Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

ponderingturtle said:
Being against it was universal in michigan primaries recently. It is certainly next.
Click to expand...
And when the same people who propose this propose abortion bans, the people who say pregnancy is the fault of mothers not taking adequate precautions they will shrug it off on the grounds that neither law has any context. After all, the fact that Tweedledum and Tweedledee appeared together today isn't related to whether they did yesterday, nor does it prove they will tomorrow.
 
bruto said:
And when the same people who propose this propose abortion bans, the people who say pregnancy is the fault of mothers not taking adequate precautions they will shrug it off on the grounds that neither law has any context. After all, the fact that Tweedledum and Tweedledee appeared together today isn't related to whether they did yesterday, nor does it prove they will tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I think they'll just go back to "shoulda kept your legs closed".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Stacyhs said:
And nary a word to the guys because "boys will be boys" and it's "normal" for men.
Click to expand...
Besides, pregnancy, according to some of the wise folks who know stuff like that, doesn't happen in cases of "legitimate rape!"

And, of course, what you're wearing....what do you expect? Like the realistically portrayed fellow in Ragtime, I could only burst out of the closet, dragged against my will by my throbbing manhood. If only those dirty Ay-rabs hadn't gotten the jump on us we'd be able to put your kind in hijabs, but of course we'd have to call them something else. The future patriarchs of Gilead will have to go through me though, because I have the market sewed up. As we speak, sweatshops throughout Malaysia and Viet Nam are stockpiling the coming fashion: Freedom wimples!
 
I wonder how a private citizen could have enough information to sue someone for getting an abortion? Aren't medical records private? What evidence could one gather?

"Mary was pregnant last month and now she isn't. I know she flew to California to supposedly visit a sick friend. Someone should investigate this...."

Who is going to bother to investigate this? I can't believe how stupid and spiteful people can be.

ETA: Will there be TV commercials?

"If you or someone you know has heard of someone having an abortion, call the Schwartz and Sphincter Law Firm, NOW! **** Mesothelioma, we're going after the real problems!'
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
MAGA: a time machine to the glorious past when men were (straight) men and women knew their place: in the kitchen, barefoot, and pregnant!
Click to expand...


Mister, we could could use a man like Hoibet Hoova agaaaaaiiin!!!
 
mgidm86 said:
I wonder how a private citizen could have enough information to sue someone for getting an abortion? Aren't medical records private? What evidence could one gather?

"Mary was pregnant last month and now she isn't. I know she flew to California to supposedly visit a sick friend. Someone should investigate this...."

Who is going to bother to investigate this? I can't believe how stupid and spiteful people can be.

ETA: Will there be TV commercials?

"If you or someone you know has heard of someone having an abortion, call the Schwartz and Sphincter Law Firm, NOW! **** Mesothelioma, we're going after the real problems!'
Click to expand...
Barratry as a political strategy. If you can't win the case, it doesn't matter if you can do enough damage losing.
 
To poke at another related bill... Louisiana!

The new Louisiana bill has amended the current law's language to make sure abortion criminalization covers ectopic pregnancies.

Oh, and they invoke God in the language as well. Read it.
Click to expand...

If you do want to read it... Here's a link.

Ahh, such a fine choice. Be convicted as a murderer or die.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
To poke at another related bill... Louisiana!
The new Louisiana bill has amended the current law's language to make sure abortion criminalization covers ectopic pregnancies.
Click to expand...

Oh, and they invoke God in the language as well. Read it.


If you do want to read it... Here's a link.

Ahh, such a fine choice. Be convicted as a murderer or die.
Click to expand...

Well, well so they are basically outlawing, in this case and perhaps in others, performing an abortion even to save the mothers life or at the very least from serious threat of death.

The sadism, cruelty involved here is something else. Warp 12 do you have anything to say about this? Or is owning the Libs good enough?
 
Clarence Thomas said recently something about people have to learn to live and accept Court decisions.

This from a Man whose wife was involved, certainly with his knowledge and likely his full approval, in the efforts of his wife to support Trump voiding the 2020 election. (Not accepting court decisions here.)

But more on point. This from a man who wants to, with bated breath overturn previous legal decisions he can't live with. (Roe and Lovejoy for example.)

And of course did Pro-Lifers learn to live with and accept Roe? Nope years of effort are paying off - so much for living and accepting it. So why the hell should Pro-Choicers accept the overturning of Roe?
 
Aridas said:
To poke at another related bill... Louisiana!



If you do want to read it... Here's a link.

Ahh, such a fine choice. Be convicted as a murderer or die.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it when I was skimming the bill but I didn't see anything about ectopic pregnancies, just changing the bill to take out 'implantation' as part of the description of 'pregnancy' and to define the egg as a 'person' and 'human being' from the moment of fertilization. I saw nothing about exceptions for any reason. Would that be in the original bill? It wouldn't surprise me one bit for them to not allow abortions in the case of rape or incest, but even in the case of the woman's life being endangered?
 
slyjoe said:
Maybe in Texas, but there are other states where if Roe is overturned, trigger laws take effect which make abortion criminal.
Click to expand...
At the time of the post you quoted, the resident expert on US constitutional law was posting about something completely different.
 
Stacyhs said:
Maybe I missed it when I was skimming the bill but I didn't see anything about ectopic pregnancies, just changing the bill to take out 'implantation' as part of the description of 'pregnancy' and to define the egg as a 'person' and 'human being' from the moment of fertilization. I saw nothing about exceptions for any reason. Would that be in the original bill? It wouldn't surprise me one bit for them to not allow abortions in the case of rape or incest, but even in the case of the woman's life being endangered?
Click to expand...

To poke at the summary, there's also -

Present law authorizes the defense of justification in certain circumstances, including when
any crime, except murder, is committed through the compulsion of threats by another of
death or great bodily harm, and the offender reasonably believes the person making the
threats is present and would immediately carry out the threats if the crime were not
committed.
Proposed law amends the above present law defense of justification to exclude murder where
the victim is not an unborn child.
Click to expand...

To take that generously, women are allowed to be defended in court as maybe having justification, even if their actions are "otherwise criminal." So not necessarily an instant conviction if you've got the money (or, given Louisiana, the right color of skin). They're still "murderers," though. I do admit that I could be confused with some of the specifics of the legalese, of course. Either way, removing "implantation" is more directly an attack on contraceptives (and potentially some early pregnancy loss that involved failures to implant, given the flow of things).

With that said, there's also this little bit -

Proposed law provides that pursuant to the powers granted to the Legislature by present
constitution (Art. X, Part III), any judge of this state who purports to enjoin, stay, overrule,
or void any provision of proposed law shall be subject to impeachment or removal.
Click to expand...

That's quite the attempt to cow the state judicial branch. It already declares itself to supersede Roe V Wade and any other relevant federal court rulings and any federal law, of course.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom