The newest brand of abortion ban Is next-level cruelty

Shalimar said:
I wonder what the suicide rate would be among women forced to carry a child conceived through rape or incest? I guarantee that many women who do carry to term under those circumstances will suffer debilitating long term psychiatric effects.
Click to expand...
Ted Bundy is a good example of what can become of children of a woman who was raped by her father.
 

Lara said:
Forbes says:
"As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S.....with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions, this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers
Click to expand...
I cannot get my mind around this. Why are a quarter of a million abortions necessary in the age of effective contraception? Are people having unprotected sex in their millions? Is it a matter of not being able to afford the pill? Or is poverty and unemployment making it hard for many women to make ends meet if another baby is added to the family? What sort of sex education is provided for children and teens?

Interesting that Forbes is focussed on the money amount. Have they considered the human costs? Have they considered the possibility that better education and an investment in more social services could be the most cost effective way to reduce the number of abortions taking place?
 
*Pro-fetus supporters don't want their tax dollars used for abortions.
*Many people opposed the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan and would have prefer their tax dollars be used at home.
*Israel gets the most US foreign aid and has the most lenient abortion policy. Evangelicals don't make a stink of it because they don't want to be denied access to the pearly gates of Heaven.

What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?

"Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision."

https://www.aclu.org/other/public-funding-abortion

"Israeli abortion law has something for everyone: A semblance of regulation for conservatives, but a reality in which almost any woman who wants an abortion is able to have one — and an estimated 40,000 Israeli women annually have them."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...l-about-the-country-s-abortion-laws-1.7274968
 
Warrigal said:
I cannot get my mind around this. Why are a quarter of a million abortions necessary in the age of effective contraception?
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is my guess....media has repeatedly sent a clear relentless message to young and old that you can sleep with anyone, anywhere, anytime, without any moral code or thought of responsibility. Covid has sent everyone inside to binge on series, movies, streaming, etc. Immorality is constantly filling their minds with don't preplan, "just do it". Children are watching immorality too. And hearing it in their music.
 
“The physicians of Texas never thought the day would come when the performance of our oath would create a private cause of action for persons not connected to or harmed by the action." The lines refer to the part of the law that allows for private citizens to take legal action against anyone they suspect of helping a woman get a now-illegal abortion after six weeks of pregnancy."

“The people that are most impacted are those with most number of oppressions," Moayedi said. “Women of color. Disabled people. Young people. Immigrants.”

She said the women that will suffer are the ones who don't have transportation, can't afford to fly to other states or who don't have jobs that allow for paid time off."

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/l...-law/287-4254c417-4e42-4f70-867b-46b1aaab8e21
 
Nosy Bee-54 said:
"The lines refer to the part of the law that allows for private citizens to take legal action against anyone they suspect of helping a woman get a now-illegal abortion after six weeks of pregnancy"
Nosy Bee-54 said:
“The people that are most impacted are those with most number of oppressions," Moayedi said. “Women of color. Disabled people. Young people. Immigrants.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't see anywhere that says "private citizens can take legal action against a pregnant woman". It says "against anyone suspected of helping a woman get an illegal abortion". So why would that impact "“Women of color. Disabled people. Young people. Immigrants.”?
 
Lara said:
I don't see anywhere that says "private citizens can take legal action against a pregnant woman". It says "against anyone suspected of helping a woman get an illegal abortion". So why would that impact "“Women of color. Disabled people. Young people. Immigrants.”?
Click to expand...
Try reading the article again. The answer is there. The law mainly impacts those groups when it comes to medical care for abortions. Furthermore, medical entities or individuals can be sued for a bounty by private citizens.
 
I still am not seeing...private citizens can take legal action against
pregnant women, women of color, disabled women, young people, immigrants getting an illegal abortion.

Can you be the one to read your article and post a quote from the article that says that? (you don't have to if you don't want to...SF is not exactly the FBI lol). Who is Moayedi who you say said that? All I can find is that he is from Tehran Iran and renovated a hotel in Dallas and is CEO of a company that I never heard of.

I'm not having a problem with the first paragraph in your post 82. It's the rest of your post that apparently comes from Moayedi.
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
I still am not seeing...private citizens can take legal action against
pregnant women, women of color, disabled women, young people, immigrants getting an illegal abortion.

Can you be the one to read your article and post a quote from the article that says that? Who is Moayedi who you say said that? All I can find is that he is from Tehran Iran and renovated a hotel in Dallas and is CEO of a company that I never heard of.

I'm not having a problem with the first paragraph in your post 82. It's the rest of your post that apparently comes from Moayedi.
Click to expand...
I posted a few relevant paragraphs as highlights of the issues involved with the Texas abortion law. It is customary to provide a link of the FULL article so that those who are interested can read it. The link is not blocked. It is available to anyone including those in North Carolina. If you had clicked on the link you would have read the doctor's full name who is an OB-GYN. I used Google to see where she practices. Very simple.

