Let them do this. Then, when people start dropping their unwanted babies off on the lawn of the governor's mansion, someone might rethink this thing.

Marcus Aurelius: Vodka Zombie: Let them do this. Then, when people start dropping their unwanted babies off on the lawn of the governor's mansion, someone might rethink this thing.

Or when the legislator's precious snowflake comes home with a punctured uterus from a coat hanger abortion.

That's unlikely to happen, since the legislator would be able to afford a quiet trip to a Planned Parenthood in another state to restore his daughter's honor before the press found out. Probably file it under a sightseeing trip to New York -- "Me and my family (including my totally not pregnant teenage daughter) just wanted to see the Statue Of Liberty and Freedom Tower, watch the Yankees play, stop by the local abortion clinic (but only for directions on how to get away from there) and maybe also take a cheap laugh or two at those Occupy hippies"

Of course, there's always the chance that the daughter would get knocked up and wants her parents to not find out about either the pregnancy or the abortion. Then she may end up with a perforated uterus or self-poisoned with chemicals meant to induce miscarriages in livestock.

I see the party of pro-business and anti-regulation is at it again.

"I tell you what, Maybelline, you're gonna carry your Uncle-Daddy's baby to term, God help you"

They've already basically won in the South and Midwest. I'd be terrified to be a doctor who provides abortions or to get an abortion anywhere around there.

SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

Well, God forbid we should require a clinic performing outpatient surgery to have board certified physicians with admitting privileges at a local hospital.

Link (new window)

EnviroDude: Because any doctor that isn't board certified should be able to abort tissue masses. If only the other doctor hadn't killed his patient, this bill would never be.

/ an abortionist botched the job and mom died as a result.

What does board certification have to do with having admission privileges at a local hospital?

What, did they write a bill instructing people how to make firebombs? Because that tends to be how abortion clinics get shut down these days.

SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

Countries with illegal abortion and impossible access to birth control have higher abortion rates than countries with legal abortion and easy access to birth control. Shouldn't you be supporting legal abortion and easy access to birth control? Oh, wait, I forgot. This has absolutely nothing to do with preventing abortions. It's all about punishing those dumb farking sluts who can't keep their legs crossed for acting on a biological imperative to reproduce. That's right. My mistake. Carry on.

SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

Rare meaning nonexistent? Abortion is far safer than pregnancy, which means that driving an abortion clinic out of business makes women less safe.

// I hope Catholic institutions admit that they'd rather pay higher insurance costs than provide contraception coverage in their insurance benefits
// really reminds you that this is all about control

Maybe they can make up their own Certification board with no standards like Rand Paul did.

Marcus Aurelius: Mississippi sure does hate women. It makes you wonder how they manage to reproduce.

The population of Mississippi only increased 800,000 since 1960, but rape rates managed to go up about 10x in that same period (~100 to ~1000 per year).

So I'm guessing that's how.

Who here thinks this bill will improve the health of women and newborns in Mississippi? Show of hands?

/Might be good for Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama though.

stupid caterpillars. why must we make war on them?

The bill, which passed the state Senate on Wednesday, would require doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs and to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in case a woman undergoing an abortion needs to be immediately hospitalized.


Can't do that. You have to require all doctors to do it, not just abortion providers


"These are strong, common-sense pro-life bills that will not only end abortion in Mississippi but will enhance efforts to protect children from abuse,"

wat

Does anybody else think that this law could be declared unconstitutional under the precedent set in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as a de facto abridgement of the rights of women in Mississippi to choose whether or not they have an abortion?

Good. Now that they've made it effectively illegal, it's certain that abortions will never happen in Mississippi. If we can get laws like this passed in every state in the country, or at the federal level, then no abortions would happen in this country at all.

Then we can work on banning birth control and sex ed.

For the children.

.

Guidette Frankentits: The bill, which passed the state Senate on Wednesday, would require doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs and to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in case a woman undergoing an abortion needs to be immediately hospitalized.


Can't do that. You have to require all doctors to do it, not just abortion providers


"These are strong, common-sense pro-life bills that will not only end abortion in Mississippi but will enhance efforts to protect children from abuse,"

wat

It makes sense if you don't think about it.

Sock Ruh Tease: Marcus Aurelius: Mississippi sure does hate women. It makes you wonder how they manage to reproduce.

The population of Mississippi only increased 800,000 since 1960, but rape rates managed to go up about 10x in that same period (~100 to ~1000 per year).

So I'm guessing that's how.

Well, it didn't used to be rape if the rapee was a female relative, child, black, married to the raper, intoxicated, out after sundown, poor, dressed in less than full platemail, or if the raper was a person of means. But it's hard to get worked up about the crime statistics of southerners. NHI. They're all living on Sherman's ill-considered charity anyway.

The Mississippi GOP is just interested in creating Jobs!

FTA: Press that while all doctors on her staff are certified OB-GYNs, only one of them has admitting privileges to a local hospital. The clinic's doctors live out of state and hospitals usually don't grant such privileges to non-Mississippi physicians, she said.

See, this will force the clinic to hire local Mississippi OB-GYNs, thus create more jobs in Mississippi, for locals, rather than carpet baggers looking to take advantage of these high wage jobs.

