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

[martybegan]

Also this:

 

[JoeB131]

[

Liar. Find one quote of me saying I want to shoot people I dont like. FIND IT YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

THE PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. THe states are to keep miltias, but the people are to be armed.

The NG is not the unorganized milita, and you are not allowed to take your weapons home with you, thus defeating the purpose of the milita as the founders saw it in the first place. The State should not have a monopoly on the use of force.

You are the lowest form of life on the planet.

The second Amendment also calls for a WELL REGULATED militia.

That's the National Guard, not a bunch of cleetuses running about with their guns compensating for tiny penises.

And, yeah, you don't sound the least bit crazy, guy.

Still waiting for you to find where I posted about shooting people I don't like, you liar.

The 2nd amendment also gives the right to the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the Milita, and not the states as a government entity.

The NG is an enlistment with federal connections, and thus does not meet the true meaning of the milita, which is a local organization of the states only, and can only be sent into federal service with the full permission of the states government.

The NG can be nationalized as part of its mission without the state's consent, and is thus not truly the milita as intended.

I'm waiting for you to find where I posted I want to shoot people I dont like. Still waiting.

Guy, you've said all the crazy shit, and I don't play the, "Provide links to the Crazy Shit I've Said" game.

Enough of what you've said here has convinced me of my maxim, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

Now, on the subject of the Second Amendment, what you have is an INTERPRETATION, not a fact. For most of our history, before Heller, it was the interpretation that cities and states COULD regulate who has a gun. US v. Miller found that there was also a federal interest.

And yes, even Heller wasn't absolute. It's why you can't buy that Howitzer you've had your eye on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, Marty that is exactly what you aided and abetted: derailing a post.

 

[martybegan]

The second Amendment also calls for a WELL REGULATED militia.

That's the National Guard, not a bunch of cleetuses running about with their guns compensating for tiny penises.

And, yeah, you don't sound the least bit crazy, guy.

Still waiting for you to find where I posted about shooting people I don't like, you liar.

The 2nd amendment also gives the right to the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the Milita, and not the states as a government entity.

The NG is an enlistment with federal connections, and thus does not meet the true meaning of the milita, which is a local organization of the states only, and can only be sent into federal service with the full permission of the states government.

The NG can be nationalized as part of its mission without the state's consent, and is thus not truly the milita as intended.

I'm waiting for you to find where I posted I want to shoot people I dont like. Still waiting.

Guy, you've said all the crazy shit, and I don't play the, "Provide links to the Crazy Shit I've Said" game.

Enough of what you've said here has convinced me of my maxim, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

Now, on the subject of the Second Amendment, what you have is an INTERPRETATION, not a fact. For most of our history, before Heller, it was the interpretation that cities and states COULD regulate who has a gun. US v. Miller found that there was also a federal interest.

And yes, even Heller wasn't absolute. It's why you can't buy that Howitzer you've had your eye on.

Anyone who runs to the howitzer argument proves they are an idiot. And regulate means felons and other undisriables cannot have guns, as long as a court has said they can't.

For other cases, in the old west, when a town banned firearms in the town, the sherriff there became responsible for the safety of everyone in his town. Find me a police department that currently gives that guarantee.

Yours is an interpretation as well, and an idiotic one that fits your view that only the government should control the use of force.

And again, you made the statement that I want to shoot people I don't like, and have posted to that effect. Either prove it or shut the fuck up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

How is imposing standards punishing? And where is the consitutional right to be a doctor and practice being a doctor as you see fit?

The purpose of imposing the standards were not contructed by doctors, it was constructed by anti-choice morons to make life more difficult for the clinics and put them out of business.

It's kind of like me dictating you MUST have a child safety lock on your gun even if there are no children in your house.

The standards on hospitals weren't written by doctors either, does that make them unconstitutional, or does it make you incredibly stupid?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The new standards on clinics do not significantly protect women through the new standards.

The law is to deny women access to abortion clinics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The new standards on clinics do not significantly protect women through the new standards.

The law is to deny women access to abortion clinics.

Are you saying that government regulations delineating minimum safety standards are a waste of paper?

 

[JoeB131]

[

How is imposing standards punishing? And where is the consitutional right to be a doctor and practice being a doctor as you see fit?

The purpose of imposing the standards were not contructed by doctors, it was constructed by anti-choice morons to make life more difficult for the clinics and put them out of business.

It's kind of like me dictating you MUST have a child safety lock on your gun even if there are no children in your house.

The standards on hospitals weren't written by doctors either, does that make them unconstitutional, or does it make you incredibly stupid?

