Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[SezMe]

Scientifically speaking, viability outside the womb is a pretty good marker.

If so, then your morality is a function of geography and technology. Isn't that odd?

 

[xjx388]

Perhaps the baby's life trumps the woman's rights at some point, perhaps not - but each individual pregnant woman should decide that.

So if a woman decides to abort at 39 weeks, no problem?

 

[elbe]

Are you one of the people who would be prevented from having an abortion by this law? In other words, a woman? If not, of course you "see no issue with that." In the final analysis, pregnancy is not an "issue" for you at all. Sorry, you don't get to say.

That's always been my position. I have a Y chromosome so it's none of my business what women feel they should do with their own bodies. If I were the father of I'd appreciate the considerations of my feelings/opinions, but at the end of the day I'm not the one who'd have to carry it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So what is the legal definition of a risk to life or health? There must be a clear one surely. Otherwise how is a doctor supposted to know when they can legally abort a problematic pregnancy.

 

[Dessi]

Or do you think a baby never has a right to live until it's born. What is your rational basis for drawing whatever line you draw?

Its not as hard to draw the line at birth as you think, due in part to the view that an unborn human has no greater or lesser rights than born humans. Yes, people have a right to life which is no greater or lesser than any non-human organism at a similar mental level. But they also have a right to bodily integrity, and conflicts between these are not normally lopsided toward right to life. Case in point: many people die due to shortages in blood and organ material for transplants, but there is no precedent for taking blood and organs from anyone without consent to meet life-saving demand.

Now, if I imagine an unborn baby as having the rights of a fully autonomous, born human, then the baby's rights to life really don't change whether they are located inside or outside another human being. The problem here is that, until a baby is born, its making use of another person's blood and organs.

Oops, now we're in a bind. A strong moral and legal precedent establishes that I can never be coerced to give up parts of my body for the sake of another person, even my own child, even if doing so will save a life. If I can't be coerced to give up parts of my body for my born children, what difference would it make if the child is unborn?

The rightfulness or wrongfulness of terminating a pregnancy at any point up to birth -- not necessarily killing the fetus in the process -- depends on how we rectify the view that no born human may use another's blood while simultaneously carving out an exception for unborn humans.

 

[332nd]

He's telling them where they can get the coat hangers for their protests, not for their abortions.

Why do they bring the hangers?

 

[uke2se]

He's telling them where they can get the coat hangers for their protests, not for their abortions.

That's not making it any better. He knows (or should bloody well know) what the coat hanger is in this case. It's not just the symbol of a cause like those silly hats with tea-bags hanging from the brim that the tea-tards used to put on. The coat hanger is the instrument that has been and - when this law comes into effect - most likely will be the cause of many bloody and painful procedures for desperate women.

In short, it's not ******* funny, and Erickson should be ashamed of himself.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

We joke about sick stuff all the time. I mean, if people can make jokes out of the Holocaust or Jeffrey Dahmer, then as far as I am concerned, you can joke about anything.

 

[uke2se]

We joke about sick stuff all the time. I mean, if people can make jokes out of the Holocaust or Jeffrey Dahmer, then as far as I am concerned, you can joke about anything.

If you make jokes about the holocaust while being a Nazi, or make jokes about murdering gay men and eating parts of them while being Jeffrey Dahmer, it crosses a line.

That's what Erickson did.

 

[xjx388]

Not on legal grounds either way. Even Roe v Wade recognized that it wasn't the "right to abortion" that effectively legalized abortion but that the government did not have the legal capacity to intervene on her healthcare as it is not lawful. The ability for any State to perform their duty rests on their sovereignty which is dictated by the Constitution and judicial branch of government all of which affirmed Roe v. Wade.

But the state does have a right to intervene at some point. The Justices in Roe set that point after 12 weeks. This was, of course, later modified to be after viability. In other words, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting both mother and fetus from conception, but the interest in protecting the fetus becomes greater after viability. Therefore, the state can only intervene at viability.

But Roe v. Wade only serves to reaffirm this right. It never made it a new right, it was always there and Roe v. Wade existed as a testament to that.

So you trying to finagle in a "right to abort" is nonsensical. It would do more to damage the fact by entertaining you on this.

It doesn't really matter what semantics we use to describe the right under question. Effectively, women have a right to abort up until viability. Whether that right stems from privacy in medical decisions or from some other fundamental liberty is secondary in this discussion.

At some point the woman's decision on when she can/should abort should be made by the only people who matter here: the woman and her physician.. It's not an easy decision but at least it's being made in the most compassionate and fertile field of reproductive health.

Sure, up until viability, then the state has a strong interest in protecting the life of the fetus.

