9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law

[Contumacious]

More strict Abortion laws save lives.

A year after the passage of a controversial bill restricting abortion in Texas, there will be an estimated 9,200 fewer abortions performed in the state, according to a report published earlier this month by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project.

"Compared to Period 1 [the six months prior to the bill's debate], there was a 13% decline in the state's abortion rate in Period 3 (the same six-month period one year later), corresponding to about 9,200 fewer abortions annually," according to the report, entitled “Change in Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.”

It also says that Texas had 41 abortion clinics as of May 2013. By November 2013, that number had been reduced to 22 and is expected to fall as low as six by September, when all abortion clinics in Texas must follow ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements.

The number of chemical abortions also decreased by 70 percent.

The legislation, which was passed and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry last July, prohibits most abortions after 20 weeks, requires that all abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and mandates that all chemical abortions be performed according to FDA regulations.

Report Estimates 9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law | CNS News

Excuse me dingle berry

Do those figures mean that

1- 9200 women were required to go to other states?

2- the Texas Taliban was successful if forcing 9200 poor women bear children whom they can not emotionally or financially afford?

3- that as a result of forcing 9200 poor women have children now the incidences of child abuse will increase thereby increasing the amount of inmates available to the Prison Industrial Complex

 

[blackhawk]

I always love how liberals can tell conservatives exactly what they want and think and conversely conservatives can do the very same thing with liberals I guess that is why no one ever ask someone what they think anymore they just tell them.

 

[Papageorgio]

Classic Republican moronic logic at work: If you pretend it no longer exists that means it ceases to exist! POOF! No more abortions because we restricted access!

By the fallacy of that logic, NO ONE was drinking during the prohibition era because alcohol was banned!

How utterly stupid of anyone to think that abortions will magically stop because Texas restricted access to them. Texas sent them underground or out of state is all.

Like stricter gun laws will magically stop gun purchases and gun crime. It will go underground.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

well, guns have to be manufactured...

Shhhh.

Let's pretend the rest of the industrialized world hasn't already solved this problem.

So did alcohol.

I agree with Clayton, banning abortions won't fix the issue. I'm not in favor of abortions, they leave physical and mental scars, sending it underground, it then becomes even more dangerous. Just as with guns, we need to change the culture.

 

[Jughead]

I wonder when the Texas government has to raise taxes to pay for more schools, school lunches, and other government services because they have more kids than they could handle, how will they react to that? I guess they would be or raising taxes because they want these kids to have a life since they are fighting so hard to get them born.

Having more kids also means more productive members of society when these kids grow up. That means more taxpayers.

 

[Papageorgio]

More strict Abortion laws save lives.

A year after the passage of a controversial bill restricting abortion in Texas, there will be an estimated 9,200 fewer abortions performed in the state, according to a report published earlier this month by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project.

"Compared to Period 1 [the six months prior to the bill's debate], there was a 13% decline in the state's abortion rate in Period 3 (the same six-month period one year later), corresponding to about 9,200 fewer abortions annually," according to the report, entitled “Change in Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.”

It also says that Texas had 41 abortion clinics as of May 2013. By November 2013, that number had been reduced to 22 and is expected to fall as low as six by September, when all abortion clinics in Texas must follow ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements.

The number of chemical abortions also decreased by 70 percent.

The legislation, which was passed and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry last July, prohibits most abortions after 20 weeks, requires that all abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and mandates that all chemical abortions be performed according to FDA regulations.

Report Estimates 9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law | CNS News

There will be fewer abortions that you know of, you mean. Abortions will happen regardless. They will simply be unsafe abortions - which is what you conservatives want.

You really know what conservatives want? You are a real piece of work, no one wants unsafe anything, but you are talking about taking a life. You bitch that the US doesn't let illegal immigrants in, yet you'd kill them in the womb and some how justify it.

You judge what conservatives want and yet you offer nothing, just hypocritical.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Contumacious]

More strict Abortion laws save lives.




