So when they say they want abortion safe, legal, and rare...

[Derideo_Te]

President Obama is.

President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat of a bill the House of Representatives will vote on tomorrow that would ban abortions from after 20-weeks* all the way to birth.

The White House this afternoon issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating President Obama’s advisors would recommend that he veto the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act if it were presented for his signature. The SAP containing a veto threat is standard for occasions when the president will almost certainly veto legislation pending in Congress.​

If there is no exception for life and health then it is an unreasonable restriction.

Immaterial. Jones claimed that "No one is opposed to reasonable restrictions after viability".

I proved him wrong, using the President of the United States.

Without any exceptions it is an unreasonable restriction which means that the opposition by the POTUS fits within the conditions stipulated by Clayton.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

hmm .......... that is very intimidating, I didn't say I wanted to get into a gun confrontation with the bitch, so I would probably get one of those dear rifles with that big telescope attached to it, and use that, thus avoiding a confrontation and simply takin the bitch out.

All in all, this is why guns must be banned .......... because someone, even I can do something stupid with it.
A law against murder isn't going to protect that bitch, i will gladly go to trial, and go to prison and take that dick in my ass for the rest of eternity with pride if some bitch kills my unborn child without my consent ................. fuck that ............ with pride.

 

[Derideo_Te]

All throughout this thread I've made my concern for the lives and health of women quite clear.

So you can stop lying now.

Dave, at no point have I believed otherwise about you. What I don't understand is why you object to having the best possible contraception available to all women which will have the twofold benefit of massively reducing abortions and reducing the risk to their lives because of unwanted pregnancies. That is a win-win. Surely the meager additional cost cannot outweigh the benefits when you look at h t logically and rationally.

What I oppose is the sense of entitlement to free birth control.

It's cheap. If you can't afford it and don't want children -- don't have sex.

Personal responsibility. That kind of thing.

Your consistent position in this thread has been about the health and safety of women, right? So if you manage to ban all legal abortions you won't stop them from happening. You will merely make them illegal and unsafe instead. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you are trying to accomplish in this thread?

I have never called for an outright ban of abortion. I accept abortion where the mother's life is at stake.

I would prefer the matter be given to each state to decide the legality, in accordance with the Constitution.

Think of all the money blue states would get from abortion tourism.

IUD's and implants are the most effective form of contraception but they are expensive. Condoms are cheap but they have a high failure rate. Expecting someone who can barely afford condoms to become a "blue state abortion tourist" is unrealistic. So by only allowing health exceptions you would effectively ban 98% of all legal abortions. The net result will be back alley abortionists working in unsanitary conditions. The lives of many more women will be needlessly lost. Doesn't seem to fit the definition of being "pro-life" at all.

 

[Contumacious]

hmm .......... that is very intimidating, I didn't say I wanted to get into a gun confrontation with the bitch, so I would probably get one of those dear rifles with that big telescope attached to it, and use that, thus avoiding a confrontation and simply takin the bitch out.

All in all, this is why guns must be banned .......... because someone, even I can do something stupid with it.
A law against murder isn't going to protect that bitch, i will gladly go to trial, and go to prison and take that dick in my ass for the rest of eternity with pride if some bitch kills my unborn child without my consent ................. fuck that ............ with pride.

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The reason you hate women is because you see them as competition.... you want a pretext to be a homosexual

.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

............... possibly
What I am saying is that YES abortion should be legal, but the father of the child should have a say in it, if the father does not want his unborn child's brains scrambled, then all abortions should go before a judge, if the father does not contest the abortion, then the judge approves it.
If the bitch lies to the judge and says she don't know who the father is, and she winds up getting killed by him later on, then the state should be forced to drop the murder charges against him.
Thankfully nothing like this has happened to me that I know of, but if it did, its prison time for me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All throughout this thread I've made my concern for the lives and health of women quite clear.

So you can stop lying now.

Dave, at no point have I believed otherwise about you. What I don't understand is why you object to having the best possible contraception available to all women which will have the twofold benefit of massively reducing abortions and reducing the risk to their lives because of unwanted pregnancies. That is a win-win. Surely the meager additional cost cannot outweigh the benefits when you look at h t logically and rationally.

