess sex is always full on Intercourse for you guys? I think a partner of yours is being deprived. How limited you two are which is so Ironic since full all out Sexuality, between two adults, has always been the lefts mantra of individualism and now your project it is not. Two-faced and Sad.
               
              I love the way you both throw in Rape and Incest issues as the reasons for Killing Children prior to their birth. I believe the percentage is extremely small compared to the centrist ego that pregnancy is an inconvenience in the eyes of the left and the subject matter is only… tissue. I’m sure it’s a hard decision in those cases. But you guys seem have the answers. Kill the innocent anyways.
               
              Let me do a Kamal Harris on you: Is terminating a Pregnancy after first Trimester, no matter if the woman was raped or not, killing an unborn, heart beating child? Yes or No? 

  • btomba_77

    Member
    June 29, 2020 at 8:02 am

    SCOTUS has decided 5-4 to block a Louisiana abortion law that was very similar in form to the Texas law. Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberals in voting against it and wrote the decision, citing stare decisis resulting from the Texas ruling, even though he himself voted to allow the Texas law in that decision.

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      June 29, 2020 at 8:24 am

      I think people decide at some point that they are closer to one party. Then they blindly follow whatever the party tells em.

      If you are a democrat, you’re pro-choice. You like big government. You are for the workers. You are a globalist.

      If you’re a republican,
      you’re pro-life. You want small government. You are pro-business. You are a nationalist.

      People eventually start believing that’s how they always thought. Kind of sad actually.

      You are not a thought slave. You can have smattering of different opinions. The above are only what they tell you how to think.

      Wake up from this group think.

    • clickpenguin_460

      Member
      June 29, 2020 at 9:30 am

      Quote from dergon

      SCOTUS has decided 5-4 to block a Louisiana abortion law that was very similar in form to the Texas law. Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberals in voting against it and wrote the decision, citing stare decisis resulting from the Texas ruling, even though he himself voted to allow the Texas law in that decision.

       
      What a crazy decision.  I mean not even on the merits of the case but the fact that he went against himself due to a precedent that he must have felt was wrongly set. 
       
      In a strictly medical sense though, don’t you all think the performing doctor should have admitting privileges?  Or is sending her to the ED good enough if something goes wrong?  Again, I’m seriously asking for opinions.
       
      Also, since I’m musing about this…. I have always found it odd that the pro-abortion side doesn’t like when more info is given about the procedure – telling patients about other options, warning them about future depression, showing them ultrasounds, etc.  Does this mean that for most abortions (especially the surgical ones), informed consent is not accurately obtained and provided like with any other procedure – showing all the relevant risks, benefits, and alternatives.  And if that’s the case, is it right?  I think medically, we have a duty to treat abortion just like any other medication, procedure, or surgery as long as it’s legal.  I don’t like that it’s given “special status” so to speak.

      • btomba_77

        Member
        June 29, 2020 at 11:14 am

        the fact that he went against himself due to a precedent that he must have felt was wrongly set.

         
        “stare decisis”  –
         
        It seems to me that Roberts is trying to put the integrity of the court as a whole above his personal rulings.
         
        He is saying loudly “Just because one or two seats on the court flip in a couple of years doesn’t mean we are going to revisit every issue”
         
        In the case of abortion that is good news for Democrats.  But it will cut both ways.  The same argument can easily be used to justify leaving in place bad rulings (imho) on campaign finance, gerrymandering, unions etc.

        • clickpenguin_460

          Member
          June 29, 2020 at 11:23 am

          You bring up a good point but there is always a “out” to overturn bad precedent as has been done many times in the past regarding slavery, segregation, etc.
           
          Roberts must have felt that his own ruling in 2016 didn’t meet the standard of “bad” precedent and I can respect that.  The problem is that I doubt there is a “liberal version” of Roberts who would feel the same way regarding unions, abortion, etc. in the future and would be happy to overturn precedent.  This decision says more about Roberts than anything else.

          • btomba_77

            Member
            June 29, 2020 at 1:51 pm

            As for regulations and admitting priv-

            I am not fundamentally opposed as long as 2 criteria are met:

            1) Whatever regulations are placed on abortion providers must be equally applied to all outpatient procedures.

