Supreme Court overturns Texas abortion law

[jillian]

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.

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.

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.

So many on the left AND the right just won't see facts for what they are, facts.

I think there can be lots of "opinions" but there can only be one set of facts. unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

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.

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.

why would I "get over [myself]. I can't help it if you're intellectually and morally deficient.

now stop lying and go have another drink.

 

[WillowTree]

>


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.

For fuck's sakes repealing this law doesn't relegate women to getting substandard abortions you fucking fool. It's absurdly obvious that the ONLY intent of this law was to limit the availability of abortions. I mean they may as well have named it "TX Bill 1103 Limiting Abortions"

Stop calling me names asshole. The deal is if All goes well no problem. In the event of an emergency you want the best facility and the best doctor and the best equipment available to you. Are you so goddamn moronic that you would subject a woman to waiting until they managed to get her out of a narrow hallway and into an ER before she gets skilled resuscitation and the drugs and equipment needed to do so? God you damn people are dumb.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

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.

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.

why would I "get over [myself]. I can't help it if you're intellectually and morally deficient.

now stop lying and go have another drink.

Go find and read up on what happened to Joan rivers and congratulate yourself that you champion other women to that fate. And don't talk to me about your intelligence, you can't think your way out of the fucking bag over your ugly head.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

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.

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.

There's your clue asshole you have yet to hear of " an abortion" as if a clinic only performs one fucking abortion at a time. You are so insufferably stupid.

 

[WillowTree]

And the thing is lawyers have a stake in substandard care. It's how they make their living. Suing the providers of substandard care.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

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.

There's your clue asshole you have yet to hear of " an abortion" as if a clinic only performs one fucking abortion at a time. You are so insufferably stupid.

the court said there was ZERO evidence these requirements had any benefit.

now put that in your pipe and smoke it you hysterical lying loon.

you can keep cursing and spitting and yelling and losing what is left of your limited mind.

but you'll continue to be a liar until you say you just like the rules because they infringed on women's rights......

but you're too dishonest to do that.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

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.

There's your clue asshole you have yet to hear of " an abortion" as if a clinic only performs one fucking abortion at a time. You are so insufferably stupid.

the court said there was ZERO evidence these requirements had any benefit.

now put that in your pipe and smoke it you hysterical loon.

Yeah, the court. Fucking comprised of lawyers. Fuck lawyers.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

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.

There's your clue asshole you have yet to hear of " an abortion" as if a clinic only performs one fucking abortion at a time. You are so insufferably stupid.

the court said there was ZERO evidence these requirements had any benefit.

now put that in your pipe and smoke it you hysterical lying loon.

you can keep cursing and spitting and yelling and losing what is left of your limited mind.

but you'll continue to be a liar until you say you just like the rules because they infringed on women's rights......

but you're too dishonest to do that.

Why would I lie shit for brains? What can I possibly gain by lying. I am stating my opinion and you cannot prove that one thing I said is a lie. Therefore you're the liar as are 99% of all lawyers.

 

[WillowTree]

>


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.

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.

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.

List those clinics that don't meet standards.

 

[jillian]

How can you claim that a clinic with the same standards as a surgical clinic is of no benefit to women? That's idiotic.

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.

There's your clue asshole you have yet to hear of " an abortion" as if a clinic only performs one fucking abortion at a time. You are so insufferably stupid.

the court said there was ZERO evidence these requirements had any benefit.

now put that in your pipe and smoke it you hysterical lying loon.

you can keep cursing and spitting and yelling and losing what is left of your limited mind.

but you'll continue to be a liar until you say you just like the rules because they infringed on women's rights......

but you're too dishonest to do that.

Why would I lie shit for brains? What can I possibly gain by lying. I am stating my opinion and you cannot prove that one thing I said is a lie. Therefore you're the liar as are 99% of all lawyers.

why are you lying? I don't know. I can't diagnose your pathology, willow ijit.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

There's your clue asshole you have yet to hear of " an abortion" as if a clinic only performs one fucking abortion at a time. You are so insufferably stupid.

the court said there was ZERO evidence these requirements had any benefit.

now put that in your pipe and smoke it you hysterical lying loon.

you can keep cursing and spitting and yelling and losing what is left of your limited mind.

but you'll continue to be a liar until you say you just like the rules because they infringed on women's rights......

but you're too dishonest to do that.

Why would I lie shit for brains? What can I possibly gain by lying. I am stating my opinion and you cannot prove that one thing I said is a lie. Therefore you're the liar as are 99% of all lawyers.

why are you lying? I don't know. I can't diagnose your pathology, willow ijit.

Let me ask you a question shit for brains. Have you ever disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling? Or do you accept each ruling?

 

[WillowTree]

I have no doubt that shit for brains will not answer these two questions.

 

[WillowTree]

Hey! Shit for brains were the questions too hard?

 

[WillowTree]

Exactly as predicted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Go find and read up on what happened to Joan rivers and congratulate yourself that you champion other women to that fate. And don't talk to me about your intelligence, you can't think your way out of the fucking bag over your ugly head.

Joan Rivers died because of outpatient surgery for a throat procedures, she was not getting an abortion (she was 81 at the time).

So how exactly would these special requirements that applied to abortion clinics have changed the outcome in the Rivers case?