What I oppose is the sense of entitlement to free birth control.

It's cheap. If you can't afford it and don't want children -- don't have sex.

Personal responsibility. That kind of thing.

Your consistent position in this thread has been about the health and safety of women, right? So if you manage to ban all legal abortions you won't stop them from happening. You will merely make them illegal and unsafe instead. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you are trying to accomplish in this thread?

I have never called for an outright ban of abortion. I accept abortion where the mother's life is at stake.

I would prefer the matter be given to each state to decide the legality, in accordance with the Constitution.

Think of all the money blue states would get from abortion tourism.

Incorrect.

That would be in violation of the Constitution, as the 14th Amendment applies the right to privacy in the context of substantive due process to all the states:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." [T]he Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." t is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently the repugnant notion of ‘abortion tourism’ is just as offensive to the Constitution, as is seeking to impose all restrictions, with the only exception of the mother’s life being in jeopardy.

 

[daveman]

Dave, I notice you don't want to say whether you want midwife-attended births banned. Could you tell us? You know, show everyone that you actually don't hold the double standard you appear to hold.

I have no problem with midwife-attended births -- and the data backs me up.

NCHS Pressroom - 1998 News Release - Lower Infant Mortality with Certified Midwives

The first study known to examine the infant mortality risks for all babies delivered by certified nurse midwives in the United States shows excellent birth outcomes for these midwife-attended deliveries. The new study from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in the May issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, examined all single, vaginal births in the United States in 1991 delivered at 35-43 weeks of gestation by either physicians or certified nurse midwives.

After controlling for a wide variety of social and medical risk factors, the risk of experiencing an infant death was 19 percent lower for births attended by certified nurse midwives than for births attended by physicians. The risk of neonatal mortality (an infant death occurring in the first 28 days of life) was 33 percent lower, and the risk of delivering a low birthweight infant was 31 percent lower. Mean birthweight was 37 grams heavier for the certified nurse midwife attended than for the physician attended births. Low birthweight is a major predictor of infant mortality, subsequent disease, or developmental disabilities.​

So no double standard here, except for the one in your imagination.

You might also declare whether you demand the same safety regulations of dentistry that you demand for abortion. After all, oral surgery is also more dangerous than an early-term abortion. To be consistent, a person should demand exactly the same safety regulations for all outpatient procedures. Are you consistent?

Really? Dentistry?

Is that the absolute best you have?

You got nothin'.

 

[daveman]

daveman is simply playing politics.

Ask him if he suggests midwife NPAs for birthing.

Mammy already did, boy. Pay attention.

 

[daveman]

Read the OP. Healthcare professionals have concerns.

Yes, of course they do...the same concerns they have had for years......ECONOMIC.

.Why family physicians are a threat to themselves

Paul D. Simmons, MD | Physician | August 8, 2013

In recent months, AAFP President Reid Blackwelder has been editorializing and debating what they see as the encroachment of nurse practitioners (NPs) and other “mid-level providers” (physicians are, presumably, “upper-level”) on the practice territory of family physicians (FPs). Dr. Blackwelder has repeatedly said that NP and physician roles are “not interchangeable.” The AAFP’s position on this issue seems to be resistance to the increasingly common decisions by state legislatures to free NPs of physician oversight. Dr. Blackwelder and the AAFP are misallocating their energies and resources – NPs are not a threat to family physicians. We are a threat to ourselves."

.

I can tell you didn't read the OP. It's okay; you can admit it. It's obvious.

