Appellate Ruling Upholds Texas Abortion Law

[JakeStarkey]

If you believe in political means to reform society, then, yes, you are a progressive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you believe in political means to reform society, then, yes, you are a progressive.

You are saying I do, I think you are projecting again, mostly because I do not believe in that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually you do, and you are lying about it. But let's let it go for now. And the next time you demonstrate your progressivism, I will reference these links. Deal?

 

[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.

Never claimed to be a Libertarian and there has to be regulations and laws all concerning medical procedures. I don't see a problem. Otherwise we could perform abortion up until the time of delivery a lot of libs wouldn't mind that.

 

[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.

Never claimed to be a Libertarian and there has to be regulations and laws all concerning medical procedures. I don't see a problem. Otherwise we could perform abortion up until the time of delivery a lot of libs wouldn't mind that.

I am sure a few libs would like that, and I know a lot more far right loonies would change the law (right wing progressivism) to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to end regardless of the risk to her.

 

[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.

Never claimed to be a Libertarian and there has to be regulations and laws all concerning medical procedures. I don't see a problem. Otherwise we could perform abortion up until the time of delivery a lot of libs wouldn't mind that.

I am sure a few libs would like that, and I know a lot more far right loonies would change the law (right wing progressivism) to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to end regardless of the risk to her.

I think not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Never claimed to be a Libertarian and there has to be regulations and laws all concerning medical procedures. I don't see a problem. Otherwise we could perform abortion up until the time of delivery a lot of libs wouldn't mind that.

I am sure a few libs would like that, and I know a lot more far right loonies would change the law (right wing progressivism) to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to end regardless of the risk to her.

I think not.

I think so, and you do, too. Don't mistake normal conservatives for "far right [religious] loonies," which we have see our fill of her on the board.

 

[Sarah G]

This is a good law let the women see the baby before they decide to kill it.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a Texas law that requires women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram exam and to listen to a physician's detailed description of the fetus, including whether it has developed limbs or internal organs.

Supporters of the law, enacted last year, say it is designed to ensure that women are fully informed about abortions and, ultimately, to discourage them from undergoing the procedure. It requires all women seeking abortions to have a sonogram, also known as an ultrasound scan, but it allows some women—such as those who certify they are rape victims—to avoid hearing a description of the fetus or embryo.

In a constitutional challenge to the law, U.S. District judge Sam Sparks of Austin ruled in August that it violates physicians' free-speech rights by compelling them to "advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen."


Gov. Perry signed the bill in May.
.A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed Judge Sparks, concluding that the law merely requires physicians to provide "truthful, non-misleading information" and therefore doesn't violate their free-speech rights. The Fifth Circuit ruling clears the way for Texas to enforce the sonogram law, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement.

"The Texas sonogram law falls well within the State's authority to regulate abortions and require informed consent from patients before they undergo an abortion procedure," Mr. Abbott said.

The decision was the first by a federal appellate court upholding the constitutionality of a state law mandating a physician's description of an ultrasound

Texas Allowed to Enforce Abortion Law - WSJ.com

Boy, those Texas Repubs sure are big spenders.

 

[Jroc]

I am sure a few libs would like that, and I know a lot more far right loonies would change the law (right wing progressivism) to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to end regardless of the risk to her.

I think not.

I think so, and you do, too. Don't mistake normal conservatives for "far right [religious] loonies," which we have see our fill of her on the board.

I think not...Nice deflection though

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think not.

I think so, and you do, too. Don't mistake normal conservatives for "far right [religious] loonies," which we have see our fill of her on the board.

I think not...Nice deflection though

Yep, and you are the one trying to deflect. I will preserve the conversation here for when you try to pull this elsewhere.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually you do, and you are lying about it. But let's let it go for now. And the next time you demonstrate your progressivism, I will reference these links. Deal?

If that is true, you should have no trouble finding examples of it. Just like you had no trouble finding examples of me changing my posts to make you look like an idiot the last time you accursed me of believing this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You provided links for yourself when you posted elsewhere and in the future, QWB.

You are a progressive, and no one doubts that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You provided links for yourself when you posted elsewhere and in the future, QWB.

You are a progressive, and no one doubts that.

Find them. It is childish to insist I am saying something without providing evidence. I know you are trying hard to be condescending, but you just come off as stupid. Condescension only works if you are either dignified or actually superior to the person you are trying to put down.

 

[chikenwing]

I can see the point of those who support the law. My only added point is then those who support it should be willing to pay more taxes to help support the child once it is born. If we want to outlaw abortion then we as a society must be willing to pay for programs that help support the child because we all know if this doesnt happen the child has no realisitic chance of a good start. Cant have it both ways.

So its really about money,not human lives?? So we better kill our children,just in case we don't think we have enough money??

We people start bringing money into the abortion debate,we slip even farther down a big black moral hole.
And ya you can have it both ways,being alive is always better than not

 

[Katzndogz]

The point of the law is to provide complete information so the mother could make an informed choice. If a woman sees her child, decides not have an abortion but the baby instead but cannot afford to care for it. The only sensible course of action is to take the child from her and give it to a family able to provide support. If none is available, open a few orphanages.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of that may be true, katz, and unlike QWB and Jros who refuse to admit the truth of what they have posted earlier, you are a right wing progressive using political means to enforce cultural and societal change in the practice of medicine.

 

[Jroc]

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 21 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization");

Fetal Homicide State Laws

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc, progressivism is a broad-based reform movement (developing since the 1870s) that has liberal, moderate,and conservative wings to change and regulate America through political means.

You are a conservative right wing progressive on abortion laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All of that may be true, katz, and unlike QWB and Jros who refuse to admit the truth of what they have posted earlier, you are a right wing progressive using political means to enforce cultural and societal change in the practice of medicine.

Once again, I have not read the law, so I will not comment on it. If what I read about it is accurate I think it intrudes on the doctor/patient relationship by requiring the doctor to say things that may not be pertinent to the discussion. that means it would violate the 1st Amendment, just in case you are curious. Since I have not actually read the law I will not assume my opinion is correct though, unlike you.

Still waiting for you to show where I want to impose morality through government like you do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of that may be true, katz, and unlike QWB and Jros who refuse to admit the truth of what they have posted earlier, you are a right wing progressive using political means to enforce cultural and societal change in the practice of medicine.

Once again, I have not read the law, so I will not comment on it. If what I read about it is accurate I think it intrudes on the doctor/patient relationship by requiring the doctor to say things that may not be pertinent to the discussion. that means it would violate the 1st Amendment, just in case you are curious. Since I have not actually read the law I will not assume my opinion is correct though, unlike you.

Still waiting for you to show where I want to impose morality through government like you do.

Or, in your case, lack of morality or in protection of 1st Amendment freedom, although I don't think doctor-client protection is protected constitutionally in itself, but is rather a statue by the respective state legislature. I am beginning to wonder if you are a libertarian progressive, which is certainly a possibility.

Why do you have trouble with the concept that progressivism is a reform impulse with liberal, moderate, conservative (and libertarian) wings?