Her case actually enhances the positions that such requirements should be required of ALL outpatient surgical clinics. But see that's not what the Texas legislature did, then targeted only abortion clinics in an attempt to burden them out of existence or create undue burden on the women trying to access abortions.


>>>>

 

[WillowTree]

Go find and read up on what happened to Joan rivers and congratulate yourself that you champion other women to that fate. And don't talk to me about your intelligence, you can't think your way out of the fucking bag over your ugly head.

Joan Rivers died because of outpatient surgery for a throat procedures, she was not getting an abortion (she was 81 at the time).

So how exactly would these special requirements that applied to abortion clinics have changed the outcome in the Rivers case?


Her case actually enhances the positions that such requirements should be required of ALL outpatient surgical clinics. But see that's not what the Texas legislature did, then targeted only abortion clinics in an attempt to burden them out of existence or create undue burden on the women trying to access abortions.


>>>>

She died because she had to wait to get to a hospital to be resuscitated. Now, if that's what you want for women, then you got it. Abortion clinics don't even have to have qualified doctors, or meet even the standards of outpatient surgical centers. Joan went to one specializing in ENT. She paid with her life. I am afraid to say it but you liberals have cut off your nose to spite your face with this one. You won but you lost. Enough. I have stated my position clearly and given reasons why. You guys can argue with each other.

 

[WorldWatcher]

She died because she had to wait to get to a hospital to be resuscitated. Now, if that's what you want for women, then you got it.

Which was my point your example (Joan Rivers) actually supports.

If this was about ensuring the highest level of standards for medical procedures, then Texas would have passed a law requiring ALL outpatient clinics that perform outpatient surgeries to meed the standards of an Ambulatory Surgical Center - but they didn't. The law only target abortion clinics.

Abortion clinics don't even have to have qualified doctors,

Horseshit.

Texas law Public Health Provisions (Subtitle H), Abortions (Chapter 171), General Provisions (Subchapter A), Section 171.003 States: "PHYSICIAN TO PERFORM. An abortion may be performed only by a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state."

That law was passed in 2003 and was not part of the 2013 law which was part of the SCOTUS case.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CHAPTER 171. ABORTION

or meet even the standards of outpatient surgical centers.

Wong again, they have to meet the same standards for outpatient surgery centers just like oral surgeons, cosmetic surgeons, and clinics the perform colonoscopies. They already had to meet those standards, the law required hospital grade standards that other outpatient clinks didn't have to meet.

Joan went to one specializing in ENT.

And since the Texas Law ONLY required abortion clinics to meet hospital grade standards as a means of burdening women seeking an abotion, it would have had zero, nadda, zilch impact on a case like rivers because those outpatianet clinics would not have been required to meet the standards of an Ambulatory Surgical Center, a doctor to have admitting privileges, and for the location of the procedure to be conducted within 30 miles of a hospital.


>>>>>

 

[jillian]

Go find and read up on what happened to Joan rivers and congratulate yourself that you champion other women to that fate. And don't talk to me about your intelligence, you can't think your way out of the fucking bag over your ugly head.

Joan Rivers died because of outpatient surgery for a throat procedures, she was not getting an abortion (she was 81 at the time).

So how exactly would these special requirements that applied to abortion clinics have changed the outcome in the Rivers case?


Her case actually enhances the positions that such requirements should be required of ALL outpatient surgical clinics. But see that's not what the Texas legislature did, then targeted only abortion clinics in an attempt to burden them out of existence or create undue burden on the women trying to access abortions.


>>>>

Abortion is not actually a surgical procedure. Rivers died because of the anesthesia. There is no anesthesia when an abortion is performed.

But we already know that willow unit is a liar and morally bankrupt.

 

[WillowTree]

She died because she had to wait to get to a hospital to be resuscitated. Now, if that's what you want for women, then you got it.

Which was my point your example (Joan Rivers) actually supports.

If this was about ensuring the highest level of standards for medical procedures, then Texas would have passed a law requiring ALL outpatient clinics that perform outpatient surgeries to meed the standards of an Ambulatory Surgical Center - but they didn't. The law only target abortion clinics.

Abortion clinics don't even have to have qualified doctors,

Horseshit.

Texas law Public Health Provisions (Subtitle H), Abortions (Chapter 171), General Provisions (Subchapter A), Section 171.003 States: "PHYSICIAN TO PERFORM. An abortion may be performed only by a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state."

That law was passed in 2003 and was not part of the 2013 law which was part of the SCOTUS case.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CHAPTER 171. ABORTION

or meet even the standards of outpatient surgical centers.

Wong again, they have to meet the same standards for outpatient surgery centers just like oral surgeons, cosmetic surgeons, and clinics the perform colonoscopies. They already had to meet those standards, the law required hospital grade standards that other outpatient clinks didn't have to meet.

Joan went to one specializing in ENT.

And since the Texas Law ONLY required abortion clinics to meet hospital grade standards as a means of burdening women seeking an abotion, it would have had zero, nadda, zilch impact on a case like rivers because those outpatianet clinics would not have been required to meet the standards of an Ambulatory Surgical Center, a doctor to have admitting privileges, and for the location of the procedure to be conducted within 30 miles of a hospital.


>>>>>

Licensed to practice does not equal qualified.