The newest brand of abortion ban Is next-level cruelty

Many years ago my husband almost lost his job because I had signed a petition about whether I thought a woman had a right to get an abortion.
I signed yes. Somehow my husband's boss found out I had signed it and that my husband should make me change what I said or he would lose his job. I refused. Thankfully I never needed to have an abortion, but a friend of mine whose husband had just died from fighting a fire. They had a child 7yrs before that was born with many medical issues. A place called The Institute of human potential sent someone out every day to try to help the little girl but weren't successful. Because her husband was a Fireman they had to check if she was pregnant before they said he had died. They had tried not to get pregnant for 7yrs. But when they checked her she was shocked to find out she was pregnant. She called me and we cried and cried. They did a test on her to see if the baby she was pregnant with would have the same problem as the first child. Thankfully the baby didn't have the problem. The baby is 40yrs old now and has done wonderfully. That was when I decided it was a woman's right to have an abortion.
 

Irwin said:
Whatever happened to the pills that induce an abortion or a miscarriage? I would think they would become popular as a way to skirt the law.
Click to expand...
From what little I know about the "morning after" pill, it only works for a very short time after conception, long before the woman even knows she is pregnant. It's taken as a preventative measure.

If it was as simple as just swallowing a pill, why would anyone bother going to a clinic for a (minor) surgical procedure?
 
Lara said:
No, of course I didn't mean "feds" since "feds" was not mentioned in my post #92.
My post meant exactly what it said. It was short and quite clear as you know.
Please don't respond further. The end.
Click to expand...

Lara, I was not being snarky, I truly didn't understand what you meant by "contradiction."

I apologize if I offended you, but I still do not understand what "contradiction" you were referring to in your reply to me.
 
Alligatorob said:
I think so.

It is a tough question, if the government is going to pay for medical care picking and choosing can be a problem. But since this is such a heart felt belief of so many I think the best thing would be for the government to stop paying for abortions. A reasonable compromise.
Click to expand...
I don't happen to be a drinker (I could be hypocritical and say it is because of my religious beliefs) but religion aside, how much am I paying to various government funded health care plans, for those killed or maimed by drunk drivers. It would sound reasonable to me but I doubt that the general public would agree.

In fact, based on this reasoning, many health problems could be "carved out" of health plans, if one could be given the choice to not pay and not "participate" in that particular problem.
 
I was talking to a neighbor today and she said she read that a vasectomy could be reversed. She didn't remember the website she read it on. I was wondering if that was true. If it is would a man who wasn't ready to have a child get a vasectomy and then when he was ready to become a Dad have it reversed and is it covered by people's health coverage. If anyone finds the website please share it with us.
 
Yes, I believe I mentioned that already earlier in this thread. The poorest of the poor will suffer the most from this cruel, antiquated, and let's face it, political ruling. Those who can afford to will simply go to another state.

If a particular religious belief forbids something on religious grounds, that law should apply only to those who practice that religion. It should not be a part of civil law at all. Orthodox Jews and Muslims believe it is a sin to eat pork? Hindus, I think, believe it is a sin to eat beef? Fine, so those groups voluntarily don't eat those things. All the rest of us are not forbidden by the state to eat those foods; it is an individual decision. Why should this religiously oriented matter intrude into private decisions between a woman and her doctor? Especially, in extreme cases, when the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, or the fetus has severe abnormalities and no chance of living anyway, or the pregnancy is a threat to the woman's life?

Most abortions take place in the first trimester, when the fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being. No abortions are allowed once the fetus is considered viable on its own, probably at about 5 months. And by then, it really is a baby, and I would be against abortion as well. But at 2 months, a fetus is not yet a human being. It is a continuum, not a situation where conception takes place and, bang! we instantly have a human being.

I doubt that this Texas decision will last long; it is too outrageous, and belongs in a theocracy or a fascist state. The majority of Americans don't want to live in such a country.
 
This is interesting...

The Satanic Temple has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division alleging that certain state-mandated abortion restrictions violate TST members' religious beliefs.​

The Satanic Temple is kind of a parody religion, but their causes are just. This should make for an interesting challenge to the Texas law.
 
