Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Texas Abortion Law Unconstitutional


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#16 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,141 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 31 October 2013 - 12:04 PM

You're right, there is a reason, but it has nothing to do with Gosnell or other law-breakers.

This is just another in a series of attempts by anti-death activists to restrict access to abortions. It's pretty transparent.

edit: but don' take my word for it, let's take Phil Bryant's word on it:


http://content.time....2132761,00.html


Ftfy

#17 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,954 posts

Posted 31 October 2013 - 01:10 PM

I may be an idiot but at least I'm not attempting to use a ratio of 6 to 1.2 million to prove how right I am.

#18 Nicks To The Colts

Nicks To The Colts

    shitpost around the clock

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,536 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 31 October 2013 - 03:00 PM

Ftfy

 

oh geez, what a devastating rebuttal

 

the texas hospital association is opposed to section 2 by the way.  i guess they're basically kermit gosnell too:

http://www.tha.org/H...al session).pdf



#19 Nicks To The Colts

Nicks To The Colts

    shitpost around the clock

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,536 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 31 October 2013 - 03:08 PM

i mean everyone realizes that railroading legal, regulated abortion out of red states will just result in an unregulated black market for the procedure right.  i mean that was an actual chapter of american history that anybody can go read about.

 

rich girls will go off to see aunt gladys in vermont while everyone else will be left to the tender mercies of a kermit gosnell, just like it used to be.  of course when you're pretending to care about the safety of women seeking abortion services i guess it only makes sense to also pretend that you don't want that to happen too.



#20 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,141 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 31 October 2013 - 05:28 PM

oh geez, what a devastating rebuttal

the texas hospital association is opposed to section 2 by the way. i guess they're basically kermit gosnell too:
http://www.tha.org/H...al session).pdf


Wasn't really trying to rebut his statement just that people who are pro life aren't anti choice. They just value life more

#21 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,954 posts

Posted 31 October 2013 - 05:37 PM

G5 is ok with thAt, whores deserve what they get

#22 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,481 posts

Posted 31 October 2013 - 06:12 PM

Wasn't really trying to rebut his statement just that people who are pro life aren't anti choice. They just value life more

 

So I think someone that is "pro life" is someone personally against abortion, but that doesnt' restrict the choices of others.

 

People voting to restrict the options of others?  They're anti-choice, imo.  I would never want someone I got pregnant to have an abortion.  I would care for the kids or pay child support or whatever was needed.  But, it's not my choice, and I'd never restrict someone else's choice within reason.

 

You can hold whatever personal opinion you have on abortion, but when you legislate your morals onto another, you become anti-choice.  My feeling on the issue, anyway...



#23 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 31 October 2013 - 11:10 PM

Anyone that has been here awhile probably remembers my stance on abortion.  But I am curious how many people are anti-death penalty but still pro choice.  The reason I ask is because like so many other issues, abortion rights has never been about morals or right or wrong, or womens rights or protecting babies. It has only been about politics. In order to have an opinion you either had to be left or right liberal on conservative.  That being said, left leaning people who tend to not support the death penalty and have no objection to the government applying a moral standard to killing criminals, seem to be against anyone applying a moral standard to killing unborn babies. Righties on the other hand protest mightily to abortions yet are very "liberal" in applying the death penalty. This is interesting on so many levels.
 
Also, someone mentioned something about black market abortions being worse than clinical ones.  I dont think they fully grasp the position of people that are anti-abortion. There is essentially no difference between the two. It is still killing babies. I know some might not believe that unborn babies matter enough to save but it would be hypocritical to challenge another persons right to believe that it is and still call yourself pro-choice.  Keeping that in mind, people would do a lot to protect a child without any concern to the person they consider as the offender.  Now before anyone goes on about it not being the other persons child, remember you stance in the conversations earlier about spanking and what basically boiled down to child abuse and a bystander's duty to intervene.
 
And because it always comes up seeing as it is a staple argument for the pro-choice side of the argument, I would like to address the "rape", "incest" abortion argument by saying that noone has once asked for a special, legal, supervised clinic specifically for victims of sexual crimes.  Nope, instead the narrative has been that even though the number of abortions performed due to victims of sexual crimes is very low, this sole reason justifies the act in all situations
 

 

A few numbers for anyones concern.
 
estimated 237,868 victims of rape and sexual assault (aged 12 and over including men and women) while an estimated 1.06 million abortions performed in 2011. (down from 1.13 million in 2010) Whatever the percentage of that 237,868 are women and of those women that get raped instead a myriad of other acts that qualify as sexual assault, and of those women that get pregnant, and of those that get pregnant that choose abortion, it is a small percentage of abortions performed.

http://www.abort73.c...ion_statistics/
http://www.rainn.org...-sexual-assault

 

Now I was being generous with my estimations. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) reports thats 1 percent or less all abortions performed are because of incest/rape/sexual assault.  I tried to factor in cases that may go unreported but I could get no higher than 3 percent in my estimation. 

 

 

 



#24 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,141 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 31 October 2013 - 11:48 PM

So I think someone that is "pro life" is someone personally against abortion, but that doesnt' restrict the choices of others.

People voting to restrict the options of others? They're anti-choice, imo. I would never want someone I got pregnant to have an abortion. I would care for the kids or pay child support or whatever was needed. But, it's not my choice, and I'd never restrict someone else's choice within reason.

You can hold whatever personal opinion you have on abortion, but when you legislate your morals onto another, you become anti-choice. My feeling on the issue, anyway...


I see it as people voting to safe life. Not vote to indirectly destroy it

#25 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,141 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 31 October 2013 - 11:49 PM

Anyone that has been here awhile probably remembers my stance on abortion. But I am curious how many people are anti-death penalty but still pro choice. The reason I ask is because like so many other issues, abortion rights has never been about morals or right or wrong, or womens rights or protecting babies. It has only been about politics. In order to have an opinion you either had to be left or right liberal on conservative. That being said, left leaning people who tend to not support the death penalty and have no objection to the government applying a moral standard to killing criminals, seem to be against anyone applying a moral standard to killing unborn babies. Righties on the other hand protest mightily to abortions yet are very "liberal" in applying the death penalty. This is interesting on so many levels.

Also, someone mentioned something about black market abortions being worse than clinical ones. I dont think they fully grasp the position of people that are anti-abortion. There is essentially no difference between the two. It is still killing babies. I know some might not believe that unborn babies matter enough to save but it would be hypocritical to challenge another persons right to believe that it is and still call yourself pro-choice. Keeping that in mind, people would do a lot to protect a child without any concern to the person they consider as the offender. Now before anyone goes on about it not being the other persons child, remember you stance in the conversations earlier about spanking and what basically boiled down to child abuse and a bystander's duty to intervene.

And because it always comes up seeing as it is a staple argument for the pro-choice side of the argument, I would like to address the "rape", "incest" abortion argument by saying that noone has once asked for a special, legal, supervised clinic specifically for victims of sexual crimes. Nope, instead the narrative has been that even though the number of abortions performed due to victims of sexual crimes is very low, this sole reason justifies the act in all situations


A few numbers for anyones concern.

estimated 237,868 victims of rape and sexual assault (aged 12 and over including men and women) while an estimated 1.06 million abortions performed in 2011. (down from 1.13 million in 2010) Whatever the percentage of that 237,868 are women and of those women that get raped instead a myriad of other acts that qualify as sexual assault, and of those women that get pregnant, and of those that get pregnant that choose abortion, it is a small percentage of abortions performed.

http://www.abort73.c...ion_statistics/
http://www.rainn.org...-sexual-assault

Now I was being generous with my estimations. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) reports thats 1 percent or less all abortions performed are because of incest/rape/sexual assault. I tried to factor in cases that may go unreported but I could get no higher than 3 percent in my estimation.


I haven't been here awhile but I am interested on your stance if you don't mind telling again?

#26 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 01 November 2013 - 07:39 AM

I haven't been here awhile but I am interested on your stance if you don't mind telling again?

unapologetically anti-abortion



#27 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts

Posted 01 November 2013 - 01:25 PM

Liberals are going to have to do a lot more judge-shopping now...

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...s-abortion-law/

 

 


AUSTIN, Texas A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that most of Texas' tough new abortion restrictions can take effect immediately - a decision that means as least 12 clinics won't be able to perform the procedure starting as soon as Friday.

 

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital can take effect while a lawsuit challenging the restrictions moves forward. The panel issued the ruling three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel said the provision serves no medical purpose.

 

Abortion-rights advocates immediately decried the appeals court's decision.

 

"What the Texas Legislature did was reckless and dangerous and what this federal appeals court did tonight is deeply troubling and also dangerous for women," Eric Ferrero, spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told CBS Radio News.

 

In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the provision "may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions." However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having "the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate" a law that serves a valid purpose, "one not designed to strike at the right itself."

 

The panel left in place a portion of Yeakel's order that prevents the state from enforcing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol for abortion-inducing drugs in cases where the woman is between 50 and 63 days into her pregnancy. Doctors testifying before the court had said such women would be harmed if the protocol were enforced.



#28 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,141 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 01 November 2013 - 03:13 PM

unapologetically anti-abortion


Thank you for sharing. I agree

#29 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,517 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 02 November 2013 - 01:49 AM

I self identify as pro-life, but in no way believe abortions should be banned. There are times when abortions are acceptable (in my self-righteous opinion) but I will never support the idea of abortion as a form of birth control.

I'm also a staunch anti-death penalty type. There are no times when taking a life is an acceptable form of punishment (again, in my own self-righteous opinion).


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.