Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[xjx388]

You're certainly being punished if someone decides that if you don't seek treatment for your herpes within a very narrow window, then you can never receive treatment and will have to live with untreated herpes for the rest of your life.

That is curious logic. I got herpes because I had unprotected sex. I will never get rid of it as it's incurable. There is no available treatment other than anti-virals which aren't all that effective. And there are no barriers to getting that treatment. If my insurance won't pay for it, they aren't punishing me. If anything, I'm punishing myself by having engaged in a risky behavior.

Are drug addicts punished by society or by their own choices?

There are plenty of victims in the world; we don't need to create any more.

If she feels she is unable to care for a child, either mentally, emotionally, or financially. If she does not want to go through the very real risks to her life and body that pregnancy and childbirth entail. If

Neither of those things are necessities. They are choices. The same woman could go either way. When my GF was 17 and had a full ride to A&M she very well could have chosen that she wasn't ready. But she didn't.

I would define, "need" as, "if the woman does not get an abortion there is an excellent chance she would die." And that eventuality is so rare in this modern age of medicine as to be negligible.

Again, if women aren't ready to accept the responsibilities that go along with pregnancy, they need to either reassess if they are ready to have sex or decide to use effective contraception. It really is that simple. Saying, "but she has to have sex and she can't find contraceptives," is pretty ridiculous.

Don't tell me, "Tell a rape victim that." We both know I'm not talking about rape. I support the right to abortion in the even of rape, but even then 20 weeks is plenty of time to make the decision.

The problems being artificial, politically imposed problems are, well, the problem.

You'll note that cosmetic surgery clinics and vasectomy clinics are entirely exempt from the "ambulatory surgery" requirements, so this has nothing to do with ensuring that outpatient clinics "adhere to the same standards of cleanliness and safety as that of surgical centers".

Vasectomies can be preformed safely in an office setting. Surgical abortions can mostly be, but there's nothing wrong with ensuring safety for those instances where a complication arises. I think that the clinics in question can make the necessary changes, especially if all concerned Texans donated towards that goal.

It's all about putting as many roadblocks and burdens on abortion as they can get away with.

Perhaps, but I don't think the requirement to meet ASC requirement is onerous.

As for the 30 mile range to a hospital: Let's say serious complications happen in .5% of abortion cases. There are around 84,000 women who get abortions in Texas. This means that around 4200 women that experience serious complications that require further surgery or hospitalization. Does it make any sense to you that these 4000+ women should be more than 30 miles away from a hospital?

That may seem onerous to you, for some reason, but to those 4000 women, they will be very happy they got to a hospital quickly.

Not in the case in Ireland. The entire reason Savita Halappanavar was refused an abortion was because the fetus wasn't dead yet. She ended up dying before the fetus fully miscarried.

Again, I'm not arguing about Ireland. I agree that's pretty sick. But that doesn't happen in the US.

Savita Halappanavar didn't. That's why she wanted an abortion.



It also requires that the doctors make every effort to save the life of the fetus. Just like the doctors in Ireland were doing, in fact.

At the expense of Savita Halappanavar's life.

The law specifically exempts medical risk to the mother. Start a thread about the horrors of abortion in Ireland.

Which says more about your concerns and those of the national media than it does about pro-choice activists, who have been making as much noise as we can about things like this in multiple states (as well as starting threads here at the JREF Forum).

Like I said, I guess I missed it.

 

[xjx388]

I find it hilarious that xjx argues against the negative consequences of these laws by showing places where similar laws are being delayed due to lawsuits and "the laws do go into effect until 2014 and a lot can happen before then."

It begs the question. Is he for or against these laws?

I personally am generally for these laws. I don't think the State should be in the business of providing abortions. But I also wouldn't be against RU486 being widely available and OCs being OTC. I also feel for women who are in bad situations and donate to PP regularly. It's just not appropriate activity for the State.

 

[xjx388]

Does effectively reducing the number of abortion clinics make it easier or harder to get an abortion. Answer honestly and don't try to play stupid.

Harder. But to what degree? In Texas, very slightly.

Yes you have. Completely.



Fine. You missed the point that an unwanted pregnancy isn't aided by contraceptives.

They would have stopped it if they were used properly. Wide dissemination of contraceptives along with education about their use would lower the amounts of unwanted pregnancies, which is why I support such initiatives.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think the State should be in the business of providing abortions.

I think you and I have debated this before so we don't need to do it again. I would just like to voice my opinion that the State, is not in the abortion business. I have argued that the law prohibits the State from funding abortions. IIRC, you argued that federal funds are fungible and therefore any funds that flow from the federal govt to planned parenthood is defacto State involvement of abortion (if I'm confusing you for someone else I ask your forgiveness).

In short, while I would not personally mind that the State is in the business of abortions I respect the right of others who don't agree. However, I don't accept the proposition that the State is in the abortion business.

 

[RandFan]

Are drug addicts punished by society or by their own choices?

I would respond that it's a false dichotomy. They can be punished by both.

In any event, IMO, the question that needs to be addressed is whether or not society is better off with or without providing resources for treatment. I suspect you and I are reasonably close in our position here. The difference might be in whether or not it's reasonable to mandate insurance to cover treatment and whether or not it's reasonable to mandate that businesses carry such coverage. I don't mean to put words in your mouth though. Just a guess.

 

[uke2se]

Harder. But to what degree? In Texas, very slightly.

Really? Could you put a percentage on it, knowing how many abortion clinics there are now versus how many will remain?

Also, are you now willing to admit that this makes it harder to have an abortion in Texas?

They would have stopped it if they were used properly.

No. Once you're pregnant, a contraceptive can't help you get un-pregnant.

Wide dissemination of contraceptives along with education about their use would lower the amounts of unwanted pregnancies, which is why I support such initiatives.

I agree, but we're discussing what happens after contraceptives have stopped being useful, i.e, when the woman is pregnant.

 

[Dr. Keith]

This means that around 4200 women that experience serious complications that require further surgery or hospitalization. Does it make any sense to you that these 4000+ women should be more than 30 miles away from a hospital?

That may seem onerous to you, for some reason, but to those 4000 women, they will be very happy they got to a hospital quickly.

Did you miss the point up-thread that giving birth in Texas is many times more dangerous than having an abortion? And yet, no legal requirement that said birth happen in or near a hospital, or even a clinic, in fact you don't even need a doctor.

So, I don't think your reasoning is in line with the legislature's or they would have fixed that problem first. Low hanging fruit and all.

 

[Dessi]

That is curious logic. I got herpes because I had unprotected sex. I will never get rid of it as it's incurable. There is no available treatment other than anti-virals which aren't all that effective. And there are no barriers to getting that treatment. If my insurance won't pay for it, they aren't punishing me. If anything, I'm punishing myself by having engaged in a risky behavior. [...]

Again, if women aren't ready to accept the responsibilities that go along with pregnancy, they need to either reassess if they are ready to have sex or decide to use effective contraception. It really is that simple. Saying, "but she has to have sex and she can't find contraceptives," is pretty ridiculous.

I think everyone agrees that people who don't want to become parents really should try to avoid unprotected sex. I'm just having trouble seeing the logic connecting the statement "you should try to avoid unprotected sex to you won't get pregnant" to "because you couldn't avoid pregnancy, you should be ineligible for abortion".

Its just not clear why the permissibility of abortion is in any way dependent on anyone's willingness or unwillingness to accept parenthood as a consequence of pregnancy

 

[A'isha]

That is curious logic. I got herpes because I had unprotected sex. I will never get rid of it as it's incurable. There is no available treatment other than anti-virals which aren't all that effective.

There are still treatments, however.

And there are no barriers to getting that treatment. If my insurance won't pay for it, they aren't punishing me.

Yes, exactly. Unlike abortions in Texas under this bill, which erects barriers even if the woman wants to pay out-of-pocket.

There are plenty of victims in the world; we don't need to create any more.

And yet the Republicans in Texas insist on doing so.

Neither of those things are necessities. They are choices.

Since you will never have to face that situation in your entire life, you don't get to decide what does or doesn't count as a necessity for those who do have to face that situation.

The same woman could go either way. When my GF was 17 and had a full ride to A&M she very well could have chosen that she wasn't ready. But she didn't.

And if she had, that would be her business, not yours.

I would define, "need" as, "if the woman does not get an abortion there is an excellent chance she would die."

Yes, and that definition is part of the problem. It dismisses everything else that the pregnant woman wants, thinks, needs, or feels. Her entire being is completely subordinated to existence as a fetal incubator, giving her literally no say in what happens to her own body.

Again, if women aren't ready to accept the responsibilities that go along with pregnancy, they need to either reassess if they are ready to have sex or decide to use effective contraception. It really is that simple. Saying, "but she has to have sex and she can't find contraceptives," is pretty ridiculous.

As has already been pointed out to you, even contraceptives aren't infallible.

And your words above are pretty much "women need to be punished for having sex, because if they didn't have sex they wouldn't be in this predicament which is why we need to make sure they have to suffer the consequences".

Vasectomies can be preformed safely in an office setting. Surgical abortions can mostly be, but there's nothing wrong with ensuring safety for those instances where a complication arises.

Why don't you apply that same logic to vasectomies and cosmetic surgery? Or maxilofacial surgeons? [EDIT: Or, as Dr. Keith points out, to births]

Perhaps, but I don't think the requirement to meet ASC requirement is onerous.

And that's pretty irrelevant to the reality facing the clinics, who are the ones who have to find they money to meet those requirements.

Does it make any sense to you that these 4000+ women should be more than 30 miles away from a hospital?

As much as it makes sense for patients at vasectomy clinics, cosmetic surgery clinics, or oral surgery patients. It, again, has nothing to do with safety...when asked why abortion clinics were being subjected to these requirements while places that performed other types of outpatient surgery were exempt, do you know what the Republican legislators said? "We're going to address that issue next", perhaps? Or even something akin to your "Does it make any sense to you that these 4000+ women should be more than 30 miles away from a hospital" argument above?

Nope. They said abortion clinics were singled out for the following reason: “What makes this procedure special as opposed to a vasectomy or a plastic surgery is that we’re ending a human life.”

Again, I'm not arguing about Ireland. I agree that's pretty sick. But that doesn't happen in the US.

Because of our abortion laws. Laws which are being eroded by Republicans and being brought closer and closer to the way things are in Ireland.

The law specifically exempts medical risk to the mother. Start a thread about the horrors of abortion in Ireland.

There already is one.

 

[Lowpro]

You are right. Even if I were a woman, such an event wouldn't happen in the US. Miscarriages are different from abortions. There are absolutely no restrictions in the US that would deny a woman proper medical care in the even of a miscarriage.

Nope. That's a "trigger" law. It is completely useless and unenforceable unless Roe v Wade is overturned or the Federal gov passes a law that allows states to ban abortion. That is never likely to happen. And there is no doubt that Conservatives would rush to pass laws to ban abortion if that ever actually did happen; they are just getting ahead of the game here.

It's funny . . . other States have passed these "trigger" laws but no one ever made a big deal before.

Translation: "it tastes like chicken so it can't be crow" *goes for seconds*

 

[Elizabeth I]

If they didn't want the pregnancy they should have:
1)Not had sex.
2)Used contraceptives.
3)Had an abortion within the allowed framework.

You persist in ignoring the many social and cultural factors which mean:

1) Women often DON'T GET THE CHOICE TO SAY "yes" or "no" to sex. And, again, I'm not talking just about rape.

2) Women are often prevented from using contraception, or simply do not know where and how to get it.

3) Women delay seeking abortions for any number of reasons: simple denial that they are pregnant; fear of what their parents will say; fear of exposing themselves as victims of incest or rape; fear of punishment by their significant others; lack of knowledge about how to initiate the process...the list goes on and on.

You seem determined to remain indifferent about any of these factors and the problems they cause.

And, yes, Rick Perry, Gregg Abbott, et al., are certainly concerned only about the health of the Texas population:

Texas Sen. Wendy Davis is calling for quick action by Gov. Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to help investigate government oversight failures that allowed a chain of hospitals to jeopardize patients over the last four years and engage in potential fraud.

http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/...ying-gov-perry-others-have-broken-faith.html/

 

[SezMe]

If they didn't want the pregnancy they should have:
1)Not had sex.
2)Used contraceptives.
3)Had an abortion within the allowed framework.

Of course, because humans are inherently logical creatures. Emotions, including fear and horniness, just never occur to our species.

And this, mind you, from a guy who himself let emotions control his behavior to such an extent that it has affected the rest of his (and others) life.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If they didn't want the pregnancy they should have:
1)Not had sex.
2)Used contraceptives.
3)Had an abortion within the allowed framework.

4) not gotten raped
5) not be intimidated by their fathers to have sex
6) get pregnancy tests every week if they are having sex
7) stay in the kitchen where they belong.

 

[RandFan]

If they didn't want the pregnancy they should have:
1)Not had sex.
2)Used contraceptives.
3)Had an abortion within the allowed

4) not gotten raped
5) not be intimidated by their fathers to have sex
6) get pregnancy tests every week if they are having sex
7) stay in the kitchen where they belong.

Iran kills homosexuals. If Iranian homosexuals don't want to be hanged in the village square they ought not have sex.

I'm sorry xjx but that's not at all a compelling argument. The ability to appreciate the consequences of one's actions should be part of our moral reasoning, but we need to also take into account our nature. Human psychology and human nature are not as black and white as you make out. Further, as thaiboxerken has pointed out, there are circumstances beyond the control of many women and many girls.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That 11 yr old rape victim who is pregnant and wants an abortion needs to make sure she reports the rape right away and choose to have an abortion before she's 6 weeks pregnant. If she doesn't, oh well, her fault. OH, and if she want's government assistance, she should've thought of that before getting raped.

 

[xjx388]

I think everyone agrees that people who don't want to become parents really should try to avoid unprotected sex. I'm just having trouble seeing the logic connecting the statement "you should try to avoid unprotected sex to you won't get pregnant" to "because you couldn't avoid pregnancy, you should be ineligible for abortion".

Its just not clear why the permissibility of abortion is in any way dependent on anyone's willingness or unwillingness to accept parenthood as a consequence of pregnancy

I guess the bottom line for me is that the life that is conceived is valuable and it deserves protecting. Therefore, if you don't want a baby, you should take all the precautions necessary so that you won't conceive -even if that means not having sex. But once you conceive that life, it shouldn't be so easy to destroy it; its not a waste product or parasite that can be discarded.

So, while I think abortions should be legal and safe, I don't think they should be widely available. I would much rather women use Plan B and RU486, during the early stages when viability isn't an issue.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's right, xjx, make that 11 yr old rape victim have the rapists baby!

 

[Lowpro]

I guess the bottom line for me is that the life that is conceived is valuable and it deserves protecting. Therefore, if you don't want a baby, you should take all the precautions necessary so that you won't conceive -even if that means not having sex. But once you conceive that life, it shouldn't be so easy to destroy it; its not a waste product or parasite that can be discarded.

So, while I think abortions should be legal and safe, I don't think they should be widely available. I would much rather women use Plan B and RU486, during the early stages when viability isn't an issue.

I get that. It's dumb. If you don't want a baby you can: Avoid sex, take OC, get early abortion medications or procedures but once it comes down to viability...something that literally has NO meaning other than a survival percentage and has NOTHING at all to do with ANY actual measure other than that don't you think that is dishonest to yourself? Everything before was discretionary to the pregnant woman but all of a sudden that discretion gets marginalized in favor of a survival percentage (one that's not even dictated by a healthcare professional by the way. It's dictated by a court decision), one that actually isn't proportionate to the care the mother and infant get throughout pregnancy. You realize that, right?

So again, what if instead of a 28 week abortion we have a 28 week hysterotomy. One that is extremely dangerous to the pregnant woman, and one that'll REALLY put your silly viability claim up to task. It's like an abortion but instead of ending the life of the unborn it excises it from the mother with the intention of keeping it alive. Doctors will do all they can to keep it alive, but what do you think is going to happen. Even if it lives...it's screwed. You're going to have to embrace reality over idealism here, viability is relative to the pregnancy itself. It is ALL dependent on the mother, whether she wants it or not; plenty of "viable" births end up dead. Viability is a smokescreen in the legal sense, it always has been. So I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only honest position is whether discretion over the pregnancy lies with the dynamic of the pregnant woman any any available care she receives, or with some prick in a suit.


I think abortions should be safe and legal with its use discretionary to the woman and her healthcare provider. I also hope that it's never used anymore because as I've said, its use is tertiary care; that'd be like going to the emergency room for diabetes complications because you never had the healthcare initiatives to control your diabetes in the first place (an EXTREMELY common problem here in Alabama). But no one would ever say no to such a health issue, no one would turn that person away because they didn't take care of themselves till that point.

But pricks in suits think otherwise. And I don't see any of them getting out of their ivory towers to go to those women and talk to them. I don't see them covering that woman's hospital bills for her and adopting the baby outright. If they valued the unborn's life so much you'd think that'd be what they would promote. I don't see any laws mandating adoption of those babies. And from what I've seen of Texas and their moves against WIC programs you'd think they were trying to win the "Hypocrite of the Year Award".

 

[lionking]

I guess the bottom line for me is that the life that is conceived is valuable and it deserves protecting. Therefore, if you don't want a baby, you should take all the precautions necessary so that you won't conceive -even if that means not having sex. But once you conceive that life, it shouldn't be so easy to destroy it; its not a waste product or parasite that can be discarded.

If the group of cells soon after conception are "life" then so too is a fingernail clipping. Texan Republicans and some in this thread want to treat them the same.

 

[xjx388]

There are still treatments, however.

Yes, exactly. Unlike abortions in Texas under this bill, which erects barriers even if the woman wants to pay out-of-pocket.

There are no barriers to abortion that didn't exist before. Many rural communities have never had an abortion clinic. A woman living in Presidio, TX is 250 miles from the nearest one (although I guess she could cross the border). That won't change and neither will the situation for most of rural Texas.

It's also economics. It makes no economic sense to put an abortion clinic anywhere near a town like Presidio or even a bigger city like Del Rio (150 miles from San Antonio).

Since you will never have to face that situation in your entire life, you don't get to decide what does or doesn't count as a necessity for those who do have to face that situation.

"Need" is a word. It has an accepted definition. The definition is not dependent on the gender of the speaker. You need to drink water. You need to eat. One never needs to have sex and abortion is only necessary in extremely rare cases.

And if she had, that would be her business, not yours.

Uh, no. That was my baby she was cooking. She respected me enough to make the decision together. I guess she could have done it on her own, but that would have hurt our relationship.

Yes, and that definition is part of the problem. It dismisses everything else that the pregnant woman wants, thinks, needs, or feels. Her entire being is completely subordinated to existence as a fetal incubator, giving her literally no say in what happens to her own body.

"Literally no say?" Come on . . . She has all the say in the world. She could simply choose to not use her body to have sex or she could give her body contraceptives; then her body doesn't have to be an incubator.

There's no getting around the fact that sex=risk of pregnancy.

As has already been pointed out to you, even contraceptives aren't infallible.

And your words above are pretty much "women need to be punished for having sex, because if they didn't have sex they wouldn't be in this predicament which is why we need to make sure they have to suffer the consequences".

If you say so...

Why don't you apply that same logic to vasectomies and cosmetic surgery? Or maxilofacial surgeons? [EDIT: Or, as Dr. Keith points out, to births]

Vasectomies carry minuscule risk; there are no deaths related to vasectomy. What kind of cosmetic surgery? And MF surgeons fall under Dental rules and have their own licensing requirements.

As much as it makes sense for patients at vasectomy clinics, cosmetic surgery clinics, or oral surgery patients.

You aren't getting it. thats 4000 who had a complication serious enough that a hospital was needed. Don't you think abortion clinics should be near hospitals give this fact?

Nope. They said abortion clinics were singled out for the following reason: “What makes this procedure special as opposed to a vasectomy or a plastic surgery is that we’re ending a human life.”

Ok. Where's the problem?