            2) Performing abortion can not be a permitted criteria for denial of admitting privileges by hospital credentialing committees

            • clickpenguin_460

              Member
              June 29, 2020 at 2:15 pm

              I would agree to both of those things.  As long as it’s still legal, it should be viewed like any other medical procedure (whether the medication or surgery) and should be treated that way.  That means following those 2 rules you have above as well as also providing informed consent to the patients including [i]all [/i]relevant risks, benefits, and alternatives. 

              • btomba_77

                Member
                June 29, 2020 at 2:28 pm

                The issue in the original case in this thread was TRAP … targeted regulation of abortion providers.

                The state targeted only abortion clinics.

                And many hospitals wont give admit prob for abortions providers

                It was a combination of these things that the court saw as de facto blocking of access

                • clickpenguin_460

                  Member
                  June 29, 2020 at 2:40 pm

                  Interesting. 
                   
                  Did hospitals say why they wouldn’t?  Obviously, not all physicians are allowed admitting privileges in general.  Or was it specifically because of abortion?
                   
                  I know there are very few physicians that perform abortions anyway.  In fact, I’ve never even met one, though they must exist (or perhaps they just never say so).

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    June 29, 2020 at 4:59 pm

                    You can’t get a job (privileges) if you don’t participate in MOC, but if you murder human beings, you can.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    August 8, 2020 at 9:52 am

    [h2][link=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/511161-judges-cite-roberts-opinion-to-allow-arkansas-abortion-restrictions]Judges cite Roberts opinion to allow Arkansas abortion restrictions to resume[/link][/h2]

    A federal appeals court in Arkansas on Friday struck down a lower court’s block of the state abortion laws, citing Chief Justice [link=https://thehill.com/person/john-roberts]John Roberts[/link] opinion in the [link=https://thehill.com/regulation/504994-supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-restrictions]Supreme Court’s June case[/link] in which the court rejected Louisiana’s restrictive abortion laws.
     
    [link=https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/08/172879P.pdf]In their ruling[/link], a trio of judges on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said that their decision to allow some of Arkansas’ restrictions on abortions to return stemmed from “Chief Justice Roberts’s separate opinion in June Medical.”
     
    While Roberts sided with the court’s liberal justices in the 5-4 decision, he wrote his own concurring opinion, saying that his vote was guided by adherence to prior rulings.
     
    The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike, Roberts wrote. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisianas law cannot stand under our precedents.

    The Arkansas judges noted that Roberts in his opinion held that “state and federal legislatures [have] wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty” in keeping with that decision.
     
    The laws that had been blocked by a district will go back into effect in 21 days, Aug. 28. Among the laws are a restriction on the most frequent procedure used in second-trimester abortions and a measure that allows the husband of a woman having an abortion to sue the doctor to stop the abortion.
    [/QUOTE]
     

    • btomba_77

      Member
      November 13, 2020 at 6:01 am

      [h4][link=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/525773-biden-set-to-roll-back-trump-rules-on-abortion]Biden set to roll back Trump Title X rules on abortion[/link][/h4]  
      Biden is expected to take action in his first days administratively.
       
      One rule advocates are particularly ready to see go resulted in hundreds of thousands fewer people getting contraception and other services through the federally funded Title X family planning program, who are disproportionately people of color.
       
      The rule, finalized last year, by Trump appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), prohibits Title X providers from promoting or performing abortions. It appeared to be aimed at Planned Parenthood, one of the largest Title X providers and a longtime target of Republicans.
       

  • btomba_77

    Member
    January 25, 2021 at 11:15 am

    [link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-wipes-out-lower-court-rulings-texas-abortion-battle-n1255549]Supreme Court wipes out lower court rulings in Texas abortion battle

    [/link]

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to advocates of abortion rights, wiping lower court rulings off the books that had upheld a Texas order [link=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-lifts-part-order-blocking-texas-abortion-ban-n1181706]banning nearly all abortions in the state[/link] during the coronavirus pandemic.
    Gov. Greg Abbot [link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/texas-ohio-order-clinics-halt-abortion-procedures-amid-coronavirus-n1167201]ordered a halt[/link] to nonessential medical procedures in late March of last year to conserve hospital resources and personal protective equipment. Attorney General Ken Paxton then said the order applied to “any type of abortions,” including medical abortions that do not involve surgery.