Either that or the clinic goes belly up, then its new real-estate to help foster the local community.

Win-Win!

/Sarcasm mode off.

Next up, only doctors who speak English, Spanish, Finnish, Hebrew, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, AND Elvish will be allowed to perform abortions, so they can read a 42-page document to every whore woman they perform the procedure on in the whore's woman's native tongue explaining how those whores women should never have non-procreative sex in marriage, and no sex at all outside marriage. Let's make the requirements so oddly specific that there's no possible way for an abortion clinic to legally exist in that state. But hey, it's cool because abortion itself isn't illegal.

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

if Republicans were really christian, wouldn't they make health care cheap and affordable for everyone engage in child sacrifice?

probably not...

Priviliges at a local hospital is BS. That is for scheduled surgeries and things like that. If a patient hemorrhages during/after a procedure they will call an ambulance and take the woman to an ER. Having priviliges has nothing to do with caring for trauma.

jst3p: It makes sense if you don't think about it.

Funny'd

Tickle Mittens: Sock Ruh Tease: Marcus Aurelius: Mississippi sure does hate women. It makes you wonder how they manage to reproduce.

The population of Mississippi only increased 800,000 since 1960, but rape rates managed to go up about 10x in that same period (~100 to ~1000 per year).

So I'm guessing that's how.

Well, it didn't used to be rape if the rapee was a female relative, child, black, married to the raper, intoxicated, out after sundown, poor, dressed in less than full platemail, or if the raper was a person of means. But it's hard to get worked up about the crime statistics of southerners. NHI. They're all living on Sherman's ill-considered charity anyway.

You know, Mississippi should outlaw the word rape, and then POOF there goes their rape problem.

Marcus Aurelius: Or when the legislator's precious snowflake comes home with a punctured uterus from a coat hanger abortion.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but the privileged generally go out-of-state to wherever they have to in order to get a safe abortion when they want one. It's a free country, after all.

I have got to learn to spell privilege

SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

Except it would make the procedure illegal. It's already pretty damn safe, so that's not really a big issue (although, as with ALL medical procedures except maybe taking ibuprofen, it's never perfectly safe). Hell, it's safer than giving birth (lower incidence of maternal death or serious physical injury for abortion relative to child birth), so if we're really going to through the safety issue into this, people should be advocating for abortion and limiting child birth.

So no. There is no reason any sane person, even a Democrat, should support this bill.

So let me get this straight: the issue is that all doctors who perform the procedure must have admitting privileges at a local hospital (not ability to get them to a hospital, the ability to approve them for a hospital stay) so as to make sure the patient can be taken care of if the surgery goes wrong and the woman's life is in danger?

In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion from 1998 to 2005 was 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 14 times safer than childbirth (8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births).[46][47] The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation.[48][49] This is contrasted with laws in some jurisdictions that require doctors to suggest to patients abortion is a high-risk procedure.[50]

Add to that that admitting privileges wouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference in a situation where someone needs to go to the hospital for a medical emergency arising from surgery (it would be ER anyway), and you would think being an accredited OBGYN should be the only safeguard necessary.

Wait... Mississippi? The same "state with the highest per capita instance of maternal death" Mississippi?

Bad science and bad healthcare in the most religious state in the Union. Anyone else surprised?

Someone was wondering the other day why liberals think conservatives are evil...

AntiNerd: Marcus Aurelius: Or when the legislator's precious snowflake comes home with a punctured uterus from a coat hanger abortion.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but the privileged generally go out-of-state to wherever they have to in order to get a safe abortion when they want one. It's a free country, after all.

The House has advanced to the floor a bill that would make it illegal for minors to travel across state lines to get an abortion without a parent present. Further, the committee that advanced the bill rejected amendments that would allow victims of rape or incest, women who are experiencing a health crisis, or minors traveling with close, adult family members other than their parents to travel across state lines to get an abortion.

Remember folks, government intrusion is OK so long as it is about women's health issues.

Serious Black: Does anybody else think that this law could be declared unconstitutional under the precedent set in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as a de facto abridgement of the rights of women in Mississippi to choose whether or not they have an abortion?

That's what I keep coming back to in my head. Didn't the SC already say abortion is legal? Stop trying to outlaw it. I mean, they even say in the article they're trying to get abortions out of Mississippi. It's ridiculous.

Outlawing abortions results in more dead pregnant women. Now, maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't something like a fetus need to be in a living person's womb in order to continue developing? So if the woman dies because of some complication in the pregnancy and could not get an abortion, doesn't the fetus sort of stop developing too? Don't bills like this effectively do nothing to stop fetuses from being terminated but only increase the number of women who die? Also, what happens if the woman already has children and dies during a subsequent pregnancy? Bills like this that only seek to restrict abortion - since they can't outlaw it outright - to such a degree as to effectively be outlawed just result in more dead women, about the same number of terminated pregnancies, more single dads, and more children ending up in an already overcrowded and underfunded foster care system. How are any of these consequences a good thing?

Oh wait, they get to assuage their religious indignation at women having sex, which is a principle that apparently trumps the lives and quality of life of everyone else.

Mentat: Serious Black: Does anybody else think that this law could be declared unconstitutional under the precedent set in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as a de facto abridgement of the rights of women in Mississippi to choose whether or not they have an abortion?

With this Supreme Court?

With a hypothetical Supreme Court, yeah. But you're right; this court would probably use the case as a reason to not only overturn Roe v. Wade, but to outright ban abortion nationwide.

Some days I really hate Christians

/Christian
//Discussed this in a college class today and got really angry
///Stupid people suck

The theocrats are at it again. There will to be more and more of this kind of crap unless people start confronting the superstition commonly referred to as religion.

swaniefrmreddeer: Nobody "loves" abortion. Realists see it as a necessity in some cases. I find it ironic that the people who claim to love every child so much that moms life becomes irrelevant, are the same people fighting birth control, sex education, and welfare for the kids they force women to have. Everyone can agree, the fewer abortions the better, but only liberals have real solutions to achieve that goal.

They're also the ones who stigmatize adopted children.

Serious Black: The House has advanced to the floor a bill that would make it illegal for minors to travel across state lines to get an abortion without a parent present. Further, the committee that advanced the bill rejected amendments that would allow victims of rape or incest, women who are experiencing a health crisis, or minors traveling with close, adult family members other than their parents to travel across state lines to get an abortion.

I missed that. OK so I overstated the "free country" part of it didn't I?

Your update does reveal something -- the proponents of the bill are not against abortion. Just abortion for anyone who is not privileged (i.e. themselves). So the rest of my statement still stands.

Kome: Don't bills like this effectively do nothing to stop fetuses from being terminated but only increase the number of women who die?

If the biatch didn't want to have a child, she shouldn't have been asking for it. I mean, look at what she's wearing.

Arkanaut: Who here thinks this bill will improve the health of women and newborns in Mississippi? Show of hands?

/Might be good for Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama though.

If the doctor is competent we there won't be any problem with newborns.

Big_Fat_Liar: Arkanaut: Who here thinks this bill will improve the health of women and newborns in Mississippi? Show of hands?

/Might be good for Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama though.

If the doctor is competent we there won't be any problem with newborns.

I somehow got all we wee'd up

Mike Chewbacca: Next up, only doctors who speak English, Spanish, Finnish, Hebrew, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, AND Elvish will be allowed to perform abortions, so they can read a 42-page document to every whore woman they perform the procedure on in the whore's woman's native tongue explaining how those whores women should never have non-procreative sex in marriage, and no sex at all outside marriage. Let's make the requirements so oddly specific that there's no possible way for an abortion clinic to legally exist in that state. But hey, it's cool because abortion itself isn't illegal.

I never did find out if that bill passed here in Georgia that they were talking about last year. Basically, they wanted to make it so that only hospitals could perform abortions, and any hospital that wished to do so had to get a license from the state to provide the procedure, and the current person in the position to review such applications was an adamant pro-lifer who wouldn't approve any licenses.

Dr Dreidel: They should apply this to any outpatient procedure.

Wiki has some interesting facts:
-50% of all colonoscopies are performed outpatient
-"In the United States, more than 22 million surgeries a year are performed in more than 5,000 ASCs. ASCs are in all 50 states and can be found throughout the world. In the US, most ASCs are licensed, certified by Medicare and accredited by one of the major health care accrediting organizations."
-"In 1996, California was the first state to require accreditation for all outpatient facilities that administer sedation or general anesthesia. Many other states have followed and require accreditation."
-"Many knee, shoulder, eye, spine and other surgeries are currently performed in ASCs."

Any time you get general anesthesia, there's a risk of coma and death. Either apply it to ALL outpatient procedures, or set some kind of standard other than "I don't like that procedure."

It could be construed as discriminatory against women. Or men, depending on how you look at it.

Kome: Now, maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't something like a fetus need to be in a living person's womb in order to continue developing? So if the woman dies because of some complication in the pregnancy and could not get an abortion, doesn't the fetus sort of stop developing too? Don't bills like this effectively do nothing to stop fetuses from being terminated but only increase the number of women who die? Also, what happens if the woman already has children and dies during a subsequent pregnancy?

My grandparents were faced with this terrible scenario back in the 60s. Well, my grandfather was at least. My grandmother suffered a major heart attack in her 8th month of her 4th pregnancy while on a train in Germany. The on-board doctor looked at my grandfather and basically said "I only have the resources to save one. Your wife or your son?" In an instant he chose his wife because he wasn't going to let her leave him alone with 3 little girls an a "potential" (his word, not mine) 4th baby. So they saved her and had to let the baby in her die.

Then, in 1987 and something used as an example to change existing laws in Maryland, a pregnant woman named Angela Carder was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. With her prognosis and the aggressive treatments that her doctors recommended, she, her parents and her doctor all agreed that terminating the pregnancy would be the best thing to do. Better that she fight the illness to see another day and try for another baby. Instead the state ORDERED, against her doctor's advice, that she undergo a c-section to rescue the baby. Both she and the 26 week old fetus died in the OR.

Serious Black: The House has advanced to the floor a bill that would make it illegal for minors to travel across state lines to get an abortion without a parent present. Further, the committee that advanced the bill rejected amendments that would allow victims of rape or incest, women who are experiencing a health crisis, or minors traveling with close, adult family members other than their parents to travel across state lines to get an abortion.

How would one enforce that, practically speaking? HIPAA would prevent them from getting the records of what procedure was performed, and until they're out of the jurisdiction (across state lines) they haven't done anything illegal. I guess they could arrest you when you come back not preggers, but how are they checking for that?

And what's the jail time for that?

Dr Dreidel: They should apply this to any outpatient procedure.

Wiki has some interesting facts:
-50% of all colonoscopies are performed outpatient
-"In the United States, more than 22 million surgeries a year are performed in more than 5,000 ASCs. ASCs are in all 50 states and can be found throughout the world. In the US, most ASCs are licensed, certified by Medicare and accredited by one of the major health care accrediting organizations."
-"In 1996, California was the first state to require accreditation for all outpatient facilities that administer sedation or general anesthesia. Many other states have followed and require accreditation."
-"Many knee, shoulder, eye, spine and other surgeries are currently performed in ASCs."

Any time you get general anesthesia, there's a risk of coma and death. Either apply it to ALL outpatient procedures, or set some kind of standard other than "I don't like that procedure."

That is a valid point that is nonetheless extraneous. A woman having an abortion doesn't get general anesthesia. For a surgical, you get Valium. For a chemical, you get whatever's in your medicine chest at home.

Just remember which political party wants to pay for voluntary IUDs and which party wants rape wands.

A very big difference and one you should remember in November.

KatjaMouse: Kome: Now, maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't something like a fetus need to be in a living person's womb in order to continue developing? So if the woman dies because of some complication in the pregnancy and could not get an abortion, doesn't the fetus sort of stop developing too? Don't bills like this effectively do nothing to stop fetuses from being terminated but only increase the number of women who die? Also, what happens if the woman already has children and dies during a subsequent pregnancy?

My grandparents were faced with this terrible scenario back in the 60s. Well, my grandfather was at least. My grandmother suffered a major heart attack in her 8th month of her 4th pregnancy while on a train in Germany. The on-board doctor looked at my grandfather and basically said "I only have the resources to save one. Your wife or your son?" In an instant he chose his wife because he wasn't going to let her leave him alone with 3 little girls an a "potential" (his word, not mine) 4th baby. So they saved her and had to let the baby in her die.

Then, in 1987 and something used as an example to change existing laws in Maryland, a pregnant woman named Angela Carder was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. With her prognosis and the aggressive treatments that her doctors recommended, she, her parents and her doctor all agreed that terminating the pregnancy would be the best thing to do. Better that she fight the illness to see another day and try for another baby. Instead the state ORDERED, against her doctor's advice, that she undergo a c-section to rescue the baby. Both she and the 26 week old fetus died in the OR.

In short, Christians are all too willing to dump the principle of double effect when it comes to abortion because God will take care of us.

Mentat: Serious Black: The House has advanced to the floor a bill that would make it illegal for minors to travel across state lines to get an abortion without a parent present. Further, the committee that advanced the bill rejected amendments that would allow victims of rape or incest, women who are experiencing a health crisis, or minors traveling with close, adult family members other than their parents to travel across state lines to get an abortion.

There's no way that could go wrong.

"14 year old Jackson resident Anna Mae Beauregard was arrested today on charges of murder and illegally crossing state lines to commit murder. The ACLU has threatened to sue the state of Mississippi on Beauregard's behalf citing a violation of her civil rights. Legal experts suggest such a case could make it all the way to the United State Supreme Court where Justice Clarence Thomas would be expected to mumble something about the Commerce Clause followed by a 5-4 ruling in favor of the state."

The only thing wrong with that paragraph is that Clarence Thomas said something during a hearing.

palelizard: Serious Black: The House has advanced to the floor a bill that would make it illegal for minors to travel across state lines to get an abortion without a parent present. Further, the committee that advanced the bill rejected amendments that would allow victims of rape or incest, women who are experiencing a health crisis, or minors traveling with close, adult family members other than their parents to travel across state lines to get an abortion.

How would one enforce that, practically speaking? HIPAA would prevent them from getting the records of what procedure was performed, and until they're out of the jurisdiction (across state lines) they haven't done anything illegal. I guess they could arrest you when you come back not preggers, but how are they checking for that?

And what's the jail time for that?

I have no idea how they would check for it. As for punishment, the law says that if you facilitate a minor crossing state lines for an abortion, you can get fined and/or sentenced to a year in jail. On the plus side, the minor herself can't be punished!

/that will probably get changed on the House floor by amendment though

TheShavingofOccam123: [i449.photobucket.com image 640x330]

Just remember which political party wants to pay for voluntary IUDs and which party wants rape wands.

A very big difference and one you should remember in November.

I'm a registered voter in Virginia, and let me tell you, I will definitely not forget that.

/pap smears are bad enough but that? yikes

Marcus Aurelius: Vodka Zombie: Let them do this. Then, when people start dropping their unwanted babies off on the lawn of the governor's mansion, someone might rethink this thing.

Or when the legislator's precious snowflake comes home with a punctured uterus from a coat hanger abortion.

