Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
It's a start. This law must go into all 50 states and then then baby killers will have no place to run to.
Yet it's perfectly fine when illegal immigrants and welfare queens use my money to eat my food that I produced with my blood. Why can't I just have you democrats who refuse to support yourselves aborted?
Yo Vern, and I have supported that when, how?
What makes you think anyone owns breathable air space? OMFG
I had no idea that the EPA had finally nationalized oxygen.
.
Make up your mind. Is it "her air, her space" or shared air and shared space? You think proximity to air and space gives one ownership?
How can you defend the right of a woman to kill a baby based on emotion and/or financial hardship, then turn around and not defend the same for dependent adults?
Again make up your mind, we can be forced to take care of people or not?
Do you not see that your statements are inconsistent with your beliefs? If anyone should be defended, nurtured, and taken care of... why not start with babies? And if no one should and murder is ok for babies, why have laws on killings at all? What's the frigging point if murderers can get their rocks off by aborting babies?
In the world of the Right, clock hands move counter-clockwise, and marches backwards....
Yo Vern, and I have supported that when, how?
I had no idea that the EPA had finally nationalized oxygen.
.
Make up your mind. Is it "her air, her space" or shared air and shared space? You think proximity to air and space gives one ownership?
How can you defend the right of a woman to kill a baby based on emotion and/or financial hardship, then turn around and not defend the same for dependent adults?
Again make up your mind, we can be forced to take care of people or not?
Do you not see that your statements are inconsistent with your beliefs? If anyone should be defended, nurtured, and taken care of... why not start with babies? And if no one should and murder is ok for babies, why have laws on killings at all? What's the frigging point if murderers can get their rocks off by aborting babies?
No, "we" can not be FORCED to take care of people.
ANYTHING WITHIN HER BODY IS UNDER HER CONTROL -
I did not say a woman can kill her baby - I was at all times referring to the clump of cells known as the fetus.
.
The only thing that the Texas law has done is to criminalize doctors and medical professionals all over the state. I am sure that they have simply returned to what they did before Roe Vs. Wade, which is to perform a D & C. Of course, there will also be plenty of abortions performed again by untrained people with coat hangers, but that does not concern the Right.
Make up your mind. Is it "her air, her space" or shared air and shared space? You think proximity to air and space gives one ownership?
How can you defend the right of a woman to kill a baby based on emotion and/or financial hardship, then turn around and not defend the same for dependent adults?
Again make up your mind, we can be forced to take care of people or not?
Do you not see that your statements are inconsistent with your beliefs? If anyone should be defended, nurtured, and taken care of... why not start with babies? And if no one should and murder is ok for babies, why have laws on killings at all? What's the frigging point if murderers can get their rocks off by aborting babies?
No, "we" can not be FORCED to take care of people.
ANYTHING WITHIN HER BODY IS UNDER HER CONTROL -
I did not say a woman can kill her baby - I was at all times referring to the clump of cells known as the fetus.
.
Yes we can we already are. It's called taxation and welfare handouts. Look it up a small number of americans are being forced to take care of 50million+ americans via welfare handouts. Surprised this is news to you.
Definition of fetus:
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.
Your saying it's just a fetus is equivalent to being the dumbest human on the planet. Have you never felt a baby dance to music in the womb? You baby killers are nuts.
The only thing that the Texas law has done is to criminalize doctors and medical professionals all over the state. I am sure that they have simply returned to what they did before Roe Vs. Wade, which is to perform a D & C. Of course, there will also be plenty of abortions performed again by untrained people with coat hangers, but that does not concern the Right.
Scare tactics about back alley abortions and coat hangers are bullshit.
Most illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade were performed by medical professionals in their clinics. Don't be such a dick.
The only thing that the Texas law has done is to criminalize doctors and medical professionals all over the state. I am sure that they have simply returned to what they did before Roe Vs. Wade, which is to perform a D & C. Of course, there will also be plenty of abortions performed again by untrained people with coat hangers, but that does not concern the Right.
Scare tactics about back alley abortions and coat hangers are bullshit.
Most illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade were performed by medical professionals in their clinics. Don't be such a dick.
The question should be obvious. The emergent care requirement is arbitrary if there is no true need for it. IOW, cite the scores of women that were medically impacted by the lack of emergent care. If there is a significant number of people that were suffering because these facilities were lacking the proper ability to perform the procedure (including the after effects) then you have a point. If not then the claim that these facilities were inadequate and that the new requirements are not arbitrary is false.It did not restrict access, it simply set a bar for safety that was a bit higher than the coat hanger shops the abortion mills were running. The coat hanger shop owners apparently left to go to other states where they can get more profit per abortion.
Well, just flatly stating that really doesnt mean anything. It did interest me though and it seems there are some numbers behind that.
Court Records Indicate Nearly 1,000 Abortion Patients Likely Hospitalized Annually in Texas
The problem? I cant find any of this from a legitimate source. Operation rescue, right to life or nay other advocacy group is not really an objective and believable source with this type of information. Do you have anything more concrete?
I don't understand the question. All of the facilities in question did not have sufficient procedures to properly provide emergent care for their patients. These procedure are standard outpatient surgical / ambulatory procedures. This is why the law was written. You're asking for concrete proof that the facilities in question were not providing the new level of care? The proof is in the pudding. They left.
The question should be obvious. The emergent care requirement is arbitrary if there is no true need for it. IOW, cite the scores of women that were medically impacted by the lack of emergent care. If there is a significant number of people that were suffering because these facilities were lacking the proper ability to perform the procedure (including the after effects) then you have a point. If not then the claim that these facilities were inadequate and that the new requirements are not arbitrary is false.Well, just flatly stating that really doesn’t mean anything. It did interest me though and it seems there are some numbers behind that.
Court Records Indicate Nearly 1,000 Abortion Patients Likely Hospitalized Annually in Texas
The problem? I can’t find any of this from a legitimate source. Operation rescue, right to life or nay other advocacy group is not really an objective and believable source with this type of information. Do you have anything more concrete?
I don't understand the question. All of the facilities in question did not have sufficient procedures to properly provide emergent care for their patients. These procedure are standard outpatient surgical / ambulatory procedures. This is why the law was written. You're asking for concrete proof that the facilities in question were not providing the new level of care? The proof is in the pudding. They left.
Call us right away if you:
Have heavy vaginal bleeding, or saturate 1 sanitary pad every 15 minutes for an hour.
Have heavy vaginal bleeding for more than 2 weeks.
Develop a fever that is above 100.4º F or that lasts for more than 4 hours.
Have severe or persistent abdominal pain or can’t manage the cramping pain with acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin).
Have foul-smelling vaginal discharge.
Pass tissue from your vagina that is pink, tan, or grey.
If you have an emergency medical condition, call 911 or go to the nearest hospital. An emergency medical condition is any of the following: (1) a medical condition that manifests itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that you could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in serious jeopardy to your health or body functions or organs; (2) active labor when there isn't enough time for safe transfer to a Plan hospital (or designated hospital) before delivery, or if transfer poses a threat to your (or your unborn child's) health and safety, or (3) a mental disorder that manifests itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity such that either you are an immediate danger to yourself or others, or you are not immediately able to provide for, or use, food, shelter, or clothing, due to the mental disorder.
9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law
More strict Abortion laws save lives.
That's right there has always been murder and hack doctors performing procedures without a license. Why should we bother to have medical boards at all? Why bother prosecuting murder if we can't stop it?9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law
More strict Abortion laws save lives.
Where is the evidence there were fewer abortions or that any lives were saved?
There is no accurate count of the number of abortions done in the US because we don't now how many doctors are quietly doing D&Cs.
And saved lives? The women will get abortions in other states or from their family doctor in the form of a D&C.
Some will be forced to reproduce and the resultant children will suffer for it but you'll never hear the right talk about that. The right hates children and would gladly let them starve. Or they send armed thugs to shoot them.
There has always been abortion and there will always be abortion.
MYOB
That's right there has always been murder and hack doctors performing procedures without a license. Why should we bother to have medical boards at all? Why bother prosecuting murder if we can't stop it?9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law
More strict Abortion laws save lives.
Where is the evidence there were fewer abortions or that any lives were saved?
There is no accurate count of the number of abortions done in the US because we don't now how many doctors are quietly doing D&Cs.
And saved lives? The women will get abortions in other states or from their family doctor in the form of a D&C.
Some will be forced to reproduce and the resultant children will suffer for it but you'll never hear the right talk about that. The right hates children and would gladly let them starve. Or they send armed thugs to shoot them.
There has always been abortion and there will always be abortion.
MYOB
That's right there has always been murder and hack doctors performing procedures without a license. Why should we bother to have medical boards at all? Why bother prosecuting murder if we can't stop it?Where is the evidence there were fewer abortions or that any lives were saved?
There is no accurate count of the number of abortions done in the US because we don't now how many doctors are quietly doing D&Cs.
And saved lives? The women will get abortions in other states or from their family doctor in the form of a D&C.
Some will be forced to reproduce and the resultant children will suffer for it but you'll never hear the right talk about that. The right hates children and would gladly let them starve. Or they send armed thugs to shoot them.
There has always been abortion and there will always be abortion.
