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.
Laws are never that clear. From the OP link:The law is clear, the reluctance is just kabuki theater for abortionist doctors and their supporters who want the law overturned in its entirety, and zero restrictions up until the second of birth to be the default condition.
Can you name any doctors that "take great joy from it"?
Laws are never that clear. From the OP link:
According to a text message sent to Ms Dorbert doctors made the call after having legal administrators “look at the new law and the way it’s written”, the Washington Post reported.“It’s horribly written,” the message added.
Okay, I'll stick to my opinion, thanks.Why does it matter? The OP link reads:
According to a text message sent to Ms Dorbert doctors made the call after having legal administrators “look at the new law and the way it’s written”, the Washington Post reported.“It’s horribly written,” the message added.
Doesn't have the ring of truth to it so I'm real skeptical this is not a hoax.
Right, because everyone in the medical profession is completely politicized and only secondarily do they care about their patients.Those legal administrators are probably abortion until the last second of pregancy supporters as well.
The whole exercise is nothing more than a smear against a law they don't like but they can't overturn.
Doesn't have the ring of truth to it so I'm real skeptical this is not a hoax.
Right, because everyone in the medical profession is completely politicized and only secondarily do they care about their patients.
I couldn't find anything to back it up. I think it was silly enough to be ignored.Dodge, duck dip dive and dodge.
Find it being debunked, it's old enough to have been if it was a hoax.
I couldn't find anything to back it up. I think it was silly enough to be ignored.
You use phrases like "probably", "most likely", "reasonable interpretation", "from my knowledge of abortion rights types", "opinion based on relevant conditions", "more than likely", etc.The ones who make decisions like this and hem and haw about a law like this most likely are.
You use phrases like "probably", "most likely", "reasonable interpretation", "from my knowledge of abortion rights types", "opinion based on relevant conditions", "more than likely", etc.
Long on opinions and speculations, short on facts.
They are certainly serious about protecting their rights. So? "Safe, legal, and rare" still works for me and I'd bet most pro-choice folk. I don't think of myself as pro-abortion, only pro-choice.You asked, I provided.
Just look up the website shoutyourabortion for more.
And look at how your side went away from "safe, legal, and rare", dropping the rare.
They are certainly serious about protecting their rights. So? "Safe, legal, and rare" still works for me and I'd bet most pro-choice folk. I don't think of myself as pro-abortion, only pro-choice.
Don't know about FL but in TX, ANYONE can sue a doctor that performs an abortion. I can see anti-abortion groups suing everyone involved in every abortion with the goal of ending ALL abortions. Law says they can do it too.Of course it's an opinion, What I don't do is dress mine up as facts like you are your side does.
Their opinion that they are vulnerable under the law is purely a protest move because they want zero restrictions. Even before Roe that dog didn't hunt.
Don't know about FL but in TX, ANYONE can sue a doctor that performs an abortion. I can see anti-abortion groups suing everyone involved in every abortion with the goal of ending ALL abortions. Law says they can do it too.
You think that because you are so focused on the abortion issue, everyone else is too. There are certainly vocal advocates on both sides but I doubt doctors want to get in the middle of it. It is politicians that want to put them there.What rights? They have an out under the law, if they are so gung ho for abortion rights they should have no issue and feel no worry doing what they need to do, and abortion rights groups should have no issue funding them.
They want to make their point just as anti-abortion groups use pictures of baby parts to make their points. I doubt your anecdote since it doesn't seem like something a doctor would say, it seems more like something a college student that headed up a pro-choice club, would say. The source is not unbiased so her words might have been taken out of context.Again, go to shoutmyabortion. Look at those protesters with the disgusting signs taunting people about killing babies. look at the article I linked and just don't dismiss it because it goes against your cherished narrative.
That would make it moot.I'm surprised that law hasn't been removed as it was an end run around Roe, and now that Roe is gone it's use is gone.
They can go with straight bans now.
You say the carve outs are clear but some in the legal field disagree. You can dismiss them as biased advocates but what are you?In any event that law has the carve outs, and the carve outs are more clear than you let on.
Life of mother? do it. Fetus non viable? Do it.
What it prevents is aborting after a certain time because the birth MAY impact the health of the mother, like give her a rash or something.
No, it really isn’t that clear. You are also flat out lying when you ANYONE wants abortion through birth,so just stop with that and try an honest argument for a change (and don’t trot out that same old stripped of context quote again).The law is clear, the reluctance is just kabuki theater for abortionist doctors and their supporters who want the law overturned in its entirety, and zero restrictions up until the second of birth to be the default condition.