Memories are short, and the old stories concerning this type of subject matter would never be passed down, unless it was from woman to woman. Rich white daughters were dying due to rusty hangers and the stupid word of mouth "home remedies" concocted on street corner quiet whispers, held around games of Bridge. Oh well, once again the men walk away safer than mother's milk.

As usual, go fark yourselves, fundies.

/next time they try to secede, let them go

If I were able, I would open an abortion clinic right in downtown Jackson. No competition, I'd make a fortune.

Rincewind53: Unless the courts step in soon, abortion will be de facto illegal in the next decade.

...in red states like Mississippi.

The chances of abortion being banned (or even heavily restricted) in any state John Kerry won in 2004 during my lifetime is zero.

"These are strong, common-sense pro-life bills that will not only end abortion in Mississippi but will enhance efforts to protect children from abuse," Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement Wednesday.

So unwanted children born into poverty stricken environments will be protected from abuse?
How the eff does that work?

smeegle: "These are strong, common-sense pro-life bills that will not only end abortion in Mississippi but will enhance efforts to protect children from abuse," Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement Wednesday.

So unwanted children born into poverty stricken environments will be protected from abuse?
How the eff does that work?

It works because Jesus.

Mike Chewbacca: It works because Jesus.

I so hate Conservatives these days. They are truly farmking evil coonts.

Unlike the 30s 40s and 50s when abortion was outlawed, the internet didn't exist

There will be websites showing women how to have abortions.

What are you gonna do then, fundies?

"These are strong, common-sense pro-life bills that will not only end abortion in Mississippi but will enhance efforts to protect children from abuse," Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement Wednesday.

Whaaaa?
How is eliminating abortions protecting children from abuse?

Serious Black: EnviroDude: Because any doctor that isn't board certified should be able to abort tissue masses. If only the other doctor hadn't killed his patient, this bill would never be.

/ an abortionist botched the job and mom died as a result.

What does board certification have to do with having admission privileges at a local hospital?

What does admission privileges at a hospital have to do with the fact that anyone, at any time, can enter a hospital via the emergency room?

smeegle: Mike Chewbacca: It works because Jesus.

I so hate Conservatives these days. They are truly farmking evil coonts.

gooood the kool aid is working!!!

Pro Zack: gooood the kool aid is working!!!

Whatever.
The GOP is a mess and everybody knows it.

Oh Abe Lincoln, fark you. If you'd only had let the South go, Mississippi would just be "mexico north", a third world banana republic. But you have forced the rest of the country to spend our hard earned tax dollars buoying up the most fat, stupid states.

What an asshole, Abe.

J. Frank Parnell: Marcus Aurelius: Mississippi sure does hate women. It makes you wonder how they manage to reproduce.

Self hating women.

And the Blessed Miracle of Rape.

smeegle: Pro Zack: gooood the kool aid is working!!!

Whatever.
The GOP is a mess and everybody knows it.

Rich folks control both branches of government, and stage a 'fight' whenever we are close to wresting the reigns back from them.

the fact that you hate conservatives, and think they are evil, is evidence that, yes, it works.

Lord_Baull: "These are strong, common-sense pro-life bills that will not only end abortion in Mississippi but will enhance efforts to protect children from abuse," Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement Wednesday.

Whaaaa?
How is eliminating abortions protecting children from abuse?

Especially since the right has recently declared being a single parent is child abuse.

Pro Zack: smeegle: Pro Zack: gooood the kool aid is working!!!

Whatever.
The GOP is a mess and everybody knows it.

Rich folks control both branches of government, and stage a 'fight' whenever we are close to wresting the reigns back from them.

the fact that you hate conservatives, and think they are evil, is evidence that, yes, it works.

Yeah, because you were this close to "wresting the reigns" back from the "rich folks" in charge of Mississippi...

You're high right now, aren't you?

Pro Zack: smeegle: Pro Zack: gooood the kool aid is working!!!

Whatever.
The GOP is a mess and everybody knows it.

Rich folks control both branches of government, and stage a 'fight' whenever we are close to wresting the reigns back from them.

the fact that you hate conservatives, and think they are evil, is evidence that, yes, it works.


And the list of Democrats that have introduced legislation to restrict birth control or abortions you will be providing is...

NewportBarGuy: Rincewind53: Yeah, they probably can't cast it as an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it doesn't specifically target the single abortion clinic in Mississippi... it just so happens that there is only a single abortion clinic in Mississippi.

Don't we pay judges a decent amount of money to determine if the law follows the spirit of the constitution, or something. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but can't a judge issue a ruling that the law, based upon the fact that it applies to only one person/entity/company was written specifically to target that one company?

Of course, someone would have to file a challenge, but I'm not sure how they do that. I thought the ACLU did it all the time in cases like this where the law was so obviously made to target someone.

There have been quite a few legal challenges to various abortion laws. However, the main concern is whether or not it would require being fought up to the SCOTUS. Given the current split - there's no guarantee as to how that would turn out.

I hate abortion. I really hate it. Hate it with the intensity of ten thousand stars. That being said...

