Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 117427 times)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #251 on: January 06, 2020, 10:13:45 AM »
I need a citation on what % of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortion.

Not easy to determine.  They include abortion under "Medical services", the largest one of the 63% of the budget.  The main part of "Non-medical program services" (18%) is the promotion of abortion.

I don't think you will be able to separate abortion from the rest of what they do; it is a big part of all of it.  They are the nation's largest provider of "abortion services".  They gave up federal funding rather than giving up abortion when given the choice.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/facts-figures

2015 (the latest year data is available):

Medical services (63%)

The essential health care services Planned Parenthood provides, like: STD testing and treatment, birth control, well-woman exams, cancer screening and prevention, abortion, hormone therapy, infertility services, and general health care.

Non-medical program services (18%) ...

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Common Sense Abortion Control
« Reply #252 on: January 26, 2020, 10:32:06 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Common Sense Abortion Control
« Reply #253 on: January 27, 2020, 06:16:49 AM »
Besides the intended analogy, the proposals are perfectly valid.

The correct analogy (IMO) of guns to abortion would to legalize the shooting of immediate family for any reason, not just the owning of the gun for self protection.

My mom believed in the mother's right to choose until the child reaches age 18.  It's a more informed and thought through decision than aborting before birth.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #254 on: January 27, 2020, 02:35:46 PM »
Awesome meme!


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
CA judge orders vid-journalists to pay PP $13.6M
« Reply #256 on: December 26, 2020, 08:55:38 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/24/california-judge-orders-video-journalists-to-pay-13-6-m-to-planned-parenthood/ 

I find the successful prosecution of this case incomprehensible.  In legal terms, what the hell happened?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
whistle blowers
« Reply #257 on: December 26, 2020, 09:05:10 AM »
are only sacred "patriots"
if they work for the Democrat party

I hope they can appeal

here is the abortion judge :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Orrick_III

guess who appointed him
of course


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: NRO: Overturn Roe
« Reply #261 on: May 19, 2021, 10:02:56 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/overturn-roe/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202021-05-18&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart

Heartbeat 18 days from conception.  Can feel pain, same.  Either it's a life or it's denial of science.

States can regulate when an animal can be killed but not an unborn human?  Which article says that?

Tennessee law bans abortions after 15 weeks except “in a medical emergency or in case of a severe fetal abnormality.”  Seems like a generous compromise, pro-choice the first 15 weeks.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #263 on: May 24, 2021, 08:25:15 AM »
"All the same, a post-Roe world is apt to be less congenial to the GOP that craves it, and not nearly as challenging to the Democratic Party that doesn’t."

This seems like obvious conclusion

Pew research
survey
( I don't trust most surveys anymore but)

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #264 on: May 24, 2021, 07:48:12 PM »
Conservatives have known all along, it is not for political gain that you end the right of liberals to slaughter their young.

On the other side of it, if the world was suddenly ruled by personal responsibility, who would  that favor?

From the article:  "...the issue of abortion is not about politics but about right and wrong."

That is the heart of it, no pun intended.

The Kentucky law allows abortions up to 15 weeks, meaning a woman(?) has been carrying a different person's beating heart in her for over 3 months.  Sounds like a pro-choice law to me, if a woman really does have control over her own body.

The Left is afraid of incrementalism or slippery slope.  If they lose this one, they fear losing more and more.  They ought to know; they wrote the book on rights eroded by incrementalism.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #265 on: May 25, 2021, 01:58:22 AM »
Roe v Wade is not about whether abortion should be legal or illegal.  It is about whether states have a right to determine that.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #266 on: May 25, 2021, 04:54:07 AM »
Exactly so.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #267 on: May 25, 2021, 04:55:51 AM »
just saying

this won't likely be popular overall

and may hurt Republicans more the crats


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #268 on: May 25, 2021, 07:02:55 AM »
Good point.  Middle East peace and widespread American prosperity weren't very issues for us either, with such bad messaging.  The point, I think, with abortion is to work on the right or wrong question ahead of the legal question.  You don't make illegal or murder what half the people think is fine.

Imagine the sides reversed on abortion.  The most innocent are the victims, Black babies killed at 5 times the rate of white babies and R's favor and fund it, support it as the be-all, end-all, and had a history in wanting to stop all these unwanted black births on racial grounds.  What would be the politics of it then?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Mississippi vs. Roe
« Reply #271 on: August 02, 2021, 10:32:06 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/mississippis-case-against-roe/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=24529745

GOP lawmakers, 44 senators and 184 House members, argued in an amicus brief that the landmark 1973 decision in Roe and related rulings represent “a vise grip on abortion politics.”

“Congress and the States have shown that they are ready and able to address the issue in ways that reflect Americans’ varying viewpoints and are grounded in the science of fetal development and maternal health,” wrote the lawmakers, who represent 40 states.

Among the signatories were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other Republican leadership members.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/565446-228-republican-lawmakers-urge-supreme-court-to-overrule-roe-v-wade?rl=1


[Doug]  LET THE STATES HANDLE IT.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
WSJ: Texas law not a good idea
« Reply #273 on: September 03, 2021, 02:04:35 AM »
America is back fighting its endless legal war over abortion. A new front opened late Wednesday when five Justices issued an unsigned opinion declining to block a Texas law banning abortion after six weeks. Cue the hysterics about the end of abortion rights. But this law is a misfire even if you oppose abortion, and neither side should be confident the law will be upheld.

For starters, the Texas statute clearly violates the Court’s Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey (1992) precedents by making abortion illegal during the first trimester without exceptions for rape or incest—and it does so in a slippery way to duck federal judicial review.


Most laws delegate enforcement to public officials. This one delegates exclusive enforcement to private citizens, who are authorized to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks. Citizens who prevail in their civil lawsuits are entitled to at least $10,000 per abortion along with legal costs.

The law sets an awful precedent that conservatives should hate. Could California allow private citizens to sue individuals for hate speech? Or New York deputize private lawsuits against gun owners?


Texas argues that abortion providers don’t have standing to challenge the law because the state isn’t enforcing it and neither at this point is any private citizen. Thus there is no case or controversy, which is what courts are supposed to settle. This is technically correct and it is why the five Justices declined to enjoin the law.

“Federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves,” says their unsigned opinion, citing the Court’s recent decision in California v. Texas (2021). In that case a 7-2 majority dismissed Texas’s ObamaCare challenge after finding the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case since the feds weren’t enforcing the individual mandate.


Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch wrote in a fierce dissent that the Court—read Chief Justice John Roberts —had applied standing principles selectively. They’re right. And some conservative Justices may now enjoy hoisting the Chief on his own standing petard. But their unsigned opinion suggests they also have doubts about the Texas law.

Abortion providers have “raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden,” the five Justices write. “We stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit” and the Court’s order “is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law.” Texas state courts may also have a say, the Justices add.

The Chief writes in a dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, that he would grant the providers “preliminary relief” to “preserve the status quo ante” so “the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner.” But the dissenting Justices acknowledge that Texas may be correct that “existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention.”

What they want is to issue what is essentially an advisory opinion in the form of an injunction. This is not the role of the courts. In any case, a provider who gets sued under the Texas law will undoubtedly seek to dismiss the lawsuit under the Court’s abortion precedents. Then the law will be properly enjoined.

Meantime, Texas Republicans have handed Democrats a political grenade to hurt the anti-abortion cause. Pro-life groups have spent nearly 50 years arguing that abortion is a political question to be settled in the states by public debate. Yet now in Texas they want to use the courts via civil litigation to limit abortion.

Democrats are already having a field day with the Texas law. “This law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest,” President Biden said in a statement. Look for Democrats to raise the political pressure even higher on the Supreme Court this coming term when it hears a Mississippi case that bans abortion after 15 weeks. The Justices could uphold the Mississippi law by narrowing Casey’s “undue burden” standard. But the left will flog the Texas law and proclaim that upholding the Mississippi law is a fast track to overturning Roe.

Sometimes we wonder if Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is a progressive plant. His ill-conceived legal attack against ObamaCare backfired on Republicans in last year’s election and lost at the Supreme Court. Now he and his Texas mates are leading with their chins on abortion. How about thinking first?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Texas law not a good idea
« Reply #274 on: September 03, 2021, 06:05:16 AM »
Good article.  Bad law.  Unforced error of epic proportions, losing the moral high ground on abortion to Democrats.  They are the ones killing their young. I have argued no one in any position of power wants to ban abortions for rape and incest which constitute roughly 0.0% of abortions.  I've argued you have to win the moral argument before you make something illegal.  The civil penalty is a strange approach as well.

98% of abortions are for convenience reasons.  There is no reason to group that with what a rape victim is going through and doing so is to shoot yourself politically with major spillover into other issues.  The damage to the Republican brand and distrust of Republicans governing explains why we are facing the Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer disaster today.  Don't add truth to their argument.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Legalize infanticide
« Reply #275 on: September 08, 2021, 02:09:05 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
11th Amendment
« Reply #276 on: September 08, 2021, 03:22:55 PM »
« Last Edit: September 08, 2021, 03:25:28 PM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: Always has been...
« Reply #278 on: September 09, 2021, 10:14:50 AM »
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/067/711/749/original/ecf4c7d3be7cfcf8.png



https://notthebee.com/article/so-it-seems-the-left-is-now-turning-to-satan-to-try-to-keep-abortion-legal

Ephesians 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion until birth
« Reply #284 on: October 01, 2021, 12:59:39 PM »
https://notthebee.com/article/what-the-democrats-just-did-is-horrifyingyet-helpful?utm_source=jeeng

I read the title wrong, I thought it was my mom's proposal, a woman's right to choose until the kid turns 18.

A woman can abort because she is bigger, stronger and in control of the fetus.  Isn't that (also) the definition of domestic abuse?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile