Texas Abortion bill

[daveman]

I don't want to force hospitals to grant admitting privileges. I also don't want to close 90% of all abortion providers because of the religious or moral beliefs of others.

I would be more than happy with a provision that actually requires higher standards for abortion doctors. The AP bill did not do that.

You would be closing them because they don't provide quality care, and they are not qualified or have the facilities to practice real medicine.

If you don't like that 90 percent of abortion facilities would be shut down if oversight is applied, perhaps your concern should be for the women who are suffering in those substandard clinics, rather than for the quacks who are getting rich off them. A woman is safer driving 500 miles to get an abortion from a qualified abortionist who can treat her in a real medical facility than she is walking to the neighborhood legal backalley abortion sewer.

The moral of the story is that pro-aborts only want abortion to be legal. They don't care if it's safe, and they sure as hell don't want it to be rare.

This is indisputable.

 

[koshergrl]

I think it was more the screaming shrieking mob that succeeded.

 

[dilloduck]

Looks like Davis succeeded.

Temporarily

 

[koshergrl]

I don't want to force hospitals to grant admitting privileges. I also don't want to close 90% of all abortion providers because of the religious or moral beliefs of others.

I would be more than happy with a provision that actually requires higher standards for abortion doctors. The AP bill did not do that.

You would be closing them because they don't provide quality care, and they are not qualified or have the facilities to practice real medicine.

If you don't like that 90 percent of abortion facilities would be shut down if oversight is applied, perhaps your concern should be for the women who are suffering in those substandard clinics, rather than for the quacks who are getting rich off them. A woman is safer driving 500 miles to get an abortion from a qualified abortionist who can treat her in a real medical facility than she is walking to the neighborhood legal backalley abortion sewer.

The moral of the story is that pro-aborts only want abortion to be legal. They don't care if it's safe, and they sure as hell don't want it to be rare.

This is indisputable.

Not only do they not want it to be rare..they are willing to compromise the health and lives of women in order to ensure that it is common.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They were banned by the government from attending the meeting. That's neither unfounded, lying, nor an opinion. That's just plain fact.

Yes, they were, for reason apparently.

Democrats lying may be sufficient reason to you, but it's not for normal people.

Comrade.

Avatar, stay on track. Should government permit people to attend if there is prior reason to believe they will intentionally disrupt the meeting?

There is reason to believe that you will exceed the speed limit tomorrow. You need to take a check for $278 to the courthouse tomorrow before close of business.

The accusation is enough to convict you. Pay it tomorrow or a bench warrant will be issued.

False analogy. Next.

Should government permit people to attend if there is prior reason to believe they will intentionally disrupt the meeting?

Right now, both Avatar and daveman have admitted by refusing to answer the question they believe the TPM should have rights of public outbursts that no one else should.

Addendum: daveman has now said that people should attend until they act then removed, or words to that effect.

 

[AmyNation]

All abortion clinics should be run by licensed Physicians, just like any other medical clinic.

What more should be asked of them?

They should be able to legally treat women in a hospital if they need to.

Because the truth is, women who get abortions often need to be hospitalized...and aren't, because the abortionists have no standing in real hospitals.

And those pukes should be drummed out of business, and replaced with real medical personnel. Who actually do care about providing quality service in the safest conditions.

Proof?

There are around a million abortions in the US every year, "often" is a lot. Should be easy to prove

 

[whitehall]

No medical oversight of abortion clinics in the great state of Texas and liberal men can keep holding women in bondage with threats of mental and physical harm by hiring cheap killers like Gosnell's horror house to kill their unborn. Real victory lefties. Y'all should be proud.

 

[koshergrl]

It's not easy to prove because the abortion industry doesn't keep records.

And smug pro-abortion ideologues like Amy want to keep it that way. Let the women die alone...but by golly, don't you dare oversee the abortionists!

 

[percysunshine]

Looks like Davis succeeded.

Temporarily

Office of the Governor Rick Perry - [Press Release] Gov. Perry Calls Special Session to Begin July 1

" We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do."

 

[koshergrl]

No medical oversight of abortion clinics in the great state of Texas and liberal men can keep holding women in bondage with threats of mental and physical harm by hiring cheap killers like Gosnell's horror house to kill their unborn. Real victory lefties. Y'all should be proud.

They are. As evidenced by Amy's smirking "should be easy to prove then" comment.

Cute. She thinks it's funny that women are killed by butchers, but nobody can prove it because of the lax oversight, and the culture of hiding abortion crimes and calling it "confidentiality".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The court may very well state before the legislature begins Monday that it will, of course, suspend action of the law until it can be reviewed by competent authority.

 

[AmyNation]

It's not easy to prove because the abortion industry doesn't keep records.

And smug pro-abortion ideologues like Amy want to keep it that way. Let the women die alone...but by golly, don't you dare oversee the abortionists!

Belief despite the lack of evidence. You've got it in spades

 

[daveman]

Yes, they were, for reason apparently.

Democrats lying may be sufficient reason to you, but it's not for normal people.

Comrade.