But then you get those Republican assclowns who just can't stand finding another hole to thrust into where they don't belong. Their voice is not the right voice for the matter of reproductive health and they've proven that time and time again.

That is a matter of opinion. If you opine that women should have a right to terminate whenever they want, then your opinion would clash with the decision reached in Roe, most State laws and the opinions of most people in America.

That depends on the circumstances. I dare you to come over and visit with me one day to a teen pregnancy outreach program managed at UAB. The vast majority of reports feature young black women with no strong educational background whom have never had a single gynecology visit until their pregnancy (identified well after fertilization BTW) or primary physician care. Teenage pregnancy is EASILY preventable, hell HPV transmission (that's the research data I am more familiar with but this is all within one larger health behavior program) is possibly the most preventable carcinogenic virus infection. But there are areas and there are people who literally have health literacy so low it'll scare you. For MANY people unwanted pregnancy is a fact of life. They have it, their mothers had it, and their kids will have it.

You are describing social problems which definitely need to be solved.

Abortions are utilized as a tertiary intervention because most all populations in lower socioeconomic strata utilize tertiary prevention healthcare disproportionately already. Abortions are symptomatic of healthcare failure which affects their exposure to pregnancy prevention strategies. Now you tell me, should they be responsible for that, and by the LAW rather than the actual participants!? The only lawful recourse is to provide for the promotion of these strategies; that's part of the duties of each state. But a state cannot mandate organ donations, it cannot enforce mandatory smoking cessation and it should not also be able to enforce limits to abortion.

Abortion is a very different issue from organ donation and smoking.

Abortion has been the one odd duck and for SO many wrong and vicious reasons all of which stem from sadistic discrimination of women, of the underserved, and promotion of a particular ideology. The law is crafted to limit governments from doing this and to promote efforts to improve the damage of that asshats do. The fact is, asshats got into the government. Texas demonstrates this and now it's an issue of damage control until efforts can be adjusted to compensate for ignorant lawmakers.

I don't think the Texas law will change access to abortions one iota. There is no undue burden to abortion. There are no more roadblocks now than there were then.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If you make jokes about the holocaust while being a Nazi, or make jokes about murdering gay men and eating parts of them while being Jeffrey Dahmer, it crosses a line.

That's what Erickson did.

A bit like a clansman posting a "helpful" link to fire extinguishers for the new black family in town. You know, 'cause burning crosses can be a hazard and all.

 

[A'isha]

I don't think the Texas law will change access to abortions one iota. There is no undue burden to abortion. There are no more roadblocks now than there were then.

This is patently untrue.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

If you make jokes about the holocaust while being a Nazi, or make jokes about murdering gay men and eating parts of them while being Jeffrey Dahmer, it crosses a line.

That's what Erickson did.

You really are sheltered aren't you? Does that mean sickipedia is one of the most hate-filled sites in the world? Of course not. Erickson is just making a sick joke that wouldn't be out of line from sickipedia.

 

[uke2se]

You really are sheltered aren't you? Does that mean sickipedia is one of the most hate-filled sites in the world? Of course not. Erickson is just making a sick joke that wouldn't be out of line from sickipedia.

And his sick joke is wildly inappropriate, and he should be soundly criticized for it. That's what I'm doing.

No need for personal attacks, by the way.

ETA: Erickson is often on FOX News and is a widely known conservative blogger. He isn't sickipedia. Comparing them is extremely dishonest.

 

[A'isha]

Erickson is just making a sick joke that wouldn't be out of line from sickipedia.

That doesn't make Erickson's tweet better, it makes it worse.

 

[xjx388]

Are you one of the people who would be prevented from having an abortion by this law? In other words, a woman? If not, of course you "see no issue with that." In the final analysis, pregnancy is not an "issue" for you at all. Sorry, you don't get to say.

To say that men have nothing at stake is just ridiculous. Perhaps our bodies are not put at risk, but our rights to be or not to be a parent certainly are. That's one of the big problems I have with Roe; it frames the abortion question as solely one of "privacy" when there are actually a lot of other elements to the abortion question. But that's a topic for another thread. . .

I wish you could spend at least a year doing what I did for three years - being a problem pregnancy counselor. Women don't use contraception for a whole library of reasons.

One is that, in Texas, appropriations to support Planned Parenthood have been slashed past the bone. Planned Parenthood clinics were where many poor women went, not just for contraception, but for Pap smears and mammograms and all kinds of health information. Those locations that haven't had to close due to lack of funding have had to cut back clinic operations. Thanks to the Texas Republicans you seem to admire so much, now the last-ditch solution has also been taken from women. If you want to know why, please see this post.

There's no requirement to spend tax money on abortions. If Texans want abortions to be available, then they will make donations to PP and other agencies to keep them afloat. And for poor women, Medicaid continues to provide comprehensive benefits including family planning, pap smears, etc.

As far as the argument that some communities in Texas will not have access because they are more than 30 miles away from a hospital, the situation is actually no different now. A woman in Falfurrias does not have access to an abortion clinic within 60 miles. She has to drive to Edinburg/McAllen at the closest to find a clinic. The same is true throughout rural Texas. That has to do with the fact that an abortion clinic couldn't stay afloat in small communities.

Having said that, I do support the use of RU486 which I believe should be available from any doctor who is comfortable prescribing it.

Other reasons women don't get contraception include embarrassment, lack of information, and the fact that the men in their lives won't let them (yes, that happens, and then when the women get pregnant they are abused.) I counseled women who sneaked out of their homes to get abortions because of abusive relationships, ones that would not have been safe for their babies either.

Those are social problems that go beyond the abortion debate. They certainly need to be solved. But that still doesn't affect the fact that a viable fetus must be protected. Even the justices in Roe understood that.

I counseled teenagers who got pregnant out of ignorance, or because they were "good girls," and "good girls" don't plan to have sex, so they don't - can't - use contraception. I counseled women who fed their families with money they might have used on contraception, but it was either buy food or pay for pills (and, no, not having sex was not an option for them.)[/quote]How is having sex not an option? Are you saying they were being raped? If so, that's a different issue.

I counseled migrant workers who had no hope of keeping up with a contraceptive regimen. I counseled drug-addicted women who probably spent money they might have used on contraception to buy their drugs, but who at least had the sense not to bring a drug-addicted child into the world. I counseled women whose husbands left them when they got pregnant. And, of course, even the best contraception fails every now and then.

Again, the existence of social problems doesn't change the fact that a viable fetus should be protected.

It's very easy for you to sit wherever you are, not facing any of the myriad of problems that exist for women, especially poor women, and issue your moral judgments. You have no idea of the world that exists outside whatever sterile, privileged place you live in.

Sure I do. I was a teen dad. My girlfriend (now wife) had to choose between having a kid and taking a full-ride to Texas A&M. She chose the kid.

I feel for women in those situations and I think we need to find a way to make life better for them. But not at the expense of a viable baby.

 

[xjx388]

This is patently untrue.

How is it untrue?

There will be no more roadblocks than currently exist. I spoke earlier about rural areas already having a lack of abortion clinics. People already have to drive to larger cities to get them. No greater burden there.

Women will still have access to abortions, just only until 20 weeks. That isn't an undue burden.

So what is the greater burden?

 

[A'isha]

Perhaps our bodies are not put at risk, but our rights to be or not to be a parent certainly are.

The former trumps the latter.

There's no requirement to spend tax money on abortions. If Texans want abortions to be available, then they will make donations to PP and other agencies to keep them afloat.

And if that's insufficient, women are just SOL? And you say that with the full knowledge that you will never, ever have to worry about being affected one bit should Planned Parenthood be unable to pay for the care of all the women that need it?

And for poor women, Medicaid continues to provide comprehensive benefits including family planning, pap smears, etc.

The same Republican representative that sponsored this bill also wanted to take away CHIP coverage from pregnant women, because the fetuses those women were carrying didn't count for coverage because "they weren't born yet".

So I hope you'll forgive me for being less than convinced that women's health is still safe in Texas.

As far as the argument that some communities in Texas will not have access because they are more than 30 miles away from a hospital, the situation is actually no different now. A woman in Falfurrias does not have access to an abortion clinic within 60 miles. She has to drive to Edinburg/McAllen at the closest to find a clinic. The same is true throughout rural Texas. That has to do with the fact that an abortion clinic couldn't stay afloat in small communities.

How is "things are bad now" in any way, shape, or form a mitigating factor in for making them even worse?

Having said that, I do support the use of RU486 which I believe should be available from any doctor who is comfortable prescribing it.

So you plan to vote against candidates running for the Texas legislature which oppose this, yes?

 

[A'isha]

How is it untrue?

There will be no more roadblocks than currently exist. I spoke earlier about rural areas already having a lack of abortion clinics. People already have to drive to larger cities to get them. No greater burden there.

They will have fewer places they will be able to drive to and get them - longer journeys, longer waits, more roadblocks. Not to mention the explicit language in the bill that makes the administering of drugs for non-surgical medical abortions subject to the same "must be done at a clinic 30 miles from a hospital and given by a doctor with admitting privileges at the hospital" requirement as surgical abortions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We joke about sick stuff all the time. I mean, if people can make jokes out of the Holocaust or Jeffrey Dahmer, then as far as I am concerned, you can joke about anything.

Bring back the good old minstral show. Blackface is a lost art.