Report Estimates 9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law | CNS News

There will be fewer abortions that you know of, you mean. Abortions will happen regardless. They will simply be unsafe abortions - which is what you conservatives want.

You really know what conservatives want? You are a real piece of work, no one wants unsafe anything, but you are talking about taking a life. You bitch that the US doesn't let illegal immigrants in, yet you'd kill them in the womb and some how justify it.

You judge what conservatives want and yet you offer nothing, just hypocritical.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

OK then Mr CONservative?

How the fuck do you justify NATIONALIZING WOMEN"S UTERI? WOMAN"S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?

>

 

[Papageorgio]

There will be fewer abortions that you know of, you mean. Abortions will happen regardless. They will simply be unsafe abortions - which is what you conservatives want.

You really know what conservatives want? You are a real piece of work, no one wants unsafe anything, but you are talking about taking a life. You bitch that the US doesn't let illegal immigrants in, yet you'd kill them in the womb and some how justify it.

You judge what conservatives want and yet you offer nothing, just hypocritical.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

OK then Mr CONservative?

How the fuck do you justify NATIONALIZING WOMEN"S UTERI? WOMAN"S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?

>

It is a state issue, not a national issue. I have a concern about women's health when they have an illegal abortions. I think changing the culture of America is the issue, but it is going the wrong way. My wife and I remained faithful, when she got pregnant, abortion was and never would be an option. I raised my kids the same way.

 

[Contumacious]

You really know what conservatives want? You are a real piece of work, no one wants unsafe anything, but you are talking about taking a life. You bitch that the US doesn't let illegal immigrants in, yet you'd kill them in the womb and some how justify it.

You judge what conservatives want and yet you offer nothing, just hypocritical.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

OK then Mr CONservative?

How the fuck do you justify NATIONALIZING WOMEN"S UTERI? WOMAN"S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?

>

It is a state issue, not a national issue. I have a concern about women's health when they have an illegal abortions. I think changing the culture of America is the issue, but it is going the wrong way. My wife and I remained faithful, when she got pregnant, abortion was and never would be an option. I raised my kids the same way.

Fine.

YOU - not the Texas Taliban made that decision.

Allow other Texans to determine what is best for them.

.

 

[bodecea]

Aren't the political party positions on abortion reversed from how they should be? Shouldn't Republicans be for abortion since most who opt for them are probably the less wealthy types? And Democrats be against it, since less abortion equals more poor people and likely Democrats?

You make the false (though very common) assumption that most abortions are for economic reasons (women can't afford a child).

IIRC, this has been repeatedly been proven false. Most abortions are by middle class women.

Simply stating it is false without proof is asinine.

The facts speak quite differently – the majority of all abortions are done out of convenience with much of those being directly linked to carrier/money.

The ones that are done for ‘heath’ are misrepresented as well considering that there does not have to be any actual health problem diagnosed by a physician for that classification. A small minority of abortions are performed because they are necessary.

By the way – middle class does not mean can’t afford. The ability to afford a child is something that is subjective and dependent on the lifestyle that the parent wished to maintain. Most of those are not cases of ‘can’t afford’ so much as do not want to spend money on.

Says who?

 

[FA_Q2]

You make the false (though very common) assumption that most abortions are for economic reasons (women can't afford a child).

IIRC, this has been repeatedly been proven false. Most abortions are by middle class women.

Simply stating it is false without proof is asinine.

The facts speak quite differently – the majority of all abortions are done out of convenience with much of those being directly linked to carrier/money.

The ones that are done for ‘heath’ are misrepresented as well considering that there does not have to be any actual health problem diagnosed by a physician for that classification. A small minority of abortions are performed because they are necessary.

By the way – middle class does not mean can’t afford. The ability to afford a child is something that is subjective and dependent on the lifestyle that the parent wished to maintain. Most of those are not cases of ‘can’t afford’ so much as do not want to spend money on.

Says who?

Says the research on the subject. Research that has already been cited here in this thread at least twice.

 

[auditor0007]

More strict Abortion laws save lives.

A year after the passage of a controversial bill restricting abortion in Texas, there will be an estimated 9,200 fewer abortions performed in the state, according to a report published earlier this month by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project.

"Compared to Period 1 [the six months prior to the bill's debate], there was a 13% decline in the state's abortion rate in Period 3 (the same six-month period one year later), corresponding to about 9,200 fewer abortions annually," according to the report, entitled “Change in Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.”

It also says that Texas had 41 abortion clinics as of May 2013. By November 2013, that number had been reduced to 22 and is expected to fall as low as six by September, when all abortion clinics in Texas must follow ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements.

The number of chemical abortions also decreased by 70 percent.

The legislation, which was passed and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry last July, prohibits most abortions after 20 weeks, requires that all abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and mandates that all chemical abortions be performed according to FDA regulations.

Report Estimates 9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law | CNS News

Aren't the political party positions on abortion reversed from how they should be? Shouldn't Republicans be for abortion since most who opt for them are probably the less wealthy types? And Democrats be against it, since less abortion equals more poor people and likely Democrats?

Watch Texas' welfare roles explode. The cons will be slitting their wrists.

 

[Spoonman]

"....controlling the lives of another person...."

Very close to the definition of abortion.

Ironic, huh?

Get ready to put your money where your pie hole is when these parents or single mothers have to go on welfare to raise these unwanted children, or if these kids are simply abandoned.

Texas will have to start opening orphanages, like we had in the previous, archaic and controlled society of the 19th century which is where your head is.

Get ready for 18 years of support per unwanted child, and we KNOW how righties love their money and want to reduce taxes, so please STFU when it comes YOUR turn to pay for them.

Kinda funny how these leftist support bringing in poor children from other countries and putting them on the government dole, but lets kill our own, because they might be a burden on the system

ours might grow up to be conservative voters. we can't have that

 

[Papageorgio]

OK then Mr CONservative?

How the fuck do you justify NATIONALIZING WOMEN"S UTERI? WOMAN"S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?

>

It is a state issue, not a national issue. I have a concern about women's health when they have an illegal abortions. I think changing the culture of America is the issue, but it is going the wrong way. My wife and I remained faithful, when she got pregnant, abortion was and never would be an option. I raised my kids the same way.

Fine.

YOU - not the Texas Taliban made that decision.

Allow other Texans to determine what is best for them.

.

It's a state issue, if Texas chooses to govern the people of Texas differently than another state, that is their right as a state.

There are ramifications when making such a decision and our culture treats abortion as a form of birth control. "Accidents" happen, however I'm not sure taking lives is the answer for such "accidents." Then we want to take in children from other countries, let's take care of the unborn before we tackle the worlds problems.

 

[JoeB131]

We can't take in those brown kids when there are white fetuses to save?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Abortion is the hypocrite's crutch, it requires nothing of the hypocrite, controlling the lives of another person is what they desire most, taking care of or assisting the same person is something they loathe. Empty moralizing is their trademark. A child dies every 15 seconds in the world of natural causes, do you ever hear the hypocrites mention them? And every married couple, every month aborts life, unless they attempt to conceive the potential life present, they just pretend it is something other than what it is. The same people who argue against supporting a woman's right to contraceptive medicine, gladly pay for boner medicine, I guess males matter more than women in their world, and so it goes.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey


http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/301002-a-new-forum-maybe-post7469334.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...way-it-was-pre-roe-v-wade-11.html#post6717483

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...luding-late-term-abortions-2.html#post5858288

"....controlling the lives of another person...."

Very close to the definition of abortion.

Ironic, huh?

Get ready to put your money where your pie hole is when these parents or single mothers have to go on welfare to raise these unwanted children, or if these kids are simply abandoned.

Texas will have to start opening orphanages, like we had in the previous, archaic and controlled society of the 19th century which is where your head is.

Get ready for 18 years of support per unwanted child, and we KNOW how righties love their money and want to reduce taxes, so please STFU when it comes YOUR turn to pay for them.

So we have a deal? We'll make sure their daddiy supports them or have daddy's ass in a penitentiary.

 

[JoeB131]

So we have a deal? We'll make sure their daddiy supports them or have daddy's ass in a penitentiary.

Why should he do that?

What if he thought in good faith she was using contraception?

What if he wore a rubber and it broke.

So really, he should be on the hook for 18 years of child support for a child neither he nor his partner wanted because it offends YOUR religious sensibilities?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic:
"In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
Looks like the reason to destroy human beings, in almost 90% of the cases, was, basically...'I felt like it.'
I guess that's why you voted for the "Infanticide President," huh?"

I understand the numbers very well, but what about those that can barely support themselves without help? Should they be forced to bring an unplanned baby into this world who is, most likely, going to suffer as a result? Isn't it more humane to not even attempt it?

What about people that know they are going to be shitty parents (druggies, alkies, etc...). Some people are actually aware of their limitations, shortcomings and failures and try to avoid forcing others to suffer for their "sins". So, why take away the choice?

"So, why take away the choice?"

Are you always this stupid?

Why do you begin the soap opera at pregnancy?

How about we start just before the woman decides to have intercourse.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where is the guv'ments authority, or yours for that matter, to reach into a woman's vagina and control it. That is the type of proposition a fascist regime would believe an option of their power/control.

Cite that Governmental Authority with Amendments IX & XIV constitutionally blocking that absurd notion!

It seems that you frequently require my aid in understanding reality.

Well, noblesse oblige.....



1. Conservatism embraces this brand of pro-choice sentiment: we fully acknowledge a woman’s ability to make choices about her own body, and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The choice that operates is this: contraceptives may fail…the decision to engage in sexual intercourse is to accept the possibility that pregnancy may occur. This means the decision to accept all of the responsibilities that may become necessary.


a. When deciding to buy a house, there is the implicit acceptance of future mortgage payments, upkeep, insurance, etc.

b. The choice to which an individual has the right of decision is to have sex or not, rather than to abort or not.

c. No unjust intrusion on the unborn child’s right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is allowed.



2. Based on this position, the obligation of government is to protect the lives of the unborn by restricting access to abortion only to those situations in which the mother’s life is in danger, or to cases of rape or incest.



3. The conservative rejects the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.

On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson.

“Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

Your typical obfuscation and avoidance!

Again, what is the Constitutional authority for a government entity to place ANY control on a woman's vagina in any wise? I don't give a tinkers damn about your contrived moralistic quotes...they ain't law. What is your basis in the law of the land for the People to trample on their Amendment IX & XIV retained non-enumerated and due process rights?

Cite the Constitutional Authority for any government entity to impede or obstruct a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester, little one. I can't make it any clearer. The easy response would be that there is none!

I've given you your instruction.

Try to learn from it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Au contraire, ErroneousJoe....


It is imperative to both point out that intercourse is the precursor, a fact over which one almost always has control....

....and to indicate evil to our Liberal pals who seem unable to recognize same.

sure.

You have control.

If you want to have sex, you can.

If you want to suck "that little problem" into a sink, you can.

And no religious asshole has jack-shit to say about it.

What a fucking country.

Truly, 'erroneous.'


What does religion have to do with whether or not murder is an acceptable passtime?


By what logic does one individual have the right to end the life of a totally innocent stranger that they don't even know?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So we have a deal? We'll make sure their daddiy supports them or have daddy's ass in a penitentiary.

Why should he do that?

What if he thought in good faith she was using contraception?

What if he wore a rubber and it broke.

So really, he should be on the hook for 18 years of child support for a child neither he nor his partner wanted because it offends YOUR religious sensibilities?

Same logic....erroneous logic....applies if the girl is 15..."What if he thought in good faith she was 18?"