    The governor issued a new order a short time later that allowed abortions in Texas to resume, but the state asked the Supreme Court to keep the appeals court rulings on the books. Those decisions “have been cited hundreds of times in courts across the country” in legal disputes over Covid-19 restrictions, lawyers for the state told the court.
    But Planned Parenthood said the governor’s change in the rule ended the opportunity to pursue the issue in court. Unless the appeals court decisions were also vacated, leaving them on the books “may tie petitioners’ hands in future cases,” the group said.

    Abortion rights advocates applauded Mondays dismissal of the cases.
    Abbotts order was a transparent attempt to chip away at access to reproductive health care by exploiting a public health crisis and it was therefore important we took this procedural step to make sure bad case law was wiped from the books, Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Lawyering Project said in a statement.

    [/QUOTE]
     

  • btomba_77

    Member
    March 9, 2021 at 2:40 pm

    Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed a bill into law today banning almost all abortions in Arkansas, except for when a pregnant person’s life is in danger. The bill does not include exceptions for rape or incest.

    • clickpenguin_460

      Member
      March 9, 2021 at 3:53 pm

      50 years from now people will wonder how society ever allowed the killing of babies.  That’s the funny thing about history, you never know you’re on the wrong side of it when you’re living it.

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        March 9, 2021 at 7:07 pm

        50 years from now people will continue to wonder why some people see womens value & purpose as no more than being a breeder & their lives are less important than a non-viable embryo. I think ISIS
        viewed women as just that. Like many fundamental religions.
         
        Whats wrong with letting a woman make her own choice of whether she wants to bear a child? Why do so many men decide women are untrustworthy to make that decision & therefore take it out of their hands & decide for the women? It coincides with their view that women are irresponsible with sex. & yet it does take 2. Where are the mens responsibility who impregnated the women, even if through rape or incest? 
         
         

        • clickpenguin_460

          Member
          March 9, 2021 at 7:15 pm

          You can value the life of an unborn baby and value female autonomy at the same time.  You’ve debased yourself with that response frankly.
           
          It’s simple, a woman’s choice matters a lot – a ton actually, but it doesn’t supersede a human’s right to life.
           
           

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            March 9, 2021 at 7:35 pm

            Why is a non-viable embryo more important than a womans life?
            Really, an embryo has full rights as a birthed person? How & why does an embryo supersede a womans life?
            1 in 4 women are reported to have had an abortion. Are they irresponsible in sex? Are they murderers responsible for infanticide?
             
            whats the rationale here?
            And where are the men in these pregnancies?
             
             

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            March 9, 2021 at 7:42 pm

            If her decision does not supersede a non-viable embryos survival, her decision her choice is 101% moot. She has no decision.
             
            Are women murderers? Are all those women guilty of infanticide? And should be judged as such?
             
            & on a slight tangent, frozen embryos have a right to life & should all be birthed for exactly the same rationale you make, no?

            • clickpenguin_460

              Member
              March 9, 2021 at 8:34 pm

              Dont hurt yourself twisting in knots.

              Deep down you know it’s not right.

              • kayla.meyer_144

                Member
                March 10, 2021 at 6:09 am

                I know imprisoning women, only women in your fundamentalist religious ideas is not right. 

                A Handmaids Tale is not a prescription for womens rights and subordination.
                 
                 

                • clickpenguin_460

                  Member
                  March 10, 2021 at 6:40 am

                  Again, you’re debasing yourself with those inane comments.
                   
                  I’m not even religious and in fact the religious movement has harmed the pro-life movement more than helped it as they don’t rely on factual information, science, or law to make their decisions.

      • btomba_77

        Member
        March 11, 2021 at 6:05 am

        Quote from Cubsfan10

        50 years from now people will wonder how society ever allowed the killing of babies.  That’s the funny thing about history, you never know you’re on the wrong side of it when you’re living it.

        I highly doubt that.
         
        I bet in 50 years it will still be a 50/50 issue or close to it.

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    March 10, 2021 at 7:16 am

    What is the science that says an embryo has rights that supersede a womans?

    & where is the impregnators responsibilities in all of this?

    And frozen embryos have no right to live in other than frozen suspended animation?

    What is the science to explain it all?

    • kayla.meyer_144

      Member
      March 11, 2021 at 5:51 am

      Speaking of “science,” now we have some people questioning taking any COVID vaccine, especially the J&J vaccine due to their claim that all 3 vaccines used fetal tissue in development or testing.
       
      This religious absolutism kills people.
       