Avatar, stay on track. Should government permit people to attend if there is prior reason to believe they will intentionally disrupt the meeting?

There is reason to believe that you will exceed the speed limit tomorrow. You need to take a check for $278 to the courthouse tomorrow before close of business.

The accusation is enough to convict you. Pay it tomorrow or a bench warrant will be issued.

False analogy. Next.

Should government permit people to attend if there is prior reason to believe they will intentionally disrupt the meeting?

Right now, both Avatar and daveman have admitted by refusing to answer the question they believe the TPM should have rights of public outbursts that no one else should.

Addendum: daveman has now said that people should attend until they act then removed, or words to that effect.

Of course I said that, because it's the right answer.

You want to punish people for acts they have not yet committed.

That's unconstitutional and un-American.

Comrade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Democrats lying may be sufficient reason to you, but it's not for normal people.

Comrade.

There is reason to believe that you will exceed the speed limit tomorrow. You need to take a check for $278 to the courthouse tomorrow before close of business.

The accusation is enough to convict you. Pay it tomorrow or a bench warrant will be issued.

False analogy. Next.

Should government permit people to attend if there is prior reason to believe they will intentionally disrupt the meeting?

Right now, both Avatar and daveman have admitted by refusing to answer the question they believe the TPM should have rights of public outbursts that no one else should.

Addendum: daveman has now said that people should attend until they act then removed, or words to that effect.

,
Of course I said that, because it's the right answer.

And, if intelligence says such people intend to disrupt, then they will not attend. Simple.

 

[daveman]

False analogy. Next.

Should government permit people to attend if there is prior reason to believe they will intentionally disrupt the meeting?

Right now, both Avatar and daveman have admitted by refusing to answer the question they believe the TPM should have rights of public outbursts that no one else should.

Addendum: daveman has now said that people should attend until they act then removed, or words to that effect.

,
Of course I said that, because it's the right answer.

And, if intelligence says such people intend to disrupt, then they will not attend. Simple.

Democrats have nothing to do with intelligence.

Better pay your fine tomorrow, Comrade. You've said it yourself: The accusation is sufficient to convict and punish. Your ridiculous cries of "false analogy" are meaningless, because it's perfectly accurate.

Please move to the totalitarian progressive nation of your choosing. Stop trying to turn free America into a prog shithole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

,
Of course I said that, because it's the right answer.

And, if intelligence says such people intend to disrupt, then they will not attend. Simple.

Democrats have nothing to do with intelligence.

You've said it yourself: The accusation is sufficient to convict and punish.

Prior knowledge to prevent criminal activity is appropriate.

 

[koshergrl]

It's not easy to prove because the abortion industry doesn't keep records.

And smug pro-abortion ideologues like Amy want to keep it that way. Let the women die alone...but by golly, don't you dare oversee the abortionists!

Belief despite the lack of evidence. You've got it in spades

Yup. Smug contentment that women's deaths are conveniently unreported due to lack of oversight.

Adorable.

"Prove it" mentality is so indicative of a true caring nature and a desire to see women given the level of care they deserve.

As I've said repeatedly..these people don't mind that women die, and they will continue to block all efforts to prevent abortion deaths.

 

[Avatar4321]

False analogy. Next.

Should government permit people to attend if there is prior reason to believe they will intentionally disrupt the meeting?

Right now, both Avatar and daveman have admitted by refusing to answer the question they believe the TPM should have rights of public outbursts that no one else should.

Addendum: daveman has now said that people should attend until they act then removed, or words to that effect.

Nothing false about his analogy. I don't see how you can honestly claim there is. If someone is banned from assembling, speaking, and petitioning for something someone else thinks they are going to do, they have had their constitutional rights violated.

Also I dont see how you cna honestly claimed i havent addressed the question when Ive repeatedly told you that if they do anything to disrupt a meeting throw them out. You simply dont have the right to preemptively prevent them from attending. Especially when there is no previous behavior to justify it.

Im disappointed in you Jake. I expect more honesty from you.

 

[Avatar4321]

And, if intelligence says such people intend to disrupt, then they will not attend. Simple.

Democrats have nothing to do with intelligence.

You've said it yourself: The accusation is sufficient to convict and punish.

Prior knowledge to prevent criminal activity is appropriate.

Except you are the one advocating the criminal activity by supporting the governments efforts to strip a group of people of their Constitutional rights becaue you think they should be.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's not easy to prove because the abortion industry doesn't keep records.

And smug pro-abortion ideologues like Amy want to keep it that way. Let the women die alone...but by golly, don't you dare oversee the abortionists!

Belief despite the lack of evidence. You've got it in spades

Yup. Smug contentment that women's deaths are conveniently unreported due to lack of oversight.

Adorable.

"Prove it" mentality is so indicative of a true caring nature and a desire to see women given the level of care they deserve.

As I've said repeatedly..these people don't mind that women die, and they will continue to block all efforts to prevent abortion deaths.

I would think the Gosnell trial and the guy down in Texas should be plenty of evidence that we need some more oversight.