Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

Susheel said:
A certain person has been awfully silent in this thread of late:

From early in Part the First of this thread
Click to expand...

thaiboxerken said:
Right? Remember when right wingers pretended that banning abortion isn't happening and isn't the goal?
Click to expand...

Thanks for finding this? I thought I'd posted something along those lines in the Roe countdown thread. I was looking for it to apologize and admit I was wrong about that. Couldn't find it though. I figured someone would call it out sooner or later. So, thanks!

I was wrong.
 
But how/why were you wrong? It is a well-known GOP goal to ban abortion. It is also a well-known GOP goal to destroy voting rights, but many still claim that voter-ID is about election security....
 
lionking said:
What has happened to New Hampshire? A liberal, low religion (compared to others) state run by republicans? How did this come to be?
Click to expand...
^
|
This.

Maybe I had the wrong idea of New Hampshire; but, politically, it's a state I would not have expected to produce something like this.
 
To poke at somewhat related news, again...

Florida Republicans are trying to paint a 15-week abortion ban as 'generous'

Overturning the decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming abortion as a constitutional right is an extreme thing. But once Texas had passed its law banning abortion after just six weeks and putting enforcement in the hands of individual vigilantes, Republicans started talking about 15 weeks as a moderate compromise.

Immediately following the passage of the Texas law, a couple of Florida Republican lawmakers announced they would introduce a copycat bill. But instead, what the state’s Republicans have moved ahead on is a 15-week ban that’s a copycat of Mississippi’s bill, calling it “very reasonable” and “generous.”

“We’re not banning anything. We’re not being mean,” said state Sen. Kelli Stargel, one of the bill’s chief sponsors. “We’re not taking away a woman’s opportunity.” In that she was echoing Chief Justice John Roberts, who said, during oral arguments on the Mississippi law, “Viability, it seems to me, doesn’t have anything to do with choice. If it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?”

If we take that question as anything other than rhetorical, there are answers to it. Most, but not all, people realize they are pregnant well before 15 weeks, but those who don’t are likely to be among the most vulnerable, including those who are children themselves. Additionally, anyone passingly familiar with the U.S. health care system will realize that abortions, like most medical procedures, come with out-of-pocket costs. For many, coming up with that money could take a few weeks. Finding a provider and an available appointment could take a few weeks. And, significantly, 15 weeks is several weeks before an anatomy scan is performed, and that’s a moment when serious fetal abnormalities can be detected—the kind of abnormalities that lead many people to terminate pregnancies that were very much wanted.

The Florida bill has passed a committee vote and is expected to pass the legislature. Gov. Ron DeSantis has expressed support for it. What’s particularly dangerous about Florida moving to ban abortion after 15 weeks—once the Supreme Court allows it—is that Florida has had the least restrictive abortion laws in the southeastern United States, providing a resource for people from surrounding states. Taking that away will hurt not just women in Florida, but in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and beyond.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months

For Anna, there would have been little to no time to get an abortion in Texas by the time she discovered her pregnancy. She and Scott were open to having a baby, even if a bit sooner than they might have planned, so they moved up their wedding plans to December.

When their wedding day arrived, Anna was 19 weeks pregnant. And she was in her wedding dress, getting makeup done with her bridesmaids, when she noticed something was wrong.

"It felt like something was coming out of me. So I freaked out. I literally wet my dress in the seat that I was in," she says.

Anna had to race against time
Anna's water had broken too early for the baby to survive. She and Scott spent the night of their wedding in the emergency room, trying to take in the heartbreaking news.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' "

[...]

"A physician who made that determination in the moment would be doing so knowing that if someone second-guessed their judgment, [anyone] could file a lawsuit saying that you violated SB 8," she says.

In the emergency room on their wedding night, Anna and Scott say the doctors appeared nervous and concerned but could do little to help them.

"I remember being like, what, why can't you just do this?" says Anna. "They couldn't even say the word 'abortion.' I could see the fear in these doctors' eyes that they were just so scared to even talk about it."

"They were typing stuff out on their phones and showing it to us," adds Scott, saying that the doctors were afraid to even be overheard helping them plan an abortion.

The next day, Anna's OB-GYN needed a plan to get Anna to a place where she could get the procedure as quickly as possible. They ruled out some nearby states, including Oklahoma and Arkansas, with mandatory waiting periods as long as three days.

"So there's two options," says Scott. "There's New Mexico and there's Colorado. Would we rather have her go into labor on a plane or, like, out by Midland in a car?"

"And I said absolutely not," says Anna's doctor, who spoke with NPR on the condition of anonymity over fears of facing lawsuits. "Because West Texas is at least eight or nine hours of desert. Sometimes you have hours with no cellphone reception, no gas station ... in the middle of a medical crisis. So I requested she at least take a flight. And make it a direct flight if possible."

But Anna says that plan came with its own set of risks. There's a lump in her throat as she talks about what could have happened on the plane.

"I had to come up with a game plan with my OB in case I went into labor on the flight. And I made sure that I bought us front-row seats so I could be close to the bathroom in case it happened. And I'm like, no one should ever have to do that."

But even through tears, Anna says she knows she was lucky to have several thousand dollars in savings to cover the cost — and to get an appointment in Colorado at all.
Click to expand...