The bill's critics warn that the training provided to non-physician staff is weak, that supervision by physicians in clinics will be minimal, and that there is real risk of injury or death to women who will be treated in such conditions.
The California Medical Association has endorsed AB 154 because of "provisions for training in the bill and the amendments that clarify physician supervision." Yet the training is to be provided by the Board of Registered Nursing, not by physicians, and the protocols for defining "supervision" have not been specified. There is nothing in the legislation requiring a physician to be present or on-site during an abortion.​

But it's interesting you mention money:
Another View: Abortion access bill is misleading and unnecessary - Viewpoints - The Sacramento Bee

The authors claim that we need AB 154, which allows non-physicians – including midwives, nurse practitioners and physician assistants – to perform early-term “aspiration abortions,” because there is not enough “access” to abortion in our state. But according to the Guttmacher Institute, 99 percent of California women live in counties with an abortion provider. California, in fact, has nearly one third of the nation’s abortion providers and a high abortion rate.

--

What is the real motive behind AB 154?

The University of San Francisco Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health study the authors cite as demonstrating that lower-level clinicians can safely perform surgical abortions specifically targets “low-income and minority women” for increased “access” to abortion. Since Medi-Cal pays for abortion, clinics have a financial incentive to expand abortions in poor neighborhoods. It also cites the Affordable Care Act, which will vastly expand the number of people on Medi-Cal. Abortion providers hope to tap this new market by expanding the number of clinicians and clinics that can provide surgical abortions.

Meanwhile, the abortion industry is thriving. According to 2010 tax records, nine “nonprofit” Planned Parenthood affiliates in California spent $1.8 million on lobbying alone.​

Dead babies for profit. The abortion industry wrote this bill.

I thought you guys didn't like lobbyists...?

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman got walloped in this thread.

Nothing in the bill will incrementally make abortion any safer; nothing has proved that at all.

The bill, therefore, is to cut access and availability to women, not protect them.

 

[daveman]

If there is no exception for life and health then it is an unreasonable restriction.

Immaterial. Jones claimed that "No one is opposed to reasonable restrictions after viability".

I proved him wrong, using the President of the United States.

Without any exceptions it is an unreasonable restriction which means that the opposition by the POTUS fits within the conditions stipulated by Clayton.

There are exceptions:

Prohibits the abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater, except: (1) where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions; or (2) where the pregnancy is the result of rape, or the result of incest against a minor, if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency, or if the incest has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency or to a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse or neglect.​

There is no valid reason for Obama to veto this bill.

 

[daveman]

Dave, at no point have I believed otherwise about you. What I don't understand is why you object to having the best possible contraception available to all women which will have the twofold benefit of massively reducing abortions and reducing the risk to their lives because of unwanted pregnancies. That is a win-win. Surely the meager additional cost cannot outweigh the benefits when you look at h t logically and rationally.

What I oppose is the sense of entitlement to free birth control.

It's cheap. If you can't afford it and don't want children -- don't have sex.

Personal responsibility. That kind of thing.

Your consistent position in this thread has been about the health and safety of women, right? So if you manage to ban all legal abortions you won't stop them from happening. You will merely make them illegal and unsafe instead. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you are trying to accomplish in this thread?

I have never called for an outright ban of abortion. I accept abortion where the mother's life is at stake.

I would prefer the matter be given to each state to decide the legality, in accordance with the Constitution.

Think of all the money blue states would get from abortion tourism.

IUD's and implants are the most effective form of contraception but they are expensive. Condoms are cheap but they have a high failure rate. Expecting someone who can barely afford condoms to become a "blue state abortion tourist" is unrealistic. So by only allowing health exceptions you would effectively ban 98% of all legal abortions. The net result will be back alley abortionists working in unsanitary conditions. The lives of many more women will be needlessly lost. Doesn't seem to fit the definition of being "pro-life" at all.

Then let's try the definition of being personally responsible:

If you can't afford to have a child, don't have sex.

Simple, huh?

I've still never received an adequate explanation of why I should finance other people's sex lives.

 

[daveman]

Dave, at no point have I believed otherwise about you. What I don't understand is why you object to having the best possible contraception available to all women which will have the twofold benefit of massively reducing abortions and reducing the risk to their lives because of unwanted pregnancies. That is a win-win. Surely the meager additional cost cannot outweigh the benefits when you look at h t logically and rationally.

What I oppose is the sense of entitlement to free birth control.

It's cheap. If you can't afford it and don't want children -- don't have sex.

