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.
Certainly do. You passed on a gold standard of care to gain access. You won. Congrats.I see! So it's okay for abortion clinics to give substandard care to liberal women. I can handle that.
You really don't believe that garbage do you?
You no doubt expect every burger stand be built to the same standard as a 5 star restaurant.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
Certainly do. You passed on a gold standard of care to gain access. You won. Congrats.I see! So it's okay for abortion clinics to give substandard care to liberal women. I can handle that.
You really don't believe that garbage do you?
You no doubt expect every burger stand be built to the same standard as a 5 star restaurant.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Certainly do. You passed on a gold standard of care to gain access. You won. Congrats.You really don't believe that garbage do you?
You no doubt expect every burger stand be built to the same standard as a 5 star restaurant.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
Certainly do. You passed on a gold standard of care to gain access. You won. Congrats.You really don't believe that garbage do you?
You no doubt expect every burger stand be built to the same standard as a 5 star restaurant.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
Certainly do. You passed on a gold standard of care to gain access. You won. Congrats.
You no doubt expect every burger stand be built to the same standard as a 5 star restaurant.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
Certainly do. You passed on a gold standard of care to gain access. You won. Congrats.
You no doubt expect every burger stand be built to the same standard as a 5 star restaurant.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
Hey! Idiot! Dosen't federal law prohibit taxpayer funded abortion? Pay for your own abortion.Certainly do. You passed on a gold standard of care to gain access. You won. Congrats.
You no doubt expect every burger stand be built to the same standard as a 5 star restaurant.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
You no doubt expect every burger stand be built to the same standard as a 5 star restaurant.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
And wrong, if you receive federal medical coverage you should be on mandatory birth control.
You no doubt expect every burger stand be built to the same standard as a 5 star restaurant.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
I don't give a fuck who pays for Rush's viagra, nor your abortion if it isn't the government. Does Medicaid cover viagra? I honestly don't know, I would absolutely not approve of that.
Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
And wrong, if you receive federal medical coverage you should be on mandatory birth control.Of course they should be. Health standards are health standards. But that isn't what TX did here. If you want to use a food analogy they just said burger stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, but only burger stands. If they had INSTEAD said "ALL food trucks and food stands must meet the same standards as restaurants, they wouldn't have had a problem, but they fully wanted abortion supporters to know exactly who they were targeting. It was stupid.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
I don't give a fuck who pays for Rush's viagra, nor your abortion if it isn't the government. Does Medicaid cover viagra? I honestly don't know, I would absolutely not approve of that.
Viagra treats an actual physical dysfunction. Pregnancy isn't a dysfunction. Idiots like silly Jill can't understand the difference because her IQ is about 5.
I don't need to in either case! Thanks.No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
And wrong, if you receive federal medical coverage you should be on mandatory birth control.No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
I don't give a fuck who pays for Rush's viagra, nor your abortion if it isn't the government. Does Medicaid cover viagra? I honestly don't know, I would absolutely not approve of that.
Viagra treats an actual physical dysfunction. Pregnancy isn't a dysfunction. Idiots like silly Jill can't understand the difference because her IQ is about 5.
I don't care. The physical dysfunction is the inability to get it up to get some girl pregnant so she needs an abortion b/c both parties were too lazy and or stupid to use birth control. Pay for that yourself.
No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
And wrong, if you receive federal medical coverage you should be on mandatory birth control.No, there's no reason for it. None whatsoever. Taxpayers should be made responsible for restoring Planned Parenthood back to the level they were at prior to dragging the great state of Texas down the road to ruin.
Wrong
Pay for your own abortion.
so rush Limbaugh should pay for his own Viagra?
if you receive federal medical coverage , you should be able to be covered for the termination of a pregnancy as you would any other procedure.
I don't give a fuck who pays for Rush's viagra, nor your abortion if it isn't the government. Does Medicaid cover viagra? I honestly don't know, I would absolutely not approve of that.
Viagra treats an actual physical dysfunction. Pregnancy isn't a dysfunction. Idiots like silly Jill can't understand the difference because her IQ is about 5.
I don't care. The physical dysfunction is the inability to get it up to get some girl pregnant so she needs an abortion b/c both parties were too lazy and or stupid to use birth control. Pay for that yourself.
>
Not a surprise. If Texas had passed a law that says any clinic that provided oral pills and performed outpatient procedures (i.e. oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopies, cosmetic surgery, etc.) had to have (a) admitting privileges, (c) surgical physical requirements (door size, hallway width, etc. ) and (b) located withing "X" miles from a hospital - then that would have been Constitutional.
But to target only abortion clinics for these new requirements? That it's for the "health of the woman" is hogwash. It was intended to place a burden on the woman and interfere with access.
At least be honest with the purpose of the law.