Somehow, I missed this law being passed in Texas. Roe vs Wade is still alive and well, right? Even if Texas has a ban of some type on abortions, can't women go to another state and get one?
 
Announced today....

Justice Department sues Texas to block abortion law​

The Biden Justice Department sued the state of Texas on Thursday over its new six-week abortion ban, saying the state law is unconstitutional.

Announcing the lawsuit at a news conference in Washington, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Texas law's "unprecedented" design seeks "to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible."
"The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent" Garland said.

The Texas law was designed specifically with the goal of making it more difficult for clinics to obtain federal court orders blocking enforcement of the law. Instead of creating criminal penalties for abortions conducted after a fetal heartbeat is detected, the Texas Legislature has tasked private citizens with enforcing the law by bringing private litigation against clinics -- and anyone else who assists a woman in obtaining an abortion after six weeks.
...
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Austin, alleged that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it conflicts with "the statutory and constitutional responsibilities of the federal government."

"The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review," the lawsuit states.

The Justice Department is seeking a declaratory judgment declaring the Texas abortion ban invalid, as well as a "preliminary and permanent injunction against "the State of Texas" -- including all of its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties who would enforce the abortion ban.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/politics/biden-administration-texas-abortion-law/index.html
 
So our governor is going to eradicate rape in Texas! Does he know the majority of rapes are in the home. Does he know the majority of rapes go unreported? Does he know the great majority of rapes go unpunished? Has he ever been raped? Questions for the little boy in a chair. Why wait until now to wipe out rape in Texas? Are you also going to wipe out poverty? Homelessness? Drug addiction? Prostitution? Murder? He tried to wipe out voting but failed to do so. What a dirty little twit he is.
 
I just heard that Biden has instructed the justice department to challenge the law. The Supreme Court did not rule that it was constitutional. They just let the lower court decision stand... I think because the group bringing the action did not have status to challenge it. It will be back in the court soon.
 
Pepper said:
They shouldn't have to. That's the point of Roe. If that is a good thing (to go to another state), what happens when there are few states left?
Click to expand...
I was just asking a specific question. What I wanted to know was, a Texan woman or any woman in any other state can get an abortion in any state that allows abortions, right? They aren’t committed to only staying in their home state.
 
oldman said:
I was just asking a specific question. What I wanted to know was, a Texan woman or any woman in any other state can get an abortion in any state that allows abortions, right? They aren’t committed to only staying in their home state.
Click to expand...
You're right, But............I have heard where it is being discussed, legislatively, to try to make it a crime to leave their state to obtain an abortion. It is unconstitutional to any reasonable person, no matter where they stand on this issue.
 
Pepper said:
You're right, But............I have heard where it is being discussed, legislatively, to try to make it a crime to leave their state to obtain an abortion. It is unconstitutional to any reasonable person, no matter where they stand on this issue.
Click to expand...
It is unconstitutional. Every American is allowed to travel state to state without fear of prejudice or bias. Because abortions are partially and in some cases totally funded by federal government funding, a woman should be allowed to get an abortion in any state, regardless of her state of residency. But in today’s society, who knows what will happen next?
 
There is no government funding for abortion, even under Medicaid @oldman

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.
wikpedia
 
oldman said:
I was just asking a specific question. What I wanted to know was, a Texan woman or any woman in any other state can get an abortion in any state that allows abortions, right? They aren’t committed to only staying in their home state.
Click to expand...
As far as Criminal law jurisdiction goes, at least in Ohio, it needs to be a crime in the home state, plus the state entered into. If those are the facts, then it would be a crime to re-enter Ohio, if I remember correctly.

Example: It is a crime in Ohio, but not in Pennsylvania. A woman from Ohio travels to PA, re-enters Ohio, Ohio does no retain criminal law jurisdiction on her.
 
Pepper said:
There is no government funding for abortion, even under Medicaid @oldman

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.
wikpedia
Click to expand...
There is no federal funding of abortion, but states can fund them as they see fit, and several do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top