Appellate Ruling Upholds Texas Abortion Law

[JakeStarkey]

A couple of judges disagree with you.

I imagine murder statutes are there to persuade people to not commit the crime.

That's constitutional.

Looks like you shoud be writing a letter to tell those judges how wrong they are!

Nice try but you missed.

 

[jillian]

A couple of judges disagree with you.

I imagine murder statutes are there to persuade people to not commit the crime.

That's constitutional.

Looks like you shoud be writing a letter to tell those judges how wrong they are!

they're rightwingnut idealogues... that goes without saying.

 

[jillian]

What's the topic of this thread again? this law doesn't ban or even attempt to ban anything stick to the topic genius.

The purpose of the law is to disuade women from getting abortions. That's why it's unconstitutional.

A couple of judges disagree with you.

and? a couple of judges think that jim crow was a good idea.

The purpose of the law is absolutely to abuse women and keep them from exercising their constitutional rights.

But it's funny watching mr. "i hate rules" think this one is ok.

 

[jillian]

What does that have to do with my post? I already said states can't ban abortion but they can regulate it as with any medical procedure some of these libs here think we can simply kill a baby at any stage of pregnancy which is sick, evil practice

DO I need to explain the big words to you?

They've been trying the banning through regulation shit for years, and the courts usually strike it down because it's obvious that's what they are up to. Bolton makes most of those regulations moot.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester, where it isn't anything vaguely close to being a baby.

The few late trimester abortions that happen usually happen because something has gone horribly wrong in a pregnancy the people involved wanted. The last thing they need at that point is some tiny-brained religious fanatic sticking their noses where they don't belong.

What's the topic of this thread again? this law doesn't ban or even attempt to ban anything stick to the topic genius.

you're either dishonest or delusional...

i wonder which.. .

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The purpose of the law is to disuade women from getting abortions. That's why it's unconstitutional.

A couple of judges disagree with you.

and? a couple of judges think that jim crow was a good idea.

The purpose of the law is absolutely to abuse women and keep them from exercising their constitutional rights.

But it's funny watching mr. "i hate rules" think this one is ok.

Just pointing it out. It is the same thing people on your side say when I argue that carving a right to abortion out of the right to privacy stretches the constitution. My guess is it bothers you no end that any judge allowed a law like that to stand, and I enjoy rubbing your nose in the fact that abortion supporters can loose in court.

For the record, I haven't actually read the law, so I have no opinion on its constitutionality under current case law. I am not defending the law, just gloating.

 

[Jroc]

DO I need to explain the big words to you?

They've been trying the banning through regulation shit for years, and the courts usually strike it down because it's obvious that's what they are up to. Bolton makes most of those regulations moot.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester, where it isn't anything vaguely close to being a baby.

The few late trimester abortions that happen usually happen because something has gone horribly wrong in a pregnancy the people involved wanted. The last thing they need at that point is some tiny-brained religious fanatic sticking their noses where they don't belong.

What's the topic of this thread again? this law doesn't ban or even attempt to ban anything stick to the topic genius.

you're either dishonest or delusional...

i wonder which.. .

Nope the purpose make is to make sure these women make an informed decision and you have a problem with that? States have the right to regulate and that’s the bottom line, you pro-abortion people can spin it however you want but there is nothing wrong with this law, you have no problem giving tax payer money to groups that push abortion first, that is fine with you. Funny you have even come to the conclusion that your religion has no problem with abortion ...Go figure

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc: States have the right to regulate and that’s the bottom line.

You are a right wing big government progressive, certainly no kind of libertarian.

 

[Jroc]

Jroc: States have the right to regulate and that’s the bottom line.

You are a right wing big government progressive, certainly no kind of libertarian.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc is merely a states right progressive right wing statist on this issue. Note that I am not saying he is right or wrong in his opinion, merely that he is a big government statist. If he wants to say such was the intent of the X Amendment, then he is saying the Founders were statists. Many here would agree.

 

[Jroc]

States have the right to regulate medical procedures within their states that’s what I'm saying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In what you are saying is embedded the acknowledgement that you are a right wing progressive.

 

[Greenbeard]

States have the right to regulate medical procedures within their states that’s what I'm saying.

But you started this thread saying "This is a good law let the women see the baby before they decide to kill it."

So 1) yes, states can do it, and 2) yes, you approve of them doing it. The latter bit is more germane to Starkey's point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States have the right to regulate medical procedures within their states that’s what I'm saying.

It’s also incumbent upon states to regulate medical procedures in a responsible manner in good faith, which is clearly not the case with regard to the Texas law; the requirement is not motivated by a concern for women’s health, it’s motivated only by politics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

States have the right to regulate medical procedures within their states that’s what I'm saying.

It’s also incumbent upon states to regulate medical procedures in a responsible manner in good faith, which is clearly not the case with regard to the Texas law; the requirement is not motivated by a concern for women’s health, it’s motivated only by politics.

Federal Appellate judges disagree, and they read the applicable case law. Can you point out what it is about the law that is irresponsible, or should I just assume you are a hack?

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB, it is always political as well as legal. That is what progressivism means: change or status quo by political means to regulate economics, government, morality, or society or culture. Embrace that you are a right wing progressive. Notice I do not say that is either good or bad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QWB, it is always political as well as legal. That is what progressivism means: change or status quo by political means to regulate economics, government, morality, or society or culture. Embrace that you are a right wing progressive. Notice I do not say that is either good or bad.

You should know, you are one.

What makes me a progressive? Did I defend a law somewhere based on morality? I just challenged one hack to tell me what it is about the law he finds irresponsible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a progressive, QWB, because you believe in national or state change of status quo by political means to regulate economics, government, morality, or society or culture. Embrace it, admit it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are a progressive, QWB, because you believe in national or state change of status quo by political means to regulate economics, government, morality, or society or culture. Embrace it, admit it.

I do? When did I start believing that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

With all of your comments in this and many other threads. Admit it, son, you are a right wing progressive statist.

Come out, it's OK.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With all of your comments in this and many other threads. Admit it, son, you are a right wing progressive statist.

Come out, it's OK.

My comments in this thread support a government mandated morality? All I have said in this thread is that judges think the law, which I have not read, is constitutional. I also asked another poster to explain why the law, which I believe he has not read, is irresponsible. Not sure how that makes me a person that believes in government mandated morality, but feel free to explain it to me. Be sure to use small words so you do not get confused.