      And the other belief idiocies of the anti-vaxx crowd.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    March 29, 2021 at 8:17 am

    [link=https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/29/supreme-court-conservative-majority-abortion-case-478328]Supreme Court agrees to hear first abortion case with 6-3 conservative majority

    [/link]

    The Supreme Court on Monday announced it will hear its first abortion case with a newly fortified 6-3 conservative majority, taking up a procedural question of who has the power to defend state abortion restrictions in court.
     
    The justices agreed to hear the Kentucky attorney generals bid to intervene in a lawsuit over a state abortion ban that the governor refused to defend. However, the court refused the Kentucky attorney generals request to consider whether a lower court decision striking down the ban should be thrown out.
     
    The courts new conservative supermajority is being closely watched for signs of how it is willing go toward revisiting or overturning precedent on abortion, including the 1973 [i]Roe v. Wade [/i]ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.
     
    [b]The Kentucky case:[/b] The case, [i]Cameron v. EMW Womens Surgical Center[/i], concerns Kentuckys 2018 ban on a common method of surgical abortion used after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law was signed by the previous Republican governor, Matt Bevin, but was blocked by lower federal courts.
     
    Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a Republican, is seeking to defend the law in court after Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s administration refused. The 6th Circuit rejected Camerons request, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court for the right to intervene.
    [/QUOTE]
     

    • clickpenguin_460

      Member
      March 29, 2021 at 8:29 am

      A ban after the first trimester is very popular.  I was told recently by Dems that very popular things are supposed to pass and/or become law.

      • btomba_77

        Member
        May 17, 2021 at 7:16 am

        [h1][b]Supreme Court Will Hear Major Abortion Case[/b][/h1]  [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion.html]New York Times[/link]:
         
        The Supreme Court on Monday said it would hear a case from Mississippi challenging Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. The case will give the courts new 6-to-3 conservative majority its first opportunity to weigh in on state laws restricting abortion.
         
        [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade/2021/05/17/cdaf1dd6-b708-11eb-a6b1-81296da0339b_story.html]Washington Post[/link]: Abortion opponents for months have urged the courts conservatives to seize the chance to reexamine the 1973 precedent. Mississippi is one among many Republican-led states that have passed restrictions that conflict with the courts precedents protecting a womans right to choose before fetal viability.
         

        • kaldridgewv2211

          Member
          May 17, 2021 at 9:19 am

          Just guessing off some things I’ve read.  They more or less took it easy for a session.  Now comes the reign of terror.

          • clickpenguin_460

            Member
            May 17, 2021 at 9:54 am

            Just out of curiosity, when would you guys stop abortion?
             
            There are biological choices:
             – Viability: 22ish weeks
             – Implantation: 6 days
             – Fertilization
             – Other biological choices such as pain, heartbeat, movement, etc. are really not meaningful other than for emotions
             
            There are legal options:
             – Fertilization: fetus has a “right to life”
             – Implantation: fetus has a “right to life” when both fertilization and implanation occurs (need both to grow)…kind of like does a seed have a right to life without dirt/water/etc?  
             – Viability: fetus only has a “right to life” when viable
             – Anytime: woman’s right to choose a surgery/procedure supercedes a fetus right to life
             
            IMHO, the most objective answer is that abortion should not be allowed after implantation, so all morning-after pills would be allowed but abortions after that would not.
             
            Happy to hear other thoughts as I’m sincerely trying to be objective on this one.  I have no religious thoughts/opinions or emotional thoughts/opinions.
             
            Law and science should dictate this.
             
            So, such a law would be something like no surgical or medical abortions after 6 days unless certain stipulations – rape, incest, severe birth defects incompatible with life, threat of life of the mother, etc.  Make birth control and morning-after pills OTC and covered by insurance/medicaid/etc. or even free in some circumstances.
             

            • btomba_77

              Member
              May 17, 2021 at 11:04 am

              Viability is judicial precedent for Roe v. Wade.
               
              The 50/50 fetal survival is probably about 24 weeks.
               
              Given the make-up of the court, if that standard was upheld I would consider that major win (or more like a bullet dodged) for abortion rights. 

              • kaldridgewv2211

                Member
                May 17, 2021 at 11:27 am

                it is a complex issue.  I do think there should be a limit on abortion.  It should be done as early as possible but at some point it shouldn’t be an option.  Even at that there’s probably exceptions like life of the mother, or if there’s some kind of viability issue.  I think those are probably very rare cases. 
                 