Personal responsibility. That kind of thing.

I have never called for an outright ban of abortion. I accept abortion where the mother's life is at stake.

I would prefer the matter be given to each state to decide the legality, in accordance with the Constitution.

Think of all the money blue states would get from abortion tourism.

Incorrect.

That would be in violation of the Constitution, as the 14th Amendment applies the right to privacy in the context of substantive due process to all the states:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." [T]he Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." t is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently the repugnant notion of ‘abortion tourism’ is just as offensive to the Constitution, as is seeking to impose all restrictions, with the only exception of the mother’s life being in jeopardy.

Isn't it odd, don't you think, that the right to carry a weapon concealed varies from state to state?

Why is that? The rights to privacy and to own a weapon are both in the Constitution, are they not?

Let me guess: They're different. Somehow. They just are.

 

[daveman]

daveman got walloped in this thread.

Nothing in the bill will incrementally make abortion any safer; nothing has proved that at all.

The bill, therefore, is to cut access and availability to women, not protect them.

Your opinion is noted and discarded as prog drivel.

Gotta get to bed early tonight, boy. You have to catch the school bus in the morning.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Immaterial. Jones claimed that "No one is opposed to reasonable restrictions after viability".

I proved him wrong, using the President of the United States.

Without any exceptions it is an unreasonable restriction which means that the opposition by the POTUS fits within the conditions stipulated by Clayton.

There are exceptions:

Prohibits the abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater, except: (1) where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions; or (2) where the pregnancy is the result of rape, or the result of incest against a minor, if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency, or if the incest has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency or to a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse or neglect.​

There is no valid reason for Obama to veto this bill.

Andrea Yates is a classic example of why a woman with "psychological or emotional conditions" should have an exception for an abortion.

Minors who are raped by their father are in no position to report the incest to the relevant authorities in order to comply with the second condition.

Both of those clauses fall within the unreasonable restriction clauses so Obama was fully justified in vetoing that bill.

 

[Gadawg73]

I oppose abortion. However, I oppose expanding the power of government to picking and choosing who "legally" gets an abortion and who doesn't.
"I had to perform the abortion for the health and safety of the life of the mother" hundreds of doctors will claim as they pocket the $3000. NO OTHER DOCTOR WILL EVER DISPUTE THAT.
Amazing the naive and gullible masses that do not acknowledge that centuries old FACT.
Over rule Roe tomorrow and what we end up is it goes back to the states.
Same with the way it was before Roe.
The wording of the law in each state will be like it was before Roe:
Some states abortion is illegal with few exceptions.
Some states abortion is illegal with many exceptions.
Some states abortion is legal with few exceptions.
Some states abortion is legal with many exceptions.
Some states will ban it outright.
Some states will allow it outright.
And in states that ban it outright women with some cash simply go to a state that allows it outright and legally get their abortion.
And in the states that ban it outright poor women are forced to have their babies they do not want and in most cases they don't know how to care for.
IOW, NOTHING changes for those with some $$$ for an abortion. As a strict conservative I oppose for it for MY family YET oppose supporting the expansion of government to pick and choose on who gets one based on how much cash they have.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What I oppose is the sense of entitlement to free birth control.

It's cheap. If you can't afford it and don't want children -- don't have sex.

Personal responsibility. That kind of thing.

I have never called for an outright ban of abortion. I accept abortion where the mother's life is at stake.

I would prefer the matter be given to each state to decide the legality, in accordance with the Constitution.

Think of all the money blue states would get from abortion tourism.

IUD's and implants are the most effective form of contraception but they are expensive. Condoms are cheap but they have a high failure rate. Expecting someone who can barely afford condoms to become a "blue state abortion tourist" is unrealistic. So by only allowing health exceptions you would effectively ban 98% of all legal abortions. The net result will be back alley abortionists working in unsanitary conditions. The lives of many more women will be needlessly lost. Doesn't seem to fit the definition of being "pro-life" at all.

Then let's try the definition of being personally responsible:

If you can't afford to have a child, don't have sex.

