Texas bans abortion.

[newyorkguy]

But surely you realize that YOU are drawing lines where you feel comfortable doing so? Your lines are not really based on science. They are based on your own moral compass.

My point is simply that if a community decides to draw a different line than you do through it's democratic process, how is that necessarily and obviously wrong? <snip>

How is it wrong? Because the Supreme Court decided that women have a Constitutional right to abortion. Your community doesn't get the right to deny citizens their Constitutional rights because they're ones you don't happen to like. How about if your community decides to resegregate? How about if your community decides freedom of speech is totally overblown and unnecessary? Should you have the right to implement racial segregation and deny freedom of speech?

Finally, and I suspect you'll ignore this, how did Texas decide "through it's democratic process" to require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals? There was a referendum? The community voted on it? It seems to have been passed by the legislature primarily through lobbying by a special interest group. By the same special interest groups who have been attacking abortion all across the USA by requiring clinics to get admitting privileges at hospitals. Not because it's been shown to be necessary but because hospitals have shown they want to stay out of the abortion controversy. It's a tactic. In many conservative areas it has been highly effective in putting abortion clinics out of business, thereby denying local women their Constitutional right to seek an abortion.

 

[xjx388]

How is it wrong? Because the Supreme Court decided that women have a Constitutional right to abortion.

OK, sure . . . but their ruling applies only under the circumstances they were asked to judge. If a State were to adopt a law that, say, defined a fetus after 12 weeks as a person, that might pass muster.

Your community doesn't get the right to deny citizens their Constitutional rights because they're ones you don't happen to like.

Not because they simply don't like something but because they find it so objectionable that it is worthy of criminalizing; like strip bars in McAllen.

Of course, you are also overlooking extra-legislative measures that a community can take. What if no doctor in a rural community wants to perform abortions because they either object to them themselves or fear reprisals from their small community?

How about if your community decides to resegregate?

There is no compelling government interest in doing so. It wouldn't pass strict scrutiny. In the case of abortion, the compelling interest is protection of human life. If a fetus is legislatively made a person, then that person deserves protection.

How about if your community decides freedom of speech is totally overblown and unnecessary?

Speech is curtailed in many ways when there is a compelling government interest. Fire in a theater, libel and slander, etc.

Finally, and I suspect you'll ignore this, how did Texas decide "through it's democratic process" to require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals?

Through electing a legislature that would be likely to do such a thing.

There was a referendum? The community voted on it?

The community elected legislators who are very conservative. They used the legislative process in Texas to pass the law.

It seems to have been passed by the legislature primarily through lobbying by a special interest group. By the same special interest groups who have been attacking abortion all across the USA by requiring clinics to get admitting privileges at hospitals.

Special interest groups? You mean groups of citizens who get together to try and get their interests represented? That's the way the American form of government works. I don't see a problem here . . .

Not because it's been shown to be necessary but because hospitals have shown they want to stay out of the abortion controversy. It's a tactic. In many conservative areas it has been highly effective in putting abortion clinics out of business, thereby denying local women their Constitutional right to seek an abortion.

So hospitals are responding to the community? That sounds exactly like what I'm getting at.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Of course, you are also overlooking extra-legislative measures that a community can take. What if no doctor in a rural community wants to perform abortions because they either object to them themselves or fear reprisals from their small community?

You mean, like in Kansas, where they kill abortion doctors? Is that a good thing? Are you advocating vigilantism?

That's not a right, it is a distortion of a civilized society. Of course, I'm not surprised that conservatives really don't care for the rule of law. Any means to the ends of what they want.

 

[xjx388]

You mean, like in Kansas, where they kill abortion doctors? Is that a good thing? Are you advocating vigilantism?

Absolutely not. But in a community where feelings run strong on the matter it is a consideration for doctors.

That's not a right, it is a distortion of a civilized society. Of course, I'm not surprised that conservatives really don't care for the rule of law. Any means to the ends of what they want.

I mentioned pickets and boycotts. Those are the means to an end I was thinking of . . . they happen regularly here in my town. And now they've succeeded in driving away the last abortion clinic. There's no reason an abortion clinic couldn't operate here under the current law; it's all about community pressure. No murder necessary.

 

[cosmicaug]

Absolutely not. But in a community where feelings run strong on the matter it is a consideration for doctors.

I absolutely don't advocate vigilante action against businesses that don't serve blacks separately from whites but in a community where feelings run strongly on the matter it is a consideration for business owners.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip> Of course, you are also overlooking extra-legislative measures that a community can take. What if no doctor in a rural community wants to perform abortions because they either object to them themselves or fear reprisals from their small community?

Overlooking it? I have stated repeatedly -- as you're clearly demonstrating here -- that is the real rationale for requiring abortion clinics to gain hospital affiliation. That communities can then make life so miserable for the hospitals that they decline to allow a clinic to have admitting rights. Earlier you stated that if a clinic wouldn't undertake the upgrades necessary to comply with the Texas law they should be closed. I asked you what those upgrades were. You never answered. I'm suggesting there are no real upgrades, that it's all a political tactic that is backed up by, as you make so clear, the threat of reprisals to the hospital. Who can blame them? Your side has KILLED doctors over this. This is no parlor game.

So hospitals are responding to the community? That sounds exactly like what I'm getting at.

You mean, like in Kansas, where they kill abortion doctors? Is that a good thing? Are you advocating vigilantism?

Absolutely not. But in a community where feelings run strong on the matter it is a consideration for doctors.

You may not be advocating it but it certainly sounds like you're condoning it. You want to outlaw abortion and you're comfortable with the threat of violence to achieve that. At least have the decency to own up to it.

I absolutely don't advocate vigilante action against businesses that don't serve blacks separately from whites but in a community where feelings run strongly on the matter it is a consideration for business owners.

That's exactly what they said too. Back in that era a black activist named H. Rap Brown said that, "Violence is as American as apple pie." Still is.

 

[xjx388]

Overlooking it? I have stated repeatedly -- as you're clearly demonstrating here -- that is the real rationale for requiring abortion clinics to gain hospital affiliation.

Looking more closely at the law, the clinics don't have to gain affiliation; the doctors have to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. If my wife, for example, wanted to provide abortions (she doesn't) she could easily do so right now. We could rent a building that is currently available that conveniently used to be an ambulatory surgical center. Why doesn't Planned Parenthood do that?

The bigger problem is that not enough doctors here want to 1)Invest the money required to open a clinic and 2)Face the pickets that would ensue.

That communities can then make life so miserable for the hospitals that they decline to allow a clinic to have admitting rights.

Just about every doctor in the community has admitting privileges. This is a non-issue.

Earlier you stated that if a clinic wouldn't undertake the upgrades necessary to comply with the Texas law they should be closed. I asked you what those upgrades were. You never answered. I'm suggesting there are no real upgrades, that it's all a political tactic that is backed up by, as you make so clear, the threat of reprisals to the hospital. Who can blame them? Your side has KILLED doctors over this. This is no parlor game.

1)I personally support abortion rights. Thus, no one on "my side" has killed anyone. My only point is that States and local communities should have some say in what kinds of activities are legal or not if the restrictions pass strict scrutiny.

Do you think there is ever any reason to restrict otherwise legal activities? Alcohol sales? Gambling? Sexually oriented businesses? I can cross various City, County or State borders and engage in all of those activities under a wide variety of restrictions -or not at all . Why is abortion different?

2)The law requires clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgery clinics. Stuff like widening hallways and having certain equipment and capabilities. You can look them up if you want more detail. The point is that abortion clinics can upgrade their facilities if they want to operate. Abortion is a surgical procedure. I fail to see treating them as such as a bad thing. We did minor surgical procedures in our clinic and we had certain requirements that the Board, OSHA, etc placed on us. How is this different?

You may not be advocating it but it certainly sounds like you're condoning it. You want to outlaw abortion and you're comfortable with the threat of violence to achieve that. At least have the decency to own up to it.

Calm down a little . I have never advocated violence and I am not condoning it now. It's abhorrent. Any abortion opponent who resorts to murder is hypocritical. But any doctor/clinic has to exist in the reality they are in and those things are concerns. Here in South Texas, there haven't been murders but there have been plenty of pickets. It's tough to do business like that, especially when most of the population is Catholic and abhors the practice.

That's exactly what they said too. Back in that era a black activist named H. Rap Brown said that, "Violence is as American as apple pie." Still is.

It's human nature that when someone finds something abhorrent, they react violently. That isn't an exclusively American practice.

 

[newyorkguy]

New Texas Abortion Law Blocked by SCOTUS

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking Texas' new abortion law and protecting the health of hundreds of thousands of Texas women.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed more than a dozen Texas abortion clinics to reopen, blocking a state law that had imposed strict requirements on abortion providers. The Supreme Court’s order — five sentences long and with no explanation of the justices’ reasoning — represents an interim step in a legal fight that is far from over....One required all abortion clinics in the state to meet the standards for “ambulatory surgical centers,” including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing. The other required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The Supreme Court, in an unsigned order apparently reflecting the views of six justices, blocked the surgical-center requirement entirely and the admitting privileges requirement as it applied to clinics in McAllen, Tex., and El Paso. Link

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the final outcome was far from certain. "This fight against Texas’s sham abortion law is not over." She said the new law would've meant “over 900,000 Texas women of reproductive age, more than a sixth of all such women in Texas," would have lived more than 150 miles from the nearest Texas abortion clinic, an increase over the current 86,000. I agree it is clearly a sham law. If people want to deny women the right to have an abortion let them say so. I think it's beyond dishonest to pretend to be "protecting women's health" when the real motive is to deny them abortion services. Not because of safety concerns but because of philosophical differences.