>>>>
Well so now the women are unprotected and you libtards are happy with substandard care. We get it, we don't understand why but we get it.>
Not a surprise. If Texas had passed a law that says any clinic that provided oral pills and performed outpatient procedures (i.e. oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopies, cosmetic surgery, etc.) had to have (a) admitting privileges, (c) surgical physical requirements (door size, hallway width, etc. ) and (b) located withing "X" miles from a hospital - then that would have been Constitutional.
But to target only abortion clinics for these new requirements? That it's for the "health of the woman" is hogwash. It was intended to place a burden on the woman and interfere with access.
At least be honest with the purpose of the law.
>>>>
Brilliant analysis. I don't know as you do about medical procedures, but I know the law. It is axiomatic that whenever people (or institutions) who are similarly situated are treated differently, the motive is indefensibly discriminatory. The SCOTUS ruling was correct. If the Texas legislators want to protect women, they should pass pass laws that reflect the same concern for all health care providers who are similarly situated.
Well so now the women are unprotected and you libtards are happy with substandard care. We get it, we don't understand why but we get it.>
Not a surprise. If Texas had passed a law that says any clinic that provided oral pills and performed outpatient procedures (i.e. oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopies, cosmetic surgery, etc.) had to have (a) admitting privileges, (c) surgical physical requirements (door size, hallway width, etc. ) and (b) located withing "X" miles from a hospital - then that would have been Constitutional.
But to target only abortion clinics for these new requirements? That it's for the "health of the woman" is hogwash. It was intended to place a burden on the woman and interfere with access.
At least be honest with the purpose of the law.
>>>>
Brilliant analysis. I don't know as you do about medical procedures, but I know the law. It is axiomatic that whenever people (or institutions) who are similarly situated are treated differently, the motive is indefensibly discriminatory. The SCOTUS ruling was correct. If the Texas legislators want to protect women, they should pass pass laws that reflect the same concern for all health care providers who are similarly situated.
Well so now the women are unprotected and you libtards are happy with substandard care. We get it, we don't understand why but we get it.>
Not a surprise. If Texas had passed a law that says any clinic that provided oral pills and performed outpatient procedures (i.e. oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopies, cosmetic surgery, etc.) had to have (a) admitting privileges, (c) surgical physical requirements (door size, hallway width, etc. ) and (b) located withing "X" miles from a hospital - then that would have been Constitutional.
But to target only abortion clinics for these new requirements? That it's for the "health of the woman" is hogwash. It was intended to place a burden on the woman and interfere with access.
At least be honest with the purpose of the law.
>>>>
Brilliant analysis. I don't know as you do about medical procedures, but I know the law. It is axiomatic that whenever people (or institutions) who are similarly situated are treated differently, the motive is indefensibly discriminatory. The SCOTUS ruling was correct. If the Texas legislators want to protect women, they should pass pass laws that reflect the same concern for all health care providers who are similarly situated.
How can you claim that a clinic with the same standards as a surgical clinic is of no benefit to women? That's idiotic.Well so now the women are unprotected and you libtards are happy with substandard care. We get it, we don't understand why but we get it.>
Not a surprise. If Texas had passed a law that says any clinic that provided oral pills and performed outpatient procedures (i.e. oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopies, cosmetic surgery, etc.) had to have (a) admitting privileges, (c) surgical physical requirements (door size, hallway width, etc. ) and (b) located withing "X" miles from a hospital - then that would have been Constitutional.
But to target only abortion clinics for these new requirements? That it's for the "health of the woman" is hogwash. It was intended to place a burden on the woman and interfere with access.
At least be honest with the purpose of the law.
>>>>
Brilliant analysis. I don't know as you do about medical procedures, but I know the law. It is axiomatic that whenever people (or institutions) who are similarly situated are treated differently, the motive is indefensibly discriminatory. The SCOTUS ruling was correct. If the Texas legislators want to protect women, they should pass pass laws that reflect the same concern for all health care providers who are similarly situated.
how many times does it have to be pointed out that there was no benefit to women's health care and that the excuse was subterfuge.
oh right....you don't care because you're a rightwingnut.
How can you claim that a clinic with the same standards as a surgical clinic is of no benefit to women? That's idiotic.Well so now the women are unprotected and you libtards are happy with substandard care. We get it, we don't understand why but we get it.>
Not a surprise. If Texas had passed a law that says any clinic that provided oral pills and performed outpatient procedures (i.e. oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopies, cosmetic surgery, etc.) had to have (a) admitting privileges, (c) surgical physical requirements (door size, hallway width, etc. ) and (b) located withing "X" miles from a hospital - then that would have been Constitutional.
But to target only abortion clinics for these new requirements? That it's for the "health of the woman" is hogwash. It was intended to place a burden on the woman and interfere with access.
At least be honest with the purpose of the law.
>>>>
Brilliant analysis. I don't know as you do about medical procedures, but I know the law. It is axiomatic that whenever people (or institutions) who are similarly situated are treated differently, the motive is indefensibly discriminatory. The SCOTUS ruling was correct. If the Texas legislators want to protect women, they should pass pass laws that reflect the same concern for all health care providers who are similarly situated.
how many times does it have to be pointed out that there was no benefit to women's health care and that the excuse was subterfuge.
oh right....you don't care because you're a rightwingnut.
How can you claim that a clinic with the same standards as a surgical clinic is of no benefit to women? That's idiotic.Well so now the women are unprotected and you libtards are happy with substandard care. We get it, we don't understand why but we get it.>
Not a surprise. If Texas had passed a law that says any clinic that provided oral pills and performed outpatient procedures (i.e. oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopies, cosmetic surgery, etc.) had to have (a) admitting privileges, (c) surgical physical requirements (door size, hallway width, etc. ) and (b) located withing "X" miles from a hospital - then that would have been Constitutional.
But to target only abortion clinics for these new requirements? That it's for the "health of the woman" is hogwash. It was intended to place a burden on the woman and interfere with access.
At least be honest with the purpose of the law.
>>>>
Brilliant analysis. I don't know as you do about medical procedures, but I know the law. It is axiomatic that whenever people (or institutions) who are similarly situated are treated differently, the motive is indefensibly discriminatory. The SCOTUS ruling was correct. If the Texas legislators want to protect women, they should pass pass laws that reflect the same concern for all health care providers who are similarly situated.
how many times does it have to be pointed out that there was no benefit to women's health care and that the excuse was subterfuge.
oh right....you don't care because you're a rightwingnut.
IF it's so beneficial , why did the TX legislator ONLY focus on abortion clinics? What about other places that perform out patient surgery but aren't up the standards demanded by the now defunct law? Jesus Christ, are you really this dense? Texas got caught in an obvious ploy here.
Oh get over yourself you howl every time there's a full moon. I still don't get why you do not want the best for women. Can you explain it without mentioning wing nuts or not? Btw a hallway that accommodates two stretchers is not all that wide.How can you claim that a clinic with the same standards as a surgical clinic is of no benefit to women? That's idiotic.Well so now the women are unprotected and you libtards are happy with substandard care. We get it, we don't understand why but we get it.Brilliant analysis. I don't know as you do about medical procedures, but I know the law. It is axiomatic that whenever people (or institutions) who are similarly situated are treated differently, the motive is indefensibly discriminatory. The SCOTUS ruling was correct. If the Texas legislators want to protect women, they should pass pass laws that reflect the same concern for all health care providers who are similarly situated.
how many times does it have to be pointed out that there was no benefit to women's health care and that the excuse was subterfuge.
oh right....you don't care because you're a rightwingnut.
IF it's so beneficial , why did the TX legislator ONLY focus on abortion clinics? What about other places that perform out patient surgery but aren't up the standards demanded by the now defunct law? Jesus Christ, are you really this dense? Texas got caught in an obvious ploy here.
one of their big "requirements" was that the hallways be wide enough for two gurney's to pass at the same time.
I've yet to hear of an abortion that required someone being moved through the halls on a gurney.
I find her refusal to accept the court's finding that saying these restrictions were somehow for women's benefit was subterfuge bizarre. yet, it is, of course, totally in keeping with foaming at the mouth rightwingnut lunacy.
How can you claim that a clinic with the same standards as a surgical clinic is of no benefit to women? That's idiotic.Well so now the women are unprotected and you libtards are happy with substandard care. We get it, we don't understand why but we get it.Brilliant analysis. I don't know as you do about medical procedures, but I know the law. It is axiomatic that whenever people (or institutions) who are similarly situated are treated differently, the motive is indefensibly discriminatory. The SCOTUS ruling was correct. If the Texas legislators want to protect women, they should pass pass laws that reflect the same concern for all health care providers who are similarly situated.
how many times does it have to be pointed out that there was no benefit to women's health care and that the excuse was subterfuge.
oh right....you don't care because you're a rightwingnut.
IF it's so beneficial , why did the TX legislator ONLY focus on abortion clinics? What about other places that perform out patient surgery but aren't up the standards demanded by the now defunct law? Jesus Christ, are you really this dense? Texas got caught in an obvious ploy here.
one of their big "requirements" was that the hallways be wide enough for two gurney's to pass at the same time.
I've yet to hear of an abortion that required someone being moved through the halls on a gurney.
I find her refusal to accept the court's finding that saying these restrictions were somehow for women's benefit was subterfuge bizarre. yet, it is, of course, totally in keeping with foaming at the mouth rightwingnut lunacy.