My friend was a good gal, and was going to do some volunteer work in a third world country. To do so, she had to get a bunch of shots. No big deal. However, she was engaged to be married and had a little fun with the fiancé before she left. She's in some third world craphole when she finds out she's pregnant. No big deal, she'll just get married when she gets back. Her fiancé is ecstatic with joy.

Fast forward a couple months, she's very pregnant and goes to the ob/gyn glowing and leaves in tears. Her "baby" is "abnormal" to put it lightly. Let's just say there was no higher development. To some fundie, they'd force her to have the kid. Despite the missing limbs and lack of brain development. The "kid" probably had enough brain to breathe, maybe not even that unassisted.

She didn't agree with abortion either, but she got one. There still is no 100% answer why it happened. She's had several healthy rug rats since. They guessed it was the shots she got just before she left.

So rail against abortion fundies, and talk about how every child is a gift. I live in the real world, and have seen that it can be necessary.

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

if Republicans were really christian, wouldn't they make health care cheap and affordable for everyone?

but then how would libs reconcile that would separation of church and state?

inglixthemad: I hate abortion. I really hate it. Hate it with the intensity of ten thousand stars. That being said...

My friend was a good gal, and was going to do some volunteer work in a third world country. To do so, she had to get a bunch of shots. No big deal. However, she was engaged to be married and had a little fun with the fiancé before she left. She's in some third world craphole when she finds out she's pregnant. No big deal, she'll just get married when she gets back. Her fiancé is ecstatic with joy.

Fast forward a couple months, she's very pregnant and goes to the ob/gyn glowing and leaves in tears. Her "baby" is "abnormal" to put it lightly. Let's just say there was no higher development. To some fundie, they'd force her to have the kid. Despite the missing limbs and lack of brain development. The "kid" probably had enough brain to breathe, maybe not even that unassisted.

She didn't agree with abortion either, but she got one. There still is no 100% answer why it happened. She's had several healthy rug rats since. They guessed it was the shots she got just before she left.

So rail against abortion fundies, and talk about how every child is a gift. I live in the real world, and have seen that it can be necessary.


Reality has a liberal bias.

_with*

The bill, which passed the state Senate on Wednesday, would require doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs and to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in case a woman undergoing an abortion needs to be immediately hospitalized.

sounds reasonable no?

I can't help but compare it with "reasonable" gun control ideas from the left. Switch the right to "bear arms" with "have abortions" and decide if you feel your rights are being infringed upon by "reasonable" language that essentially creates a defacto ban.

USP .45: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

if Republicans were really christian, wouldn't they make health care cheap and affordable for everyone?

but then how would libs reconcile that would separation of church and state?


Um, a healthy, productive member of society benefits everyone, Dumas. There's no religious motivation behind that.

Lord_Baull: USP .45: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

if Republicans were really christian, wouldn't they make health care cheap and affordable for everyone?

but then how would libs reconcile that would separation of church and state?


Um, a healthy, productive member of society benefits everyone, Dumas. There's no religious motivation behind that.

way to bust the riff you humorless piece of garbage.

USP .45: with*

The bill, which passed the state Senate on Wednesday, would require doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs and to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in case a woman undergoing an abortion needs to be immediately hospitalized.

sounds reasonable no?

I can't help but compare it with "reasonable" gun control ideas from the left. Switch the right to "bear arms" with "have abortions" and decide if you feel your rights are being infringed upon by "reasonable" language that essentially creates a defacto ban.


I'm sorry, are you suggesting there are gun control laws being introduced, or currently in practice, effectively takes away your right to own a gun?

USP .45: with*

The bill, which passed the state Senate on Wednesday, would require doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs and to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in case a woman undergoing an abortion needs to be immediately hospitalized.

sounds reasonable no?

I can't help but compare it with "reasonable" gun control ideas from the left. Switch the right to "bear arms" with "have abortions" and decide if you feel your rights are being infringed upon by "reasonable" language that essentially creates a defacto ban.

Never make analogies again.

EnviroDude: Because any doctor that isn't board certified should be able to abort tissue masses. If only the other doctor hadn't killed his patient, this bill would never be.

/ an abortionist botched the job and mom died as a result.

I honestly feel like the GOP has done so many stupid things lately that you don't have the energy to mount a passionate but fake defense on this issue. It's like they've even tired you out.

USP .45: Lord_Baull: USP .45: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

if Republicans were really christian, wouldn't they make health care cheap and affordable for everyone?

but then how would libs reconcile that would separation of church and state?


Um, a healthy, productive member of society benefits everyone, Dumas. There's no religious motivation behind that.

way to bust the riff you humorless piece of garbage.


Poe's Law effectively blurs the line between snark and seriousness. And I have humor. In fact, I have many friends who own comic book publishing companies.

Lord_Baull: USP .45: with*

The bill, which passed the state Senate on Wednesday, would require doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs and to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in case a woman undergoing an abortion needs to be immediately hospitalized.

sounds reasonable no?

I can't help but compare it with "reasonable" gun control ideas from the left. Switch the right to "bear arms" with "have abortions" and decide if you feel your rights are being infringed upon by "reasonable" language that essentially creates a defacto ban.


I'm sorry, are you suggesting there are gun control laws being introduced, or currently in practice, effectively takes away your right to own a gun?