                One other aspect is that I’d like to see sex education mandatory.  And it needs to cover birth control.  No abstinence only training.  Make the the birth control readily available too.    

                • clickpenguin_460

                  Member
                  May 17, 2021 at 1:04 pm

                  Birth control, condoms, morning-after pill, etc. should be cheap and easy to get.  Education for all of those should be easy to get and easy to understand.  I agree with all of that.
                   
                  Dergon, I understand the judicial precedent but you have many on the Left advocating for abortion until birth and many on the right wanting to ban it entirely.  Do you hold firm at 23 weeks yes and 24+ weeks no?  You essentially find the viability of the child to be when it can be present outside of the womb which is a reasonable argument.  What is the biological argument against using implantation as the start of viability given that the majority of those will go on to be born?  Does a viable fetus have the right to life at that point or at all?
                   
                  In a related question, isn’t it illegal to squash an endangered bird/reptile species egg?  It’s also possible to be charged for two murders in the death of an unborn child.  How are these legalities reconciled?
                   
                   

  • btomba_77

    Member
    May 17, 2021 at 1:31 pm

    Like the VEEP abortion episode…
     
    you have to pick a number.  If there was better science on determining viability.  
     
    blob:[link=https://jezebel.com/e09048e1-d870-4340-b19b-3fa9f93fd20a]https://jezebel.com/e0904…4340-b19b-3fa9f93fd20a[/link]

    • kaldridgewv2211

      Member
      May 17, 2021 at 1:47 pm

      I think its a jump from talking about human beings to endangered animals. In my mind its a morality question. Is it harming a sentient being. Yeah. It could be a human mother or it could be an animal family. Elephants for example mourn their dead. I dont think Id ever tell anyone to get an abortion. Id say go the adoption route. Theres people that are ready to adopt. That being said I think a woman should have a right to determine what she wants to a point. Hence use birth control, get a morning after pill, and lastly get an abortion but quickly.

      • clickpenguin_460

        Member
        May 17, 2021 at 1:55 pm

        Right, but don’t you find it odd that it’s illegal to kill unborn animals but not unborn humans?
         
        I would pick a number – 6 days – which is the average time to implantation and thus biological viability.  Legally, the unborn’s right to life supercedes the females right to choose to kill it.  The “right to choose” is the right to choose to have sex, the right to choose to have sex without birth control, etc.
         
        Agree again with above about giving women easy access to anything they need to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.  
         
        In any case, we won’t resolve this on here but I’m glad we could at least talk about this without someone blowing up as normally happens.

        • btomba_77

          Member
          May 17, 2021 at 2:46 pm

          It is important to note that the Supreme Court is not making a determination as to whether abortion is “moral” or not.
           
          There is huge disagreement over the morality of abortion. Some believe that all abortion is immoral. Others believe that abortion is immoral if done after a certain point of gestation or because of the motivation. Others believe it immoral for the State to interfere with a woman’s choice of a medical procedure.
           
          But mere moral disapproval of a thing does not make it illegal.
           
          (Scalia strongly disagreed with that btw… he would have upheld the Texas sodomy law based on moral disapproval. And he rightly predicted that taking morality out of the judicial decision making process would lead to gay marriage legalization)
           
           
          The question is one of rights. Which rights to individuals hold? When is there a compelling state interest to infringe upon those rights? Who has rights? If multiple parties all have rights that are in conflict where is the balance? 
           
           

          • jennycullmann

            Member
            May 17, 2021 at 3:39 pm

            The problem is that the law is incoherent on many levels. A woman deciding in case A that she “wants” the baby, so harm or death to her changes the status of the baby’s rights, all of a sudden. Total nonsense. It defeats the purpose of the law entirely. I know why this stuff persists, and it is because people have lost the ability to love and live responsibly. As such, and there is no way around it however bombastic it sounds, abortion is nothing short of human sacrifice.
             
            Think about it.

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            May 17, 2021 at 4:08 pm

            Yes, it is all complicated and there are no hard facts about it in spite of arguments for such. An example is just above regarding abortion is killing a human but a morning-after pill is permissible.
             
            How so?
             
            And if abortion is killing – murdering a human being, where is the support for criminal infanticide for the mothers? An argument like murder demands a punishment for murder, no? 1st degree at that, no? I mean no one dragged her to the clinic or forced the morning-after pills down her throat.
             
            And the Bible is not exactly clear on baby murder with the Old Testament full of stories of child killings at God’s orders and other practices that we today view as bad, even evil. And all at God’s behest. Yes the Catholic Church is anti-abortion because killing is bad. OK. They are somewhat consistent in condemning the death penalty but who pays any attention to that at all? No one that’s who.
             
            And let’s look at all the frozen embryos. I mean permanent frozen suspended animation for a “human being?” Do they not deserve life since life begins at conception? How is that excused? When the payments stop for keeping the frozen embryos frozen, then what? Do they, will they become wards of the state & arrangements to be unfrozen and birthed?
             
            None of these realities seem consistent with the argument that they are human beings entitled to all human rights same as any birthed human adult.
             
            Further, in child rape, especially by a family member, is abortion murder and the child must bear the child because otherwise is murder? What of the child’s mental health? Is the child’s health secondary to the embryo’s “rights?”
             
            Or rape of an adult? Again, is the burden only hers to bear regardless of her mental state and financial state?
             
            In the case of a birth that is dangerous for the mother’s health, who decides who should live? Not the mother? Why not the mother?
             
            In the arguments about abortion, why are men’s voices the loudest and very often arguing against abortion? Where are the women’s voices in this discussion? Very many of the women I know are pro-choice. That includes my wife and daughter and daughter-in-law and quite a few friends. & I know more than a few women who have had the procedure done & they sleep well at night. No, no one WANTS an abortion but they want the ability to make the choice.
             
            And why are so many of these arguments about “slutty” women as that Rush argued, may he burn in Hell. Why are so many concerned with controlling women’s sexual lives? They’re not capable of making rational decisions?
             
            As for “viability,” that is changing. Consider how many babies who survive due to modern medicine and incubators at a very early age. Much has changed since my grandmother told me that how to care for a preemie was to place it in a shoebox bundled up & in a warm place & hope for the best.
             
            So IMHO, all the “murder” argument is 99-44/100% BS. An embryo being a human with full human rights is also BS. 
             
            The best way to avoid abortion is to allow and encourage birth control and sex eduation. But of course, that is also against the beliefs of the anti-choice people in most cases. And against the Catholic Church’s teachings. Why? Another Onan type of teaching? “Wasted seed?” Loose woman screwing everything in sight? Like many men entitled to sex?
             
            And then there are the actual murderers who murdered physicians who practice abortions. They are heroes to the anti-choice crowd. Really? you have to commit murder to prevent murder. Yeah, rational argument.
             
            So until I hear some rational cogent arguments about abortion, it is too easy to dismiss the arguments from the anti-choice crowd.

            • clickpenguin_460

              Member
              May 17, 2021 at 7:03 pm

              I think what I said about viability being embryo + uterus/implantation is the key. An embryo by itself cannot grow and therefore is more like a sperm or any other cell in the body that wouldnt exist outside the body.

              Once the embryo has implanted, the most probably outcome is birth of a human and thus that makes it viable.

              Aborting a child needlessly after 23 weeks currently could be considered murder and as I mentioned, it is considered murder if someone other than the mother is the culprit. It’s a strange quirk of the law for sure. I dont think killing a nonimplanted embryo is murder as it cannot grow.

              You bring up a good point about changing viability dates. What happens to abortion when we have artificial wombs than can take an embryo from 16 weeks, 10 week, 4 weeks, or even right from the start? Would that eliminate all abortion? Would unplugging an embryo growing in an artificial womb be considered murder?

              I’ve said this before I truly mean it, in 50 years abortion will seem barbaric and people of that time wont believe we ever did it. It will be similar to how we all feel now about gay people not being able to be married or even be “out” as compared to 50 years ago.

              • jennycullmann

                Member
                May 18, 2021 at 4:12 pm

                abortion is barbaric
                 
                they kill babies with a jab of a metal rod and suck their brains out
                 
                have you seen one?

  • btomba_77

    Member
    May 29, 2021 at 10:20 am

    [h1]Bidens Budget Removes the Hyde Amendment[/h1]  
    [link=https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/27/biden-hyde-amendment-abortion-rights-491030]Politico[/link]: A budget blueprint that omits the Hyde amendment and other anti-abortion provisions could be Bidens strongest statement yet of his commitment to making the procedure accessible, particularly for poor women of color who are disproportionately impacted by the funding bans.
     

Page 1 of 4