Courts will do the TX abortion law what they did to Wisconsin's

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, you are missing something. "Equal access" means availability to all, and with all but two clinics forced to close, such access is denied. That is what the federal court will find and toss out the law.

If the lege had left the law at twenty weeks without the spurious safety requirements that will force closings without improving safety, then the court would uphold it.

Or instead of closing, they can change their policy. Why close? It isn't hard.

It's not policy, it's $$$ to upgrade. Most don't have the capital to do so.

Send them some money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not only equipment but other obstacles. It is also the travel involved if they are forced to close.

One lesson from Texas: legal abortion means nothing without access | Fund Abortion Now.org

I wish (I know, if pigs had wings) the legislature, instead of a full blown assault on a procedure protected by constitutional and federal law, had simply drawn a twenty-week barrier and limited abortion to cases of rape and incest, and for the life and health of the mother (waiving the twenty week limitation in the case of the former). Such a law easily would survive federal court scrutiny.

I am a pro-lifer, but at some point there needs to be a compromise. 20 weeks, necessary funding to upgrade the facilities, keep them open. Right to choose preserved, right to life preserved? What do you think?

I would agree in a heart beat, but the social traditionalists control the lege as well as Rick Perry. Those forces put the obstacles in the law to create the funding issue for the clinics to force them to close in order so that women can't get to the two that remain open: they are too far. Never expect the lege to pass any law to help cover the deficit for upgrading.

That's why a great opportunity to severely limit the window available and reasons for abortion will go to waste. The courts will throw it out.

They can get funding the way they always have, charge a fee for the services they provide, or ask for donations.

 

[martybegan]

Wouldn't they perform abortions with the same equipment? So far, I've heard of no Gosnell like cases in TX as of yet.

It's not only equipment but other obstacles. It is also the travel involved if they are forced to close.

One lesson from Texas: legal abortion means nothing without access | Fund Abortion Now.org

I wish (I know, if pigs had wings) the legislature, instead of a full blown assault on a procedure protected by constitutional and federal law, had simply drawn a twenty-week barrier and limited abortion to cases of rape and incest, and for the life and health of the mother (waiving the twenty week limitation in the case of the former). Such a law easily would survive federal court scrutiny.

I am a pro-lifer, but at some point there needs to be a compromise. 20 weeks, necessary funding to upgrade the facilities, keep them open. Right to choose preserved, right to life preserved?

What do you think?

If sooo many people support the right to an abortion, these places should have zero issue either upgrading or relocating to a facility that meets the requirements.

Raise funds, have a bake sale, sell carwashes. If so many people support it raising the required funds should be easy.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not only equipment but other obstacles. It is also the travel involved if they are forced to close.

One lesson from Texas: legal abortion means nothing without access | Fund Abortion Now.org

I wish (I know, if pigs had wings) the legislature, instead of a full blown assault on a procedure protected by constitutional and federal law, had simply drawn a twenty-week barrier and limited abortion to cases of rape and incest, and for the life and health of the mother (waiving the twenty week limitation in the case of the former). Such a law easily would survive federal court scrutiny.

I am a pro-lifer, but at some point there needs to be a compromise. 20 weeks, necessary funding to upgrade the facilities, keep them open. Right to choose preserved, right to life preserved?

What do you think?

If sooo many people support the right to an abortion, these places should have zero issue either upgrading or relocating to a facility that meets the requirements.

Raise funds, have a bake sale, sell carwashes. If so many people support it raising the required funds should be easy.

THat's an awesome idea.

While we are at it, let's MANDATE every gun owner get liability insurance (very expensive) child locks, gun safes and so on.

because, Gosh darn, if we are going to make abortion clinics do a bunch of upgrades for that small fraction that do it badly, we should make gun owners do upgrades because of Joker Holmes and his lot.

 

[GWV5903]

Because making them watch anti-abortio agit prop will accomplish, what, exactly?

You seem to work under the delusion that women can be talked out of abortion.

You all have been trying that for 40 years, and it hasn't worked.

It isn't propaganda

It's real...wgat are you afraid of Joe?