The words "assault rifle" appear nowhere in the Constitution.

Biological Ali: Never make analogies again.

well I'm just making a point about how Lord_Baull: I'm sorry, are you suggesting there are gun control laws being introduced, or currently in practice, effectively takes away your right to own a gun?

not where I am, but in some jurisdictions, yes. That's aside from some of the proposals coming from the Brady camp, which are defacto bans.

God's Hubris: The words "assault rifle" appear nowhere in the Constitution.

why should it? if the technology to manufacture firearms is somehow lost, and we go back to spears and arrows as arms, it doesn't invalidate the right.

similarly, if women evolve to reabsorb a fetus back into their uterus when they discover they're pregnant, that shouldn't be outlawed either.

But remember, abortion is still legal in this country, right?

USP .45: Biological Ali: Never make analogies again.

well I'm just making a point about how Lord_Baull: I'm sorry, are you suggesting there are gun control laws being introduced, or currently in practice, effectively takes away your right to own a gun?

not where I am, but in some jurisdictions, yes. That's aside from some of the proposals coming from the Brady camp, which are defacto bans.


citations needed.

SkinnyHead has jumped the shark... He used to actually stick around to debate, but now, he just threadshiats once and disappears. That's the only reason I never put him on ignore, but now... if he's just going to drop a troll post and never come back, then he's not even worth reading.

USP .45: God's Hubris: The words "assault rifle" appear nowhere in the Constitution.

why should it? if the technology to manufacture firearms is somehow lost, and we go back to spears and arrows as arms, it doesn't invalidate the right.


I'm confused. You're saying if we had arrows and axes, we'd still have the right to bear arms. But I keep hearing from the Right how banning armor-piercing bullets or certain assualt rifles* is against the 2nd amendment.


* for the record, I think the term is redudnant and stupid politics. A friggin black-powder musket can be used to assault someone.

Theaetetus: SkinnyHead has jumped the shark... He used to actually stick around to debate, but now, he just threadshiats once and disappears. That's the only reason I never put him on ignore, but now... if he's just going to drop a troll post and never come back, then he's not even worth reading.


I use him to identify the noobs that respond to his posts.

Lord_Baull: citations needed.

why not just accept that I'm not completely making something up instead of whining?

requiring a practice firing range for licensing, but then not allowing any firing ranges

Ezell v. City of Chicago

If the Republicans took all of the energy they put into trying to get rid of every abortion clinic in the country and use that to focus on fixing our economy, our problems would have been solved years ago.

I'm predicting that most of the junior and seniors in Mississippi high schools are eyeballing out of state colleges, universities and lives.

This may sound weird for a woman to say, but with the way this country is going, I'm almost relieved that I'll be entering menopause in the next 5 or 10 years.

/olly olly oxen free!

God's Hubris: I'm confused. You're saying if we had arrows and axes, we'd still have the right to bear arms. But I keep hearing from the Right how banning armor-piercing bullets or certain assualt rifles* is against the 2nd amendment.

broadhead arrows are legal, but we're going to ban bodkin arrows because they're armor piercing.

Lord_Baull: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead has jumped the shark... He used to actually stick around to debate, but now, he just threadshiats once and disappears. That's the only reason I never put him on ignore, but now... if he's just going to drop a troll post and never come back, then he's not even worth reading.


I use him to identify the noobs that respond to his posts.

He's usually pretty interesting to respond to for a several reasons. First, his initial posts tend to be the most distilled kind of stupidity one can find, and sometimes it's good to address the distilled stupidity before it gets bogged down in other kinds of nonsense. Think of it as practice for when you encounter someone else expressing the same stupid sh*t but with an ounce of intelligence (or appearance of intelligence) attached to it. Second, his posts do represent a view that is not unpopular. For all the jibes and jokes about "fundies" and "extremists" and so on in threads like these, his posts defend a terrifying reality-denying worldview that is shared by a scary number of people. That's worth responding to just on its own. Third, because he tries to sound smart, it really is hilarious when he does stick around in a thread and constantly gets called out by people who know at least a little bit more than nothing. Fouth, occasionally you see in his posts something that vehemently and unambiguously contradicts things he's posted in other threads. It's always fun to watch cognitive dissonance at work when you point those out to him and see the mental gymnastics devolve into a recursive loop of ad hominem, denial, and repeating the exact same things over and over again as if nothing changed.

USP .45: Lord_Baull: citations needed.

why not just accept that I'm not completely making something up instead of whining?

requiring a practice firing range for licensing, but then not allowing any firing ranges

Ezell v. City of Chicago


Pretty sure the ban was overturned (new window). So, no.

Kome: Lord_Baull: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead has jumped the shark... He used to actually stick around to debate, but now, he just threadshiats once and disappears. That's the only reason I never put him on ignore, but now... if he's just going to drop a troll post and never come back, then he's not even worth reading.


I use him to identify the noobs that respond to his posts.

