Texas extrem abortion bil pass

[Ryinrea]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3589612/ Also extrem ways were used by cops to reject a woman right to voice her oppion

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3587745/

And I am on my phone so sorry for any mistakes in my spelling.

Basicaly this bill closes all but five abortion clincs in the state due to stuipd regultions put in bill.

[Clarakore]

Expect lawsuits.

Also perhaps a run from Wendy Davis for governor.

[Ryinrea]

^ Agrred in every state this has passed lawsuites were filed by people and the feds.

[Ryinrea]

Going too push this up because more people need to learn about this uncontuional act.

[LogicViking]

May I ask why banning abortion after 20 weeks is unconstitutional?

[Kowalski]

May I ask why banning abortion after 20 weeks is unconstitutional?

Their believing the fear mongering "on demand abortion" crowd. This bill is about safety, nothing more. I admit, at first I was very critical of this bill, but after researching it, it's not a bad bill.

“What’s being highly contested by abortion supporters in this bill is not really the 20-week ban,” she said. “It’s the requirement that all abortion facilities be ambulatory surgical centers, which would require either they be compliant of these regulations by abortion centers or they would be closing down.”

After the revelations about the horrors committed by abortionist Kermit Gosnell, one might think women’s rights advocates would be demanding heavy regulations to reform clinics and ensure the safety of women who choose to abort their pregnancies. Instead they are sacrificing safety for ease of access.

That certainly puts into perspective.....

“The abortion lobby has said they want abortion to be safe, legal and rare,” Johnson told me. “But clearly we see that they’ve dropped the safe part and the rare part because they are trying to increase abortion.”

There is no question the abortion industry is big business. According to Planned Parenthood, the organization performed a record 333,964 abortions in FY 2012, pushing the organization’s three-year abortion total to just shy of one million. Planned Parenthood received an astonishing $542 million in taxpayer funds last year, accounting for 45 percent of its total operating budget.

Johnson told me that during her time with Planned Parenthood, staffers were given abortion quotas to meet. Workers could easily influence vulnerable women into choosing an abortion, not necessarily for the benefit of the woman, but to meet the monthly quotas set by management.

Johnson also described seeing a 13-week-old fetus fighting for its life before ultimately losing its battle while she was assisting with an ultrasound-guided abortion. That was when she chose to leave Planned Parenthood. The organization sued Abby in an effort to make an example of her, but the lawsuit was eventually thrown out of court.

It’s difficult to understand why those who claim to care about protecting women are willing to sacrifice safety for convenience. Maybe it’s about money. It’s certainly not about safety.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/unsafe-access-whats-really-at-stake-in-texas-abortion-battle/#ixzz2Yy4NDqbx

[Kowalski]

Under the new law, abortion doctors must get admitting privileges at nearby hospitals; abortion clinics must upgrade to surgical centers; abortion-inducing pills can only be taken when a physician is present; and abortions would be banned 20 weeks after fertilization.

But none of those cases was in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Texas, points out Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance of Life, which has backed the anti-abortion bill from the beginning.

"Their optimism may be poorly founded in the 5th Circuit," Pojman says. "In Texas, we have had a very good track record of our abortion regulations and limits being reviewed and upheld by the 5th Circuit. I point out to you most recently our statute passed two years ago."

In 2011, the Center for Reproductive Rights appealed a Texas law that requires a doctor to ask a woman to see a sonogram and hear the heartbeat of the fetus before her abortion can be performed. Three appellate judges in the 5th Circuit upheld it.

Link: http://www.npr.org/2...o-texas-measure

Edited July 13, 2013 by Kowalski

[LogicViking]

The safety of the mother should be paramount no matter the stage of pregnancy. Sounds to me like they are implementing some long needed rules and regs on this edge of the medical trade. Maybe other states should look into putting people's lives and health into the forefront.

Edited July 13, 2013 by LogicViking

[Kowalski]

The safety of the mother should be paramount no matter the stage of pregnancy. Sounds to me like they are implementing some long needed rules and regs on this edge of the medical trade. Maybe other states should look into putting people's lives and health into the forefront.

More than 30 states have passed similar legislation laws! It's about time this part of the medical trade became regulated. An abortion is not like a botox treatment for God's sakes.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Kowalski

[Kowalski]

Welcome to UM LogicViking!

[LogicViking]

Thanks Kowalski! Been a long time reader, finally decided to get in here and participate!

[ninjadude]

Texas extremism in this bill will only hasten their demise.

[LogicViking]

Can you please explain how this is extremism? No one ever explained why it was unconstitutional either..

[darkmoonlady]

It is unconstitutional to limit the rights and freedoms of others based on your beliefs, this was similar to the decisions on gay marriage. Since no person hood legislation can stand up in the courts, a fetus is not yet a full human with rights, therefore the right of women seeking a legal abortion cannot and should not be infringed upon based on others dislike or distaste of that legal act. There was no other reason to pass the Texas legislation other than to limit access which will fail in the courts. They cannot show that those regulations prevent anything other than access. They aren't for safety, they aren't for protecting women. They are attempting to circumvent the rights of women and their freedom of reproductive choice.

[LogicViking]

Firstly, thank you for explaining that.