Simple, huh?

I've still never received an adequate explanation of why I should finance other people's sex lives.

How is that "Just say no" campaign working? Teen pregnancies in states where sex ed is restricted are way higher than comparable states where kids learn what causes pregnancies. So "just say no" is unrealistic.

As for your second question I was under the impression you wanted to reduce abortions. For a few paltry dollars you get to reduce abortions by up to 70%. There is a cost for everything. The alternative which is to ban 98% of all abortions and not provide contraception will end up costing you a fortune in taxes instead. You will be picking up the tab for new schools, public education, busing, school meals for the million+ additional children born each and every year. But weren't you opposed to having to pay higher taxes? Too bad, nothing you can do about that once there are millions more unwanted kids running around. Do you know where so many of those unwanted kids end up? How much are you going to be paying for the inevitable increases that will be needed for law enforcement, legal services, etc, etc?

Is that the direction you really want to go just to save a couple of bucks in the short term?

 

[daveman]

Without any exceptions it is an unreasonable restriction which means that the opposition by the POTUS fits within the conditions stipulated by Clayton.

There are exceptions:

Prohibits the abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater, except: (1) where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions; or (2) where the pregnancy is the result of rape, or the result of incest against a minor, if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency, or if the incest has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency or to a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse or neglect.​

There is no valid reason for Obama to veto this bill.

Andrea Yates is a classic example of why a woman with "psychological or emotional conditions" should have an exception for an abortion.

Perhaps.

Minors who are raped by their father are in no position to report the incest to the relevant authorities in order to comply with the second condition.

Both of those clauses fall within the unreasonable restriction clauses so Obama was fully justified in vetoing that bill.

Minors report rapes by their family members. This restriction is not unreasonable.

 

[daveman]

IUD's and implants are the most effective form of contraception but they are expensive. Condoms are cheap but they have a high failure rate. Expecting someone who can barely afford condoms to become a "blue state abortion tourist" is unrealistic. So by only allowing health exceptions you would effectively ban 98% of all legal abortions. The net result will be back alley abortionists working in unsanitary conditions. The lives of many more women will be needlessly lost. Doesn't seem to fit the definition of being "pro-life" at all.

Then let's try the definition of being personally responsible:

If you can't afford to have a child, don't have sex.

Simple, huh?

I've still never received an adequate explanation of why I should finance other people's sex lives.

How is that "Just say no" campaign working? Teen pregnancies in states where sex ed is restricted are way higher than comparable states where kids learn what causes pregnancies. So "just say no" is unrealistic.

I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about abstinence-only education. Could you link for me where I did, please? Thanks.

As for your second question I was under the impression you wanted to reduce abortions. For a few paltry dollars you get to reduce abortions by up to 70%. There is a cost for everything. The alternative which is to ban 98% of all abortions and not provide contraception will end up costing you a fortune in taxes instead. You will be picking up the tab for new schools, public education, busing, school meals for the million+ additional children born each and every year. But weren't you opposed to having to pay higher taxes? Too bad, nothing you can do about that once there are millions more unwanted kids running around. Do you know where so many of those unwanted kids end up? How much are you going to be paying for the inevitable increases that will be needed for law enforcement, legal services, etc, etc?

Is that the direction you really want to go just to save a couple of bucks in the short term?

Maybe bleeding-heart liberals could offer to pay for stuff out of their own pockets for a change. It counts as generosity if you give your own money. Matter of fact, it's far more generous than forcing the government to take money from others to give it to your special-interest group, isn't it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman got walloped in this thread.

Nothing in the bill will incrementally make abortion any safer; nothing has proved that at all.

The bill, therefore, is to cut access and availability to women, not protect them.

Your opinion is noted and discarded as prog drivel.

Gotta get to bed early tonight, boy. You have to catch the school bus in the morning.

And you continue to fail. The insults are all you have, daveman.

One, show how it significantly improves the safety of women. (You can't)

Two, explain why a midwife NP can deliver a baby but a MSN with training can't safely perform abortions.

This is why you are laughed at on this OP.