They do quote an anti-abortion activist who sure makes it sound like situations like this one might just be a feature, not a bug:
"Yeah, I mean it's, it's absolutely horrific," says John Seago. He's the legislative director with Texas Right to Life, which helped push SB 8 through the state legislature last year. He says even though he feels for Anna and for Palmer's patient, the law's supporters believe that abortion is an "act of injustice," no matter what.

"Even in the worst circumstances, another act of violence on an innocent victim is not the best solution that we have," he says.

Seago says when it comes to medical emergencies, medical associations should do more to help doctors understand what's allowed under the law.

"It seems politically advantageous for some of these groups that oppose the bill, and oppose all pro-life legislation, to just say this is unreasonable," he says.
Click to expand...
 
America. Where it's fine to let a mother die with her already doomed foetus, because Gawd forbid a doctor take the precious 'baby' out. Right to life? Unthinking literalism. Unreasoning Cruelty.
 
Overturning the decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming abortion as a constitutional right is an extreme thing. But once Texas had passed its law banning abortion after just six weeks and putting enforcement in the hands of individual vigilantes, Republicans started talking about 15 weeks as a moderate compromise.

Immediately following the passage of the Texas law, a couple of Florida Republican lawmakers announced they would introduce a copycat bill. But instead, what the state’s Republicans have moved ahead on is a 15-week ban that’s a copycat of Mississippi’s bill, calling it “very reasonable” and “generous.”
Click to expand...

"Meet me in the middle," says the Republican.

You take a step forward.

He takes a step back.

"Meet me in the middle," says the Republican.
 
"It seems politically advantageous for some of these groups that oppose the bill, and oppose all pro-life legislation, to just say this is unreasonable," he says.

Oh, gee, I'm sorry that actual human lives get in the way of your ideology. Heaven forbid that reality throws a wet blanket on your self-righteousness. Please, continue to tell scared young women that they should die for your ********.
 
Checkmite said:
"Meet me in the middle," says the Republican.

You take a step forward.

He takes a step back.

"Meet me in the middle," says the Republican.
Click to expand...

I think by now, there's a lot of people who should be adhering to the adage, "when someone tells you who they are, believe them."
 
shemp said:
It makes you realize that the truly evil people are not the ones who are pro-choice.
Click to expand...

"Truly evil" people come in all flavors.

That being said, it's hard for me to be more concerned about "Anna" than I am about the many thousands of never-to-be-named dead fetuses that come from abortions. But, it is easy to forget about them...after all, they are just medical waste in the eyes of many.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
"Truly evil" people come in all flavors.

That being said, it's hard for me to be more concerned about "Anna" than I am about the many thousands of never-to-be-named dead fetuses that come from abortions. But, it is easy to forget about them...after all, they are just medical waste in the eyes of many.
Click to expand...
As are those like Anna in yours.
 
Warp12 said:
"Truly evil" people come in all flavors.

That being said, it's hard for me to be more concerned about "Anna" than I am about the many thousands of never-to-be-named dead fetuses that come from abortions. But, it is easy to forget about them...after all, they are just medical waste in the eyes of many.
Click to expand...

Conservatives pretending to value human life after we all witnessed their true selves during the pandemic is a ghoulish charade.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The law is clearly working as indented. Like when it makes some slutty 11 year old who seduced her step father give birth. This is by design.
Click to expand...

That is something that could be avoided by a relatively minor change in the legislation.

That being said, I think that unfortunate situation would still be an acceptable, though tragic, tradeoff...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly, while at the same time encouraging healthy pregnancies to be carried to term.

Unfortunately, I doubt either is the case. Such notions are frowned upon by those who are focused on the singular aspect of choice. Hence the message will always be clouded, and there will always be encouragement for the most irresponsible of behaviors.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
That is something that could be avoided by a relatively minor change in the legislation.

That being said, I think that unfortunate situation would still be an acceptable, though tragic, tradeoff...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly, while at the same time encouraging healthy pregnancies to be carried to term.

Unfortunately, I doubt either is the case. Such notions are frowned upon by those who are focused on the singular aspect of choice. Hence the message will always be clouded, and there will always be encouragement for the most irresponsible of behaviors.
Click to expand...

"Forcing people to behave more responsibly". :rolleyes:

You mean like the vaccine mandates that you oppose?
 
johnny karate said:
"Forcing people to behave more responsibly". :rolleyes:

You mean like the vaccine mandates that you oppose?
Click to expand...

The only parallel that I could draw would be that in both cases, i strongly encourage responsible behavior. I don't endorse this Texas law, because it is too restrictive. But, I would like to see the primary focus be on aspects other than choice. The primary focus on choice is the downfall of the anti-vaxxer, just as it often leads to the death of the unborn.

I am not suggesting that abortion be banned, however. But there does need to be some regulation, imo.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
The only parallel that I could draw would be that in both cases, i strongly encourage responsible behavior. I don't endorse this Texas law, because it is too restrictive. But, I would like to see the primary focus be on aspects other than choice. The primary focus on choice is the downfall of the anti-vaxxer, just as it often leads to the death of the unborn.

I am not suggesting that abortion be banned, however. But there does need to be some regulation, imo.
Click to expand...

You just advocated for an anti-abortion law that would force people to "behave more responsibly". It's only a couple of posts prior to this one. We can all see it.

You have also come out against vaccine mandates.

So no, you don't "strongly encourage responsible behavior", and there's no way for you to square that circle to make anyone believe that "responsible behavior" is your primary concern here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom