Author Topic: Abortion & Life  (Read 144672 times)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18124
    • 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: 26643
    • View Profile
Common Sense Abortion Control
« Reply #252 on: January 26, 2020, 10:32:06 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18124
    • 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: 69122
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #254 on: January 27, 2020, 02:35:46 PM »
Awesome meme!


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69122
    • 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: 18352
    • 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: 26643
    • View Profile



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18124
    • 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: 69122
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18352
    • 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: 18124
    • 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: 18124
    • 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: 69122
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #266 on: May 25, 2021, 04:54:07 AM »
Exactly so.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18352
    • 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: 18124
    • 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: 26643
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18124
    • 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: 69122
    • 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: 18124
    • 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: 26643
    • View Profile
Legalize infanticide
« Reply #275 on: September 08, 2021, 02:09:05 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69122
    • 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: 26643
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • 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: 26643
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69122
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18124
    • 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: 69122
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69122
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #287 on: October 28, 2021, 08:51:12 PM »
The Obsolete Science Behind Roe v. Wade
My youngest patients are unborn babies, and today’s ultrasounds show they are fully alive and human.
By Grazie Pozo Christie
Oct. 28, 2021 5:59 pm ET

The Supreme Court will soon reconsider the decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), which made abortion legal in America through all nine months of pregnancy. At that “point in the development of man’s knowledge,” as Justice Harry Blackmun put it in Roe, there was simply no consensus about when life begins. In other words, the fetus could not be said with any certainty to be alive and therefore wasn’t worthy of legal protection.

As a diagnostic radiologist—whose youngest patients are fetuses, who are very much alive—I submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization urging the justices to rethink Roe, a case premised on a claim about science. I was joined by two other female physicians, a neonatologist and an obstetrician, who also value their youngest patients, believing that whether inside their mothers or born, premature or full-term, they are worthy of respect and protection.

Ultrasound technology was in its infancy in the 1970s, when there was much more uncertainty about life before birth. The first ultrasound machines, introduced in 1958, were enormous, and the images were rudimentary. It was only in the later 1970s that fetal ultrasound became widely available, with increasingly detailed images of recognizably human babies. Black-and-white ultrasound images are now found on refrigerators of expectant parents across America. New three-dimensional images have put a human face on the person once dehumanized as a mere clump of cells.

Perfectly apparent now, to the justices sitting on today’s court as well as the public, are the liveliness and humanity of babies at 15 weeks of gestation—the age at which Mississippi proposes to protect them from elective termination.

Nestled within their mothers, these fetuses on average are 6.4 inches long and weigh 4.1 ounces. They have the proportions of a newborn—seemingly all head and rounded belly. The major organs are formed and functioning, and although the child receives nutrients and oxygen through the mother’s umbilical cord, the fetal digestive, urinary and respiratory systems are practicing for life outside the womb. The sex of the child is easy to discern by this point. The baby swallows and even breathes, filling the lungs with amniotic fluid and expelling it. The heart is fully formed, its four chambers working hard, with the delicate valves opening and closing.

A healthy baby at 15 weeks is an active baby. Unless the child is asleep, kicking and arm-waving are commonly seen during ultrasound evaluations. The fetal spine is a marvel of intricacy, and it is most often gently curved as the fetus rests against the mother’s uterine wall. Often, I watch as babies plant their feet against the uterine wall and stretch vigorously. Sometimes a delicate hand—with all five fingers—approaches the face and appears to scratch an itch. Fingernails aren’t visible, but they are present. We can see how the bones of the leg meet the tiny ankles and the many-boned feet.

At 15 weeks, the brain’s frontal lobes, ventricles, and thalamus fill the oval-shaped skull. The baby’s profile is endearing in its petite perfection: gently sloping nose, distinct upper and lower lips, eyes that open and close. With the advent of 3D ultrasound, we can now see the fetal face in all its detail.

These are the patients I encounter daily in my work as a radiologist. Clearly human, clearly alive, no longer mysteriously hidden from the eyes and knowledge of man, they ask us to consider them not disposable nonhumans but valuable members of our human family.

Yes, our understanding was different in 1973. But in Roe’s own terms, we have arrived at a much different “point in the development of man’s knowledge” about life in utero. The Supreme Court’s judgement should reflect that advancement and put an end to the casual cruelty of unfettered abortion.

Dr. Christie is a diagnostic radiologist and a policy adviser for the Catholic Association.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion
« Reply #288 on: October 28, 2021, 09:42:50 PM »
The cruelty and horror are what makes it sacred to the left.


The Obsolete Science Behind Roe v. Wade
My youngest patients are unborn babies, and today’s ultrasounds show they are fully alive and human.
By Grazie Pozo Christie
Oct. 28, 2021 5:59 pm ET

The Supreme Court will soon reconsider the decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), which made abortion legal in America through all nine months of pregnancy. At that “point in the development of man’s knowledge,” as Justice Harry Blackmun put it in Roe, there was simply no consensus about when life begins. In other words, the fetus could not be said with any certainty to be alive and therefore wasn’t worthy of legal protection.

As a diagnostic radiologist—whose youngest patients are fetuses, who are very much alive—I submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization urging the justices to rethink Roe, a case premised on a claim about science. I was joined by two other female physicians, a neonatologist and an obstetrician, who also value their youngest patients, believing that whether inside their mothers or born, premature or full-term, they are worthy of respect and protection.

Ultrasound technology was in its infancy in the 1970s, when there was much more uncertainty about life before birth. The first ultrasound machines, introduced in 1958, were enormous, and the images were rudimentary. It was only in the later 1970s that fetal ultrasound became widely available, with increasingly detailed images of recognizably human babies. Black-and-white ultrasound images are now found on refrigerators of expectant parents across America. New three-dimensional images have put a human face on the person once dehumanized as a mere clump of cells.

Perfectly apparent now, to the justices sitting on today’s court as well as the public, are the liveliness and humanity of babies at 15 weeks of gestation—the age at which Mississippi proposes to protect them from elective termination.

Nestled within their mothers, these fetuses on average are 6.4 inches long and weigh 4.1 ounces. They have the proportions of a newborn—seemingly all head and rounded belly. The major organs are formed and functioning, and although the child receives nutrients and oxygen through the mother’s umbilical cord, the fetal digestive, urinary and respiratory systems are practicing for life outside the womb. The sex of the child is easy to discern by this point. The baby swallows and even breathes, filling the lungs with amniotic fluid and expelling it. The heart is fully formed, its four chambers working hard, with the delicate valves opening and closing.

A healthy baby at 15 weeks is an active baby. Unless the child is asleep, kicking and arm-waving are commonly seen during ultrasound evaluations. The fetal spine is a marvel of intricacy, and it is most often gently curved as the fetus rests against the mother’s uterine wall. Often, I watch as babies plant their feet against the uterine wall and stretch vigorously. Sometimes a delicate hand—with all five fingers—approaches the face and appears to scratch an itch. Fingernails aren’t visible, but they are present. We can see how the bones of the leg meet the tiny ankles and the many-boned feet.

At 15 weeks, the brain’s frontal lobes, ventricles, and thalamus fill the oval-shaped skull. The baby’s profile is endearing in its petite perfection: gently sloping nose, distinct upper and lower lips, eyes that open and close. With the advent of 3D ultrasound, we can now see the fetal face in all its detail.

These are the patients I encounter daily in my work as a radiologist. Clearly human, clearly alive, no longer mysteriously hidden from the eyes and knowledge of man, they ask us to consider them not disposable nonhumans but valuable members of our human family.

Yes, our understanding was different in 1973. But in Roe’s own terms, we have arrived at a much different “point in the development of man’s knowledge” about life in utero. The Supreme Court’s judgement should reflect that advancement and put an end to the casual cruelty of unfettered abortion.

Dr. Christie is a diagnostic radiologist and a policy adviser for the Catholic Association.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69122
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Abortion Case That Isn't
« Reply #289 on: November 01, 2021, 12:49:26 AM »
The Texas Abortion Case That Isn’t
The Supreme Court isn’t hearing a challenge to Roe v. Wade.
By The Editorial Board
Oct. 31, 2021 6:20 pm ET

Amid criticism for deciding too many cases on its “shadow docket,” the Supreme Court nonetheless agreed to hear two lawsuits on Monday challenging Texas’s ban on abortions after six weeks. The Justices are generous to grant the plaintiffs expedited review, but neither legal challenge belongs in federal court.


Despite what you read in the press, abortion rights aren’t directly at issue in either case. The Court rejected Texas’s request to discuss the law’s merits on abortion. Instead, the Court will consider in Whole Woman’s Health v. Austin Reeve Jackson whether Texas can dodge federal court review by outsourcing enforcement to private parties. The question in U.S. v. Texas is whether the Justice Department can seek an injunction in federal court against the state.

The Texas law prohibits enforcement by state officials, instead authorizing private citizens to sue anyone who performs, aids or intends to perform or aid an abortion after a heartbeat is detected, which is usually around six weeks. Citizens who prevail are entitled to at least $10,000 in damages and legal fees.

The law in our view is clearly unconstitutional under the Court’s abortion precedents. But here’s the rub: Federal courts don’t have jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit by the abortion providers or the Justice Department. Full stop. Federal courts only decide cases and controversies between parties, and both plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue.