They were made with input from doctors, instead of the abortion rules, which were made by religious assholes.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Anyone who runs to the howitzer argument proves they are an idiot. And regulate means felons and other undisriables cannot have guns, as long as a court has said they can't.

For other cases, in the old west, when a town banned firearms in the town, the sherriff there became responsible for the safety of everyone in his town. Find me a police department that currently gives that guarantee.

Yours is an interpretation as well, and an idiotic one that fits your view that only the government should control the use of force.

And again, you made the statement that I want to shoot people I don't like, and have posted to that effect. Either prove it or shut the fuck up.

Right. Undesirables shouldn't have guns.

People who fantasize about shooting minorities are undesirable.
People who fantasize about shooting government agents are undesirable.

Frankly, no one should have guns except Police and Military. That's a "Well Regulated Militia".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The purpose of imposing the standards were not contructed by doctors, it was constructed by anti-choice morons to make life more difficult for the clinics and put them out of business.

It's kind of like me dictating you MUST have a child safety lock on your gun even if there are no children in your house.

The standards on hospitals weren't written by doctors either, does that make them unconstitutional, or does it make you incredibly stupid?

They were made with input from doctors, instead of the abortion rules, which were made by religious assholes.

You have now made two claims that you cannot back up.

1. That the standards for abortion providers had no input from doctors.
2. That the same standards applied to other surgical centers were made with input from doctors.

Are you just trying to justify the dichotomy in your position by rationalizing things to make yourself feel better? Should I believe that the government is right about everything about everything but abortions, wrong about everything, or that you are so desperate to prove yourself smarter than you are that you will say stupid shit because you think it makes sense? Will you pop in with a story about a relative, or a friend, that proves your point even though it really doesn't prove anything?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Are you just trying to justify the dichotomy in your position by rationalizing things to make yourself feel better? Should I believe that the government is right about everything about everything but abortions, wrong about everything, or that you are so desperate to prove yourself smarter than you are that you will say stupid shit because you think it makes sense? Will you pop in with a story about a relative, or a friend, that proves your point even though it really doesn't prove anything?

Will you please start taking your anti-crazy pills.

I've not seen one medical society come out in support of Texas' new law. IN fact, most have condemned it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Are you just trying to justify the dichotomy in your position by rationalizing things to make yourself feel better? Should I believe that the government is right about everything about everything but abortions, wrong about everything, or that you are so desperate to prove yourself smarter than you are that you will say stupid shit because you think it makes sense? Will you pop in with a story about a relative, or a friend, that proves your point even though it really doesn't prove anything?

Will you please start taking your anti-crazy pills.

I've not seen one medical society come out in support of Texas' new law. IN fact, most have condemned it.

The truth is you haven't looked to see if one supports it, have you?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Are you just trying to justify the dichotomy in your position by rationalizing things to make yourself feel better? Should I believe that the government is right about everything about everything but abortions, wrong about everything, or that you are so desperate to prove yourself smarter than you are that you will say stupid shit because you think it makes sense? Will you pop in with a story about a relative, or a friend, that proves your point even though it really doesn't prove anything?

Will you please start taking your anti-crazy pills.

I've not seen one medical society come out in support of Texas' new law. IN fact, most have condemned it.

The truth is you haven't looked to see if one supports it, have you?

NOpe. Because if one had, I'd have heard about it.

And no, "Christian DOctors for Life" don't count. Or any other bible thumping bunch of assholes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Will you please start taking your anti-crazy pills.

I've not seen one medical society come out in support of Texas' new law. IN fact, most have condemned it.

The truth is you haven't looked to see if one supports it, have you?

NOpe. Because if one had, I'd have heard about it.

And no, "Christian DOctors for Life" don't count. Or any other bible thumping bunch of assholes.

You would hear about everyone that supports the law? Instantaneously, or would it take time? Is that because you know everything, or are you just a twit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems that, as I suspected, JoeB doesn't know everything.

If the bill passes, the new law would likely shut down the majority of abortion clinics in Texas since they won’t be able to finance the process of becoming an ASC. But regardless of the outcome of the vote, some medical experts see the debate as an opportunity to improve medical care. “The argument on one side is that people who are demanding licensing and accreditation are anti-abortion. Those who don’t want it, are pro-abortion. I don’t think that’s the issue,” says Dr. Geoffrey Keyes, the president of the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities. “There is nothing wrong with having standards to adhere to when you are performing procedures on patients.”

Texas Abortion Bill: Is There a Medical Case For Turning Abortion Clinics Into Ambulatory Surgical Centers? | TIME.com

 

[JoeB131]

It seems that, as I suspected, JoeB doesn't know everything.

If the bill passes, the new law would likely shut down the majority of abortion clinics in Texas since they won’t be able to finance the process of becoming an ASC. But regardless of the outcome of the vote, some medical experts see the debate as an opportunity to improve medical care. “The argument on one side is that people who are demanding licensing and accreditation are anti-abortion. Those who don’t want it, are pro-abortion. I don’t think that’s the issue,” says Dr. Geoffrey Keyes, the president of the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities. “There is nothing wrong with having standards to adhere to when you are performing procedures on patients.”

Texas Abortion Bill: Is There a Medical Case For Turning Abortion Clinics Into Ambulatory Surgical Centers? | TIME.com

Oh, someone who would make money off the law. That's a reliable source, crazy man.

Hey, I thought you were like a libertarian? Shouldn't the care be between the woman and her doctor?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems that, as I suspected, JoeB doesn't know everything.

If the bill passes, the new law would likely shut down the majority of abortion clinics in Texas since they won’t be able to finance the process of becoming an ASC. But regardless of the outcome of the vote, some medical experts see the debate as an opportunity to improve medical care. “The argument on one side is that people who are demanding licensing and accreditation are anti-abortion. Those who don’t want it, are pro-abortion. I don’t think that’s the issue,” says Dr. Geoffrey Keyes, the president of the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities. “There is nothing wrong with having standards to adhere to when you are performing procedures on patients.”

Texas Abortion Bill: Is There a Medical Case For Turning Abortion Clinics Into Ambulatory Surgical Centers? | TIME.com

Oh, someone who would make money off the law. That's a reliable source, crazy man.

Hey, I thought you were like a libertarian? Shouldn't the care be between the woman and her doctor?

Time is going to make money even if the law ends up overturned, how does that make them unreliable?

Since I have consistently pointed out during this whole discussion that the Texas law actually treats abortions the same way it does dermatologists, and the Time magazine article agrees with me, and you support regulating dermatologists, you are the one that has a problem. I would be perfectly content with deregulating doctors, and not even forcing them to go to school for 8 years, yet you think that would be dangerous. Yet, for some reason, you have no problem with someone who isn't a doctor performing abortions because it interferes with an imaginary right to kill people in private.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Time is going to make money even if the law ends up overturned, how does that make them unreliable?

Since I have consistently pointed out during this whole discussion that the Texas law actually treats abortions the same way it does dermatologists, and the Time magazine article agrees with me, and you support regulating dermatologists, you are the one that has a problem. I would be perfectly content with deregulating doctors, and not even forcing them to go to school for 8 years, yet you think that would be dangerous. Yet, for some reason, you have no problem with someone who isn't a doctor performing abortions because it interferes with an imaginary right to kill people in private.

You really don't need to be a doctor to perform an abortion. It isn't that complicated of a procedure. Women have been performing abortions since Roman times.

I'd have no problem with regulations written by medical professionals that weren't onerous.

I have a big problem with regulations written by people who believe in Sky Pixies who don't like ladies controlling their lady parts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Time is going to make money even if the law ends up overturned, how does that make them unreliable?

Since I have consistently pointed out during this whole discussion that the Texas law actually treats abortions the same way it does dermatologists, and the Time magazine article agrees with me, and you support regulating dermatologists, you are the one that has a problem. I would be perfectly content with deregulating doctors, and not even forcing them to go to school for 8 years, yet you think that would be dangerous. Yet, for some reason, you have no problem with someone who isn't a doctor performing abortions because it interferes with an imaginary right to kill people in private.

You really don't need to be a doctor to perform an abortion. It isn't that complicated of a procedure. Women have been performing abortions since Roman times.

I'd have no problem with regulations written by medical professionals that weren't onerous.

I have a big problem with regulations written by people who believe in Sky Pixies who don't like ladies controlling their lady parts.

You have a bigger problem with honesty than you do with the Great Bird of the Galaxy. You don't need to be a doctor to slice a wart off, yet you would be screaming to high heaven if someone who isn't a doctor set up a clinic and started removing them because it wouldn't be fair to the union doctors and nurses that studied in the union schools.

By the way, most of the laws you claim to like were written by people who believe in sky pixies.

 

[JoeB131]

[
You have a bigger problem with honesty than you do with the Great Bird of the Galaxy. You don't need to be a doctor to slice a wart off, yet you would be screaming to high heaven if someone who isn't a doctor set up a clinic and started removing them because it wouldn't be fair to the union doctors and nurses that studied in the union schools.

By the way, most of the laws you claim to like were written by people who believe in sky pixies.

I'm sorry, there are union doctors? Really?

The issue here isn't whether doctors are performing abortions. It's dumb regulations about hall width and parking lot size and stand-by equipment that isn't needed for first trimester procedures.