So what you are saying, is that it's a womens rights violation to enforce policies and regulations on a medical trade due to the fact that it limits their freedom to go to any ol' corner shack abortion clinic, and get an abortion after such time has passed that the apparent "not a full human, without rights, etc" fetus can "possibly" feel pain, which of course, is ok, because it's an obvious non-human growth of cells. *Sarcasm*

But realistically, shouldn't some of the regulations be in place for the safety of the patient? I mean, look at the strict regulations for heart transplants. Why should this sector of the medical trade not be regulated in the same fashion as any other surgical procedure? Any regulation of any kind can be construed to be a way to take away rights from a specific set of people who previously enjoyed the lack of regulation for example, smokers bans inside public areas. I'm sure the smokers found it an attempt to remove their rights specifically, but it was for the overall health of those who frequented those public areas. It may be slightly less convenient but it will probably save a lot of lives. After the Gosnell clinic, you don't think that maybe we should keep a closer eye on these peoples' safety?

And FYI, not ALL pro-life arguments center around religious beliefs.

Edited July 14, 2013 by LogicViking

[Kowalski]

Firstly, thank you for explaining that.

So what you are saying, is that it's a womens rights violation to enforce policies and regulations on a medical trade due to the fact that it limits their freedom to go to any ol' corner shack abortion clinic, and get an abortion after such time has passed that the apparent "not a full human, without rights, etc" fetus can "possibly" feel pain, which of course, is ok, because it's an obvious non-human growth of cells. *Sarcasm*

But realistically, shouldn't some of the regulations be in place for the safety of the patient? I mean, look at the strict regulations for heart transplants. Why should this sector of the medical trade not be regulated in the same fashion as any other surgical procedure? Any regulation of any kind can be construed to be a way to take away rights from a specific set of people who previously enjoyed the lack of regulation for example, smokers bans inside public areas. I'm sure the smokers found it an attempt to remove their rights specifically, but it was for the overall health of those who frequented those public areas. It may be slightly less convenient but it will probably save a lot of lives. After the Gosnell clinic, you don't think that maybe we should keep a closer eye on these peoples' safety?

And FYI, not ALL pro-life arguments center around religious beliefs.

As a woman, if I ever chose to have an abortion, for whatever reason, I would want it to be in a surgical ambulatory center, not just any ole clinic. A lot of these reconstructions make sense to me. I don't understand all the fuss about it.

As LogicViking pointed out, a lot if medical procedures, have restrictions. What is so wrong with that?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Kowalski

[+and-then]

When a group stands to complain about a ban on abortion at FIVE MONTHS gestation, what they are protesting for is the right to terminate at ANY POINT they choose. Some even argue for the right to "abort" babies born alive by mistake in these centers. Life is disposable in America today - unless it is a life that certain groups find valuable for reasons of their own. It's a sad, sick society we have now.

[Kowalski]

When a group stands to complain about a ban on abortion at FIVE MONTHS gestation, what they are protesting for is the right to terminate at ANY POINT they choose. Some even argue for the right to "abort" babies born alive by mistake in these centers. Life is disposable in America today - unless it is a life that certain groups find valuable for reasons of their own. It's a sad, sick society we have now.

Yep. Sad...very sad.....

I'm out of likes for today, but I completely agree with your post.....

[Odin11]

Opposition to this bill has nothing to do with the 20 week limit, I repeat; it has nothing to do with the 20 week limit. But you all can keep on believing that, maybe if you say it enough it will become true.

[darkmoonlady]

As with other states attempting similar restritive legislation the higher courts ask for proof of the failure ofcrrgulations already in place. Before these bills were passed women were in fact recieving good medical care and were having abortions that were safe. The new legislation supposedly being about a higher level of care is simply a smokescreen to pass a bill that will reduce access to abortion. It does nothing to raise the level of care or safety as that already existed in those states. The statistics in all the states prove that out. Its bunk they want better healthcare for women they only want to restict access.

[LogicViking]

Maybe some of you can answer a question I have, slightly veering off topic - Why is it ( In my experience ) the same general people who are pro-choice, also tend to be anti-death penalty, anti-firearm ( suppposedly due to the deaths related to them ). Why is this the case with some left leaning people?

Edited July 15, 2013 by LogicViking

[Kowalski]

Maybe some of you can answer a question I have, slightly veering off topic - Why is it ( In my experience ) the same general people who are pro-life, also tend to be anti-death penalty, anti-firearm ( suppposedly due to the deaths related to them ). Why is this the case with some left leaning people?

Do you mean pro choice?

Because I'm pro-life and I'm pro gun and I'm for the death penalty.....

[LogicViking]

Fixed >.< that's what happens when you try and type and talk at the same time

[Kowalski]

Fixed >.< that's what happens when you try and type and talk at the same time

That's okay! LOL.

Yeah, I don't understand liberal logic at times. They want to ban guns because of all the children who are killed every year with guns, yet are okay with murdering babies.....

Yeah, I don't get it....

[rashore]

Maybe some of you can answer a question I have, slightly veering off topic - Why is it ( In my experience ) the same general people who are pro-choice, also tend to be anti-death penalty, anti-firearm ( suppposedly due to the deaths related to them ). Why is this the case with some left leaning people?

I dunno why some pro-choice folks think that way, I dunno why some folks that are anti-abortion are ok with death penalty and guns. Maybe because it's three different circumstances that some folks approach each one individually instead of clumping them all together. Of all the people I know in my life, pretty much all of them are pro-gun, or at least supportive of 2nd amendment when they aren't personally pro-gun. Most are pro-choice, though some are very much anti-abortion. Some are pro-death penalty, though some think it's flat out wrong. None of them seem to cluster all three issues together. Personally, I'm pro-choice, and I'm also pro-death penalty and pro-firearm. To me, they are three separate issues that have their own reasoning that's not necessarily connected to the others.