The Justice case is the easiest to dispense with. Justice says it sued because the law precludes pre-enforcement challenges by other plaintiffs. But the federal government hasn’t suffered a “concrete” and “particularized” injury—two requirements for standing. Justice says federal agencies that help arrange abortions could be harmed, but the federal government isn’t an abortion provider. In any case, federal officials have said in depositions that they are unaware of any harm or disruption to federal programs from the law.


Even if the Texas law is “unprecedented,” as Justice claims, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause doesn’t grant the feds the freewheeling power to sue states whenever it believes they are abridging the constitutional rights of citizens. If that were the case, a GOP Justice Department could sue to enjoin Democratic state gun-control laws. Federal courts would then be dragged into arbitrating myriad political fights.

Justice also claims it can sue to vindicate the interests of the federal government under the “canonical precedent” In re Debs (1895). In that case, the U.S. sought a federal court injunction against the Pullman railroad strike, which was interfering with interstate commerce and mail delivery. The Texas law doesn’t interfere with U.S. sovereign powers or interests.

The problem for the abortion providers is that they have no one to sue. State officials aren’t enforcing the law, so the providers can’t sue them. The press is full of stories that the number of abortions has fallen in Texas since the law passed, but clinics can still perform abortions—albeit at the risk of a lawsuit.

But the minute a suit is filed, an abortion provider’s lawyer can move to dismiss on grounds that the law violates Roe v. Wade. Then there would be a proper case or controversy in state court. Texas courts could uphold the law, but such a decision by the state’s highest court would be reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Abortion providers say it could take months or years of litigation before the law is enjoined. But an immediate injunction is also possible given the threat to a constitutional right as long as the Supreme Court’s abortion precedents haven’t been overturned.

One mystery is why the Court agreed to take these cases. Five conservative Justices were criticized, including by their colleagues on the bench, for declining to enjoin the Texas law in September. Perhaps they want to elaborate beyond the language of that terse order so the public can better understand the legal principles at stake.

The Texas law will almost certainly be struck down in due course as long as Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. But upholding the Supreme Court’s standing principles is also crucial to the rule of law, as Chief Justice John Roberts in particular has long held. In dismissing the importance of legal standing, progressives sound like Donald Trump when he derides the Court for refusing to hear his challenges to the 2020 election results. A bad Texas law doesn’t justify setting a bad judicial precedent.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18124
    • View Profile
Re: I was told this would not happen-4th trimester abortion
« Reply #292 on: November 15, 2021, 03:59:54 PM »
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/29/medical-ethicists-propose-after-birth-abortion-law_n_1309985.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/merriam-webster-dictionary-adds-fourth-trimester-describe-newborns-fetus-like-baby-like/

Blurring the line between fetus and baby does not favor the politics of the Left.

"The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has added the term “fourth trimester” to describe the first months of a newborn’s life, which they say is “more fetus-like than baby-like.” "

A baby is more fetus-like than baby-like?  WHAT??!!  A newborn IS a baby and a late term fetus IS baby-like.

Hey look!  A SECOND trimester fetus lived outside the womb:
https://news.yahoo.com/alabama-boy-makes-record-worlds-163538677.html
Just the opposite of the (lack of) reasoning in the Roe v Wade decision.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
A question for the left
« Reply #293 on: November 15, 2021, 04:13:47 PM »
Is there any overlap between the age you can be aborted and the age you can decide you are transgender?



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18352
    • View Profile
pro LIFE legal victory
« Reply #296 on: December 10, 2021, 01:52:51 PM »
https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-texas-56fe96917e21b53b581005cb30db66e0

AP :  "Five conservative justices, including three appointed by former President Donald Trump, formed a majority to limit who can be sued by the clinics, a result that both sides said probably will prevent federal courts from effectively blocking the law."

notice they don't mention those who are Bamster appointees!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18352
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18352
    • View Profile
SCOTUS backs pro abortion right to sue
« Reply #298 on: December 11, 2021, 09:24:56 AM »
abortion  law not blocked

but now (Tx) law can be contested

https://www.courthousenews.com/abortion-providers-get-supreme-court-backing-to-fight-texas-ban/

we will quibble for eternity or the end of the human race......

 :-o


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18352
    • View Profile
doctors can provide pregnancy terminations online now
« Reply #299 on: December 17, 2021, 03:54:00 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/1064598531/the-fda-could-permanently-lift-some-restrictions-on-abortion-pills

without in person office visit .

My personal opinion is this is outrageous

I have sent a note to my directors requesting some sort of policy

I do not want to have women calling me requesting a pregnancy termination medicine
as simply as if they are calling  for a headache pill

I already had one young lady telling me how offended she was because I refused the morning after pill ( it is over the counter available without prescription anyway)

So far they have left things  to the doctor's "preference"
but my preference for this is I can't do it .

now we have. a WOKE FDA too.