Worried some mother might decide NOT to kill her kid?

Guy, when I used to be Right Wing and Catholic, I used to buy into the whole propaganda thing.

I knew gals who got the full 12 years of Catholic Anti-Abortion propaganda.

And they still went to abortion clinics when they had an "Oops". The walked passed the assholes with the bibles and pictures of aborted fetuses screaming "Murderer" at them.

because at the end of the day, this was the rest of their lives they were considering here.

Now Joe you have said some pretty stupid shit, but this ranks at the top...

 

[martybegan]

I am a pro-lifer, but at some point there needs to be a compromise. 20 weeks, necessary funding to upgrade the facilities, keep them open. Right to choose preserved, right to life preserved?

What do you think?

If sooo many people support the right to an abortion, these places should have zero issue either upgrading or relocating to a facility that meets the requirements.

Raise funds, have a bake sale, sell carwashes. If so many people support it raising the required funds should be easy.

THat's an awesome idea.

While we are at it, let's MANDATE every gun owner get liability insurance (very expensive) child locks, gun safes and so on.

because, Gosh darn, if we are going to make abortion clinics do a bunch of upgrades for that small fraction that do it badly, we should make gun owners do upgrades because of Joker Holmes and his lot.

Trying to compare an elective medical procedure to our right to keep and bear arms shows how much of an ignorant twat you are.

A person who misuses a gun is punished when they misuse the gun. Punishing someone who never misuses a gun is prior restraint, and is thus unconsitutional.

There is no right to an abortion, no matter what 5 of 9 unelected lawyers say

 

[JakeStarkey]

The right to bear arms is constitutional and shall not be infringed.

The right to an abortion is constitutional and shall not be infringed.

Watch what happens to the law when it hits federal court.

 

[martybegan]

The right to bear arms is constitutional and shall not be infringed.

The right to an abortion is constitutional and shall not be infringed.

Watch what happens to the law when it hits federal court.

Show me in the document where abortion is mentioned, and that it explicitly should not be infringed. I do not recognize made up rights from 5 of 9 unelected lawyers, espeically when the right has no basis and flies in the face of a state's consitutional right to legislate as it sees fit (bound in the federal and the states own consitution)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, you do not get to make or decide what is law.

The leges make it and the courts opine on it.

You can have your opinion and vote, then your part is done.

The way it is.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, you do not get to make or decide what is law.

The leges make it and the courts opine on it.

You can have your opinion and vote, then your part is done.

The way it is.

So you like the idea of your legal betters being able to decide what rights you can have, and consequently, what rights can be taken away?

Scratch a progressive, and you always find an oligarch underneath, yearing for the equivalent of a king (or kings) as long as those kings agree with them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, you do not get to make or decide what is law.

The leges make it and the courts opine on it.

You can have your opinion and vote, then your part is done.

The way it is.

So you like the idea of your legal betters being able to decide what rights you can have, and consequently, what rights can be taken away?

Scratch a progressive, and you always find an oligarch underneath, yearing for the equivalent of a king (or kings) as long as those kings agree with them.

You clearly do not understand what is "progressivism" (which comes in liberal and conservative flavors) and you clearly do not understand that you yourself are a reactionary.

You simply want your feelings and emotions of your peer group's sense of entitlement to control the interpretation of the law.

Those days are over.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, you do not get to make or decide what is law.

The leges make it and the courts opine on it.

You can have your opinion and vote, then your part is done.

The way it is.

So you like the idea of your legal betters being able to decide what rights you can have, and consequently, what rights can be taken away?

Scratch a progressive, and you always find an oligarch underneath, yearing for the equivalent of a king (or kings) as long as those kings agree with them.

You clearly do not understand what is "progressivism" (which comes in liberal and conservative flavors) and you clearly do not understand that you yourself are a reactionary.

You simply want your feelings and emotions of your peer group's sense of entitlement to control the interpretation of the law.

Those days are over.