 

[xjx388]

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking Texas' new abortion law and protecting the health of hundreds of thousands of Texas women.



Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the final outcome was far from certain. "This fight against Texas’s sham abortion law is not over." She said the new law would've meant “over 900,000 Texas women of reproductive age, more than a sixth of all such women in Texas," would have lived more than 150 miles from the nearest Texas abortion clinic, an increase over the current 86,000. I agree it is clearly a sham law. If people want to deny women the right to have an abortion let them say so. I think it's beyond dishonest to pretend to be "protecting women's health" when the real motive is to deny them abortion services. Not because of safety concerns but because of philosophical differences.

I'll ask again in another way . . . Why are philosophical differences not enough to base laws on? The only reason Texas has to have a "sham law" is because SCOTUS made it impossible for them to make a law based on the real rationale: valuing the human fetus as much as a human infant. You don't even need religion to have that rationale.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>
Do you think there is ever any reason to restrict otherwise legal activities? Alcohol sales? Gambling? Sexually oriented businesses? I can cross various City, County or State borders and engage in all of those activities under a wide variety of restrictions -or not at all . Why is abortion different?

Why is abortion different? Because of Roe v Wade?

You claimed

<snip> There are plenty of hospitals nearby and there is no reason that abortion clinics couldn't meet the requirements. If the owners of those clinics choose not to invest in the relatively minor upgrades to meet the law, then there must be good economic reasons for that. <snip>

You claimed, contrary to all the statements coming from pro-choice groups, that the new law merely required minor upgrades, that it was all about economics. Now you're claiming it's about widening hallways.

The law requires clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgery clinics. Stuff like widening hallways and having certain equipment and capabilities. You can look them up if you want more detail.

That's not what I'm seeing in news reports and if you are you need to show some cite for it and not tell me to prove your claim. Or you can admit you were misinformed.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip> The law requires clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgery clinics. Stuff like widening hallways and having certain equipment and capabilities. <snip>

If the Texas law was really about "widening hallways" I have trouble believing the U.S. Supreme Court would have blocked it.

 

[theprestige]

So has Texas banned abortions yet? Or can a woman whose life is endangered by her pregnancy still go into any hospital in the state and get one?

 

[fuelair]

Absolutely not. But in a community where feelings run strong on the matter it is a consideration for doctors.

I mentioned pickets and boycotts. Those are the means to an end I was thinking of . . . they happen regularly here in my town. And now they've succeeded in driving away the last abortion clinic. There's no reason an abortion clinic couldn't operate here under the current law; it's all about community pressure. No murder necessary.

I know I should not ask the name of your town, but I want to avoid it and others like it as if they were ebola centers. No funds, no purchasing, let them dry up and blow away. Since this is within the rules, I wish your town a slow strangling death.

Unfortunately (NOT) I do think every woman should have the absolute right to control her own body (note: there is no argument against this that can affect me - I came by it on the basis of finding out about abortion when I was around 10 (mid/early late 50's.) Haven't moved an inch since on that.

 

[fuelair]

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking Texas' new abortion law and protecting the health of hundreds of thousands of Texas women.



Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the final outcome was far from certain. "This fight against Texas’s sham abortion law is not over." She said the new law would've meant “over 900,000 Texas women of reproductive age, more than a sixth of all such women in Texas," would have lived more than 150 miles from the nearest Texas abortion clinic, an increase over the current 86,000. I agree it is clearly a sham law. If people want to deny women the right to have an abortion let them say so. I think it's beyond dishonest to pretend to be "protecting women's health" when the real motive is to deny them abortion services. Not because of safety concerns but because of philosophical differences.

Though I hate saying this given the many evils allowed by 5 ******** on the formerly Supreme Court, but they made a proper decision on this - but I strongly suspect from their past foulness that they used wording in the decision that will allow it to become law easily with their treachery and complicity.

 

[fuelair]

Or, in short, protecting women's health my rectum!!!!!

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you can't afford to drive a several hundred miles and take a few days off work you shouldn't be having sex. It is like those irresponsible people who choose not to buy health insurance even though they have a serious long term health problems despite pulling in 9000 a year.

They best die and decrease the worthless population. #Compassionateconservatism.

 

[xjx388]

Why is abortion different? Because of Roe v Wade?

That could be overturned or bypassed with the right legislation. I'm asking more on a philosophical basis.

You claimed

You claimed, contrary to all the statements coming from pro-choice groups, that the new law <snip>

I responded to the claims of the pro-choice groups that have been cited. I haven't seen any of them itemize the changes that need to be made and why they've decided not to pursue it. That's on them to show. I only say that the regulations in question, which are easily available online, are about physical structure and medical operations and would not require huge capital investments. They could simply lease one of the current buildings available that meets the requirements. That they don't tells me that there isn't much money in providing abortions in our area and thus, no incentive to spend even moderate amounts to continue doing business.

The real problem isn't that it's too expensive to upgrade, it's that Texas is a large, mostly rural State with a strong Conservative constituency. There aren't enough doctors willing to perform abortions and on top of that, not enough women who want abortions. And there aren't enough communities that will allow a "murder factory" to operate without interference.

There is nothing in Texas law that prevents OB-Gyns from performing abortions in a hospital setting. Why don't more doctors do that? Even before this law, any doctor could have performed abortions in their offices. Why didn't they? The answer to both questions is the same: Mostly because doctors have a moral objection to it. Abortions have never been easily available in Texas.

A woman might have a constitutional right to seek an abortion but no one can be forced to give her one.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That could be overturned or bypassed with the right legislation. I'm asking more on a philosophical basis.

I responded to the claims of the pro-choice groups that have been cited. I haven't seen any of them itemize the changes that need to be made and why they've decided not to pursue it. That's on them to show. I only say that the regulations in question, which are easily available online, are about physical structure and medical operations and would not require huge capital investments. They could simply lease one of the current buildings available that meets the requirements. That they don't tells me that there isn't much money in providing abortions in our area and thus, no incentive to spend even moderate amounts to continue doing business.

The real problem isn't that it's too expensive to upgrade, it's that Texas is a large, mostly rural State with a strong Conservative constituency. There aren't enough doctors willing to perform abortions and on top of that, not enough women who want abortions. And there aren't enough communities that will allow a "murder factory" to operate without interference.

There is nothing in Texas law that prevents OB-Gyns from performing abortions in a hospital setting. Why don't more doctors do that? Even before this law, any doctor could have performed abortions in their offices. Why didn't they? The answer to both questions is the same: Mostly because doctors have a moral objection to it. Abortions have never been easily available in Texas.

A woman might have a constitutional right to seek an abortion but no one can be forced to give her one.

Yep abortion is one of the few procedures you can let patients legally die from the want of. That is how catholic hospitals avoid providing proper treatment for ectopic pregnancy, because that is an abortion and those are never ok. Standards of care means nothing in the face of moral objections after all.

 

[newyorkguy]

I responded to the claims of the pro-choice groups that have been cited. I haven't seen any of them itemize the changes that need to be made and why they've decided not to pursue it.

It is incredible to me that you continue to ignore this despite the fact it involves the very clinic you were so happy to see shutdown:

Since November [2013], the last abortion clinics in East Texas and the Rio Grande Valley, some of the poorest and most remote parts of the state, have been hanging on by their fingernails. The two clinics, both outposts of a network of abortion providers called Whole Woman’s Health, stayed open with slimmed-down staffs while their owner, Amy Hagstrom Miller, struggled to comply with the first chunk of HB2—the voluminous anti-choice law passed by the Texas legislature last summer—which requires abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital. Today, after weeks of failed negotiations with nearby hospitals, Hagstrom Miller announced that both clinics are closing their doors. The clinics in Beaumont, about an hour east of Houston, and McAllen, just north of the Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley, were the last rural abortion providers left in Texas..

I only say that the regulations in question, which are easily available online, are about physical structure and medical operations and would not require huge capital investments.

You keep referring to the regulations, now you're saying they're easily available online, yet you steadfastly refuse to even provide a link. This is the anybody can say anything if they don't have to back it up rule. In all honesty I keep insisting you provide something because I suspect if you start looking you'll discover the situation is not as you think it to be.

 

[cosmicaug]

There is nothing in Texas law that prevents OB-Gyns from performing abortions in a hospital setting. Why don't more doctors do that? Even before this law, any doctor could have performed abortions in their offices. Why didn't they? The answer to both questions is the same: Mostly because doctors have a moral objection to it. Abortions have never been easily available in Texas.

Hospital administrators have no say in the matter?