Also, the first paragraph quoted in my original post came from the Texas Medical Association.
The other two quotes came from the doctor.
 
Nosy Bee-54 said:
What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?

"Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care.
Click to expand...
I agree, and if it were up to me its what I would do.

However I think to try and put this issue behind us we will need to make some compromises that will not satisfy all. The funding issue seems to me to be one of the hardest thing for those who oppose abortion to take, so as a part of some kind of grand compromise I think its something we may need to accept. On the flip side those who support legalized abortion have an equally hard felt need for women to be able to make their own choices. I support that position and think it worth giving on the funding thing to get it.

Not that any kind of compromise looks likely in today's political environment. Too bad, we have lots of other problems to deal with, getting this one behind us would really help.
 
My post was strictly based on what you said in your post....which I found confusing and thought I'd ask for clarification. I don't make a habit of clicking on links to articles until I understand what the poster has posted. Nevermind. It's not important enough. I'll just assume its an error.
 
There is no way to address this Bubba law without gong 100% political because that is all it is right there with new election laws. All the more reason to limit terms of SC appointees. Also, change the name from "Supreme" to something else. It just does not fit.
 
Lara said:
The reason the government gets involved in this decision process is because the taxpayers are funding abortions right now. So even those who believe abortion is taking a life are having to be enablers. Am I right?
Click to expand...

No, Lara, you are not. The simple fact is, since the passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, there is no federal Medicaid funding of abortion, except in three narrowly defined situations: if continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life of the woman, or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

What this means is that under current law a woman cannot use her Medicaid coverage to pay for an abortion; a provider cannot bill Medicaid for abortion services and Medicaid cannot reimburse a provider for abortion services, except for the three narrowly defined situations described above.

In other words, Medicaid does not provide block grants to providers. It reimburses based services provided. Each eligible covered healthcare service is reimbursed if it meets the rules; and reimbursed based on an agreed upon fee structure.

Since abortion is not a covered service (except where the mother’s life is endangered or rape or incest), there is no federal reimbursement.

However, there is nothing in Hyde that prevents state governments from using tax dollars to fund abortions.
 
Lara said:
I don't see anywhere that says "private citizens can take legal action against a pregnant woman". It says "against anyone suspected of helping a woman get an illegal abortion". So why would that impact "“Women of color. Disabled people. Young people. Immigrants.”?
Click to expand...
No criminal of civil action is permitted against the woman getting the abortion, true, just the enablers etc.

In part:

Sec. 171.208. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR
ABETTING VIOLATION. (a) Any person, other than an officer or
employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may
bring a civil action against any person who:
(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of
this subchapter;
(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets
the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for
or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or
otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of
this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should
have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in
violation of this subchapter; or
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by
Subdivision (1) or (2).
(b) If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this
section, the court shall award:
(1) injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the
defendant from violating this subchapter or engaging in acts that
aid or abet violations of this subchapter;
(2) statutory damages in an amount of not less than
$10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced
in violation of this subchapter, and for each abortion performed or
induced in violation of this subchapter that the defendant aided or
abetted; and
 
I might also add, nothing in the bill abrogates a civil trial by a jury. Even if it did, that in and of itself alone would kill the Bill. Civil juries in TX do not require a unanimous verdict. Although the burden of proof is shallower in a civil case, the Plaintiff will spend big money and time for just a possible favorable liability judgment. Also, imo, the 1st Civil suit brought will not survive a Motion to dismiss and or a Summary Judgment. Badly written law, imo.
 
ohioboy said:
I might also add, nothing in the bill abrogates a civil trial by a jury. Even if it did, that in and of itself alone would kill the Bill. Civil juries in TX do not require a unanimous verdict. Although the burden of proof is shallower in a civil case, the Plaintiff will spend big money and time for just a possible favorable liability judgment. Also, imo, the 1st Civil suit brought will not survive a Motion to dismiss and or a Summary Judgment. Badly written law, imo.
Click to expand...
Strongly agree. Such a law would not survive in NM, based on the issue of standing alone. Not to mention the horrible public policy aspect of setting up a system of monetary rewards to self-righteous, self-appointed officious intermeddlers.
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
Can you explain this contradiction then?
Click to expand...

By "contradiction," do you mean that the feds don't fund abortion from taxes but the state is not prohibited from doing so?

I don't see it as a contradiction at all. There are a zillion things that the feds do not fund but the states aren't prohibited from funding. The feds do not tell the states what to do with their state tax money; it is up to state legislatures to decide that.

Under the Constitution, actions not specifically allocated to the federal government are left up to the individual states. Administration of a state's own state tax revenues is one of the things most certainly left up to the states.
 
If someone wants an abortion, they still have 49 other states to choose from. Although I am pro-life, I respect any women’s decision to have an abortion. This law is a bit too restrictive and I believe that the Court will reverse itself sometime in the future after they have seen the consequences of it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top