Feelings and emotions are what lead to court decsions that overreach the intent of the consitution. What I am doing is a strict interpretation that leaves certain decsions where it should be, the states. When 5 of 9 people get to decide who can legislate on what with impunity we LOSE freedom, we do not gain it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you like the idea of your legal betters being able to decide what rights you can have, and consequently, what rights can be taken away?

Scratch a progressive, and you always find an oligarch underneath, yearing for the equivalent of a king (or kings) as long as those kings agree with them.

You clearly do not understand what is "progressivism" (which comes in liberal and conservative flavors) and you clearly do not understand that you yourself are a reactionary.

You simply want your feelings and emotions of your peer group's sense of entitlement to control the interpretation of the law.

Those days are over.

Feelings and emotions are what lead to court decsions that overreach the intent of the consitution. What I am doing is a strict interpretation that leaves certain decsions where it should be, the states. When 5 of 9 people get to decide who can legislate on what with impunity we LOSE freedom, we do not gain it.

.

As I said, you are entitled to your moonshine opinions. That's what makes America great.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals would protest instrument sterilizations.

Oh wait.

They already do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberals would protest instrument sterilizations.

Oh wait.

They already do.

Proof.

 

[martybegan]

You clearly do not understand what is "progressivism" (which comes in liberal and conservative flavors) and you clearly do not understand that you yourself are a reactionary.

You simply want your feelings and emotions of your peer group's sense of entitlement to control the interpretation of the law.

Those days are over.

Feelings and emotions are what lead to court decsions that overreach the intent of the consitution. What I am doing is a strict interpretation that leaves certain decsions where it should be, the states. When 5 of 9 people get to decide who can legislate on what with impunity we LOSE freedom, we do not gain it.

.

As I said, you are entitled to your moonshine opinions. That's what makes America great.

My opinion is no worse than yours, which by your snarkiness, you firmly believe otherwise.

Snobbery is the most annoying quality of the statist progressive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionary right has a lock hold on pomposity, arrogance, and snobbishness, exceling in the 'holier than thou' nonsense.

Then they whine when they get it back hard.

Marty, don't dish what you won't take.

 

[martybegan]

The reactionary right has a lock hold on pomposity, arrogance, and snobbishness, exceling in the 'holier than thou' nonsense.

Then they whine when they get it back hard.

Marty, don't dish what you won't take.

I seem to have hit a nerve. To me its mostly statist progressives who feel that not only is thier opponent's position wrong, but they must have some nefarious reason to even HAVE such a position. Hence the instant devolving into cases of the "ists-ics" (i.e. racist, sexist, homophobic et al).

 

[Ernie S.]

The reactionary right has a lock hold on pomposity, arrogance, and snobbishness, exceling in the 'holier than thou' nonsense.

Then they whine when they get it back hard.

Marty, don't dish what you won't take.

I seem to have hit a nerve. To me its mostly statist progressives who feel that not only is thier opponent's position wrong, but they must have some nefarious reason to even HAVE such a position. Hence the instant devolving into cases of the "ists-ics" (i.e. racist, sexist, homophobic et al).

I find it interesting that the most pompous, arrogant snobbish and irrelevant member of USMB accuses those who see through him as though he is looking into a mirror.

Texas has apparently written their law to avoid falling under federal precedents that have voided other laws limiting abortion.

 

[bendog]

The reactionary right has a lock hold on pomposity, arrogance, and snobbishness, exceling in the 'holier than thou' nonsense.

Then they whine when they get it back hard.

Marty, don't dish what you won't take.

I seem to have hit a nerve. To me its mostly statist progressives who feel that not only is thier opponent's position wrong, but they must have some nefarious reason to even HAVE such a position. Hence the instant devolving into cases of the "ists-ics" (i.e. racist, sexist, homophobic et al).

I find it interesting that the most pompous, arrogant snobbish and irrelevant member of USMB accuses those who see through him as though he is looking into a mirror.

Texas has apparently written their law to avoid falling under federal precedents that have voided other laws limiting abortion.

I dunno what'll happen, but it's generally bad strategy when a state says it's regulating clinics to protect women, and the idiot governor comes out and says the intent is to make it hard on abortion docs. But, we'll see.