MYOB
How many unwanted children have you adopted?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
As soon as YOU are being forced to bear an unwanted or wick babies, you will have a say. Until then, MYOB.
The interesting part is that I most certainly did not say that nothing can go wrong nor did I ever imply that the procedure was 100 percent safe. Driving to the clinic is not safe either. Nor is a million other things that you routinely do. Certain restrictions (like seatbelt) are imposed when there is shown that significant gains can be made in safety. The fact that you have to outright lie about my statements and set up straw men simply shows my supposition is correct: you have no data whatsoever showing that there is any such needs for the increased precautions or that there were a significant number of women suffering adverse effects because the regulations were not in place. After all, YOU stated that:The question should be obvious. The emergent care requirement is arbitrary if there is no true need for it. IOW, cite the scores of women that were medically impacted by the lack of emergent care. If there is a significant number of people that were suffering because these facilities were lacking the proper ability to perform the procedure (including the after effects) then you have a point. If not then the claim that these facilities were inadequate and that the new requirements are not arbitrary is false.I don't understand the question. All of the facilities in question did not have sufficient procedures to properly provide emergent care for their patients. These procedure are standard outpatient surgical / ambulatory procedures. This is why the law was written. You're asking for concrete proof that the facilities in question were not providing the new level of care? The proof is in the pudding. They left.
So in your medical opinion women receiving abortions do not need emergent care. If they die they die. wow
My Doctor Online
snips:
Call us right away if you:
Have heavy vaginal bleeding, or saturate 1 sanitary pad every 15 minutes for an hour.
Have heavy vaginal bleeding for more than 2 weeks.
Develop a fever that is above 100.4º F or that lasts for more than 4 hours.
Have severe or persistent abdominal pain or cant manage the cramping pain with acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin).
Have foul-smelling vaginal discharge.
Pass tissue from your vagina that is pink, tan, or grey.If you have an emergency medical condition, call 911 or go to the nearest hospital. An emergency medical condition is any of the following: (1) a medical condition that manifests itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that you could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in serious jeopardy to your health or body functions or organs; (2) active labor when there isn't enough time for safe transfer to a Plan hospital (or designated hospital) before delivery, or if transfer poses a threat to your (or your unborn child's) health and safety, or (3) a mental disorder that manifests itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity such that either you are an immediate danger to yourself or others, or you are not immediately able to provide for, or use, food, shelter, or clothing, due to the mental disorder.
What could possibly go wrong he says...
Coat hanger shops if those were really so bad then where are all the women that were affected by the absence of these new regulations? How many women are now going to be rescued from those terrible conditions? If you are arguing with more than emotion here then you should have no problem citing a reliable source with concrete evidence that the increased care was necessary because women were suffering in its absence otherwise the restrictions are asinine. If you have such data then the restrictions might very well be reasonable.It did not restrict access, it simply set a bar for safety that was a bit higher than the coat hanger shops the abortion mills were running.
The interesting part is that I most certainly did not say that nothing can go wrong nor did I ever imply that the procedure was 100 percent safe. Driving to the clinic is not safe either. Nor is a million other things that you routinely do. Certain restrictions (like seatbelt) are imposed when there is shown that significant gains can be made in safety. The fact that you have to outright lie about my statements and set up straw men simply shows my supposition is correct: you have no data whatsoever showing that there is any such needs for the increased precautions or that there were a significant number of women suffering adverse effects because the regulations were not in place. After all, YOU stated that:The question should be obvious. The emergent care requirement is arbitrary if there is no true need for it. IOW, cite the scores of women that were medically impacted by the lack of emergent care. If there is a significant number of people that were suffering because these facilities were lacking the proper ability to perform the procedure (including the after effects) then you have a point. If not then the claim that these facilities were inadequate and that the new requirements are not arbitrary is false.
So in your medical opinion women receiving abortions do not need emergent care. If they die they die. wow
My Doctor Online
snips:
What could possibly go wrong he says...
Coat hanger shops if those were really so bad then where are all the women that were affected by the absence of these new regulations? How many women are now going to be rescued from those terrible conditions? If you are arguing with more than emotion here then you should have no problem citing a reliable source with concrete evidence that the increased care was necessary because women were suffering in its absence otherwise the restrictions are asinine. If you have such data then the restrictions might very well be reasonable.It did not restrict access, it simply set a bar for safety that was a bit higher than the coat hanger shops the abortion mills were running.
From what I have seen so far, however, they are nothing more than an attempt to restrict access and they are doing exactly that. I highly doubt that the courts will allow it to stand.
It would be like me requiring you to wear a hard hat to enter a store after all SOMETHING might fall on you. Never mind actually showing a real need before making arbitrary requirements.