He's usually pretty interesting to respond to for a several reasons. First, his initial posts tend to be the most distilled kind of stupidity one can find, and sometimes it's good to address the distilled stupidity before it gets bogged down in other kinds of nonsense. Think of it as practice for when you encounter someone else expressing the same stupid sh*t but with an ounce of intelligence (or appearance of intelligence) attached to it. Second, his posts do represent a view that is not unpopular. For all the jibes and jokes about "fundies" and "extremists" and so on in threads like these, his posts defend a terrifying reality-denying worldview that is shared by a scary number of people. That's worth responding to just on its own. Third, because he tries to sound smart, it really is hilarious when he does stick around in a thread and constantly gets called out by people who know at least a little bit more than nothing. Fouth, occasionally you see in his posts something that vehemently and unambiguously contradicts things he's posted in other threads. It's always fun to watch cognitive dissonance at work when you point those out to him and see the mental gymnastics devolve into a recursive loop of ad hominem, denial, and repeating the exact same things over and over again as if nothing changed.


You do understand he's an alt troll, though, right?

USP .45: God's Hubris: I'm confused. You're saying if we had arrows and axes, we'd still have the right to bear arms. But I keep hearing from the Right how banning armor-piercing bullets or certain assualt rifles* is against the 2nd amendment.

broadhead arrows are legal, but we're going to ban bodkin arrows because they're armor piercing.


Touche! +1

Lord_Baull: Pretty sure the ban was overturned (new window). So, no.

ah, going into liar mode are we?

_{I'm sorry, are you suggesting there are gun control laws being introduced, or currently in practice, effectively takes away your right to own a gun?}

so I cited one that WAS introduced and had to be overturned. I'm sure there are scores of others that simply aren't blatant enough for a legal challenge just yet.

also, you're acting as there is no place in America that doesn't have outright or defacto gun bans. Most non, liars can list the main easy ones right away.

Lord_Baull: You do understand he's an alt troll, though, right?

It's never bothered me. I still use the punching bag at the gym even though it isn't a real opponent.

dr_blasto: keylock71: sammyk: It's about as real as the war on caterpillars. Link (new window)

Yeah... That's the kind of delusional rationalization I'm referring to. It's amazing they can say these things with straight faces, isn't it?

When you are completely unhinged and the policies you support are absolutely unreasonable and unsound, dehumanizing your target and rationalizing your insane beliefs is the only way to stay in the fight.

I just cannot wrap my head around why they feel the need to keep women down. Likewise, I don't understand why any women support them (I don't get why abused spouses stay in abusive relationships, either).

This is simply about reducing a woman's access to choice which then will reduce her success in nearly every other area: education, health, economic independence, representation in public policy, and so on.

That's really the point. Much like some Republicans argue that black families were stronger under slavery, they are trying to restore a woman's status to second class citizenship.

USP .45: God's Hubris: I'm confused. You're saying if we had arrows and axes, we'd still have the right to bear arms. But I keep hearing from the Right how banning armor-piercing bullets or certain assualt rifles* is against the 2nd amendment.

broadhead arrows are legal, but we're going to ban bodkin arrows because they're armor piercing.

And that's why we have freedom of religion in our country!!!!!

Lord_Baull: So, no.

in California it is legal to open carry (concealed carry is almost impossible), but there can be no cartridges in the pistol - which if you know anything about firearms, sorta defeats the purpose.

going to demand a citation?

Mike Chewbacca: Lord_Baull: "These are strong, common-sense pro-life bills that will not only end abortion in Mississippi but will enhance efforts to protect children from abuse," Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement Wednesday.

Whaaaa?
How is eliminating abortions protecting children from abuse?

Especially since the right has recently declared being a single parent is child abuse.

Exactly. Women are forced into perpetual breeding stock. They cannot work, vote, seek education, and so on.

It's not by accident.

USP .45: Biological Ali: Never make analogies again.

well I'm just making a point about how

Whatever your point may be, resorting to bad analogies isn't likely to help your cause much.

Do other clinics that perform elective surgeries, such as plastic surgeons and oral surgeons, need to have admitting privileges? No? Do the people passing the laws openly claim that their aim is to ban abortion, even though the feds say it is legal? Sounds like a roundabout way of making it illegal.

Sue 'em if they pass it.

Biological Ali: USP .45: Biological Ali: Never make analogies again.

well I'm just making a point about how

Whatever your point may be, resorting to bad analogies isn't likely to help your cause much.

"bad analogy"

you mean examples of where a right is infringed upon by ancillary laws which do just that.

Marcus Aurelius: Mississippi sure does hate women. It makes you wonder how they manage to reproduce.

Goat f*cking.

Walker: Thank God Republicans are for small government, keeping the government out of their lives, and don't like the government telling them what to do.



[img.photobucket.com image 600x600]

Damn, he has a large penis.

Biological Ali: USP .45: Biological Ali: Never make analogies again.

well I'm just making a point about how

Whatever your point may be, resorting to bad analogies isn't likely to help your cause much.

Better than his haiku.

USP .45: Biological Ali: USP .45: Biological Ali: Never make analogies again.

well I'm just making a point about how

Whatever your point may be, resorting to bad analogies isn't likely to help your cause much.

"bad analogy"

you mean examples of where a right is infringed upon by ancillary laws which do just that.

It's a bad analogy because access to firearms involves an entirely different set of ethical and public policy considerations than access to medical procedures. So no, the fact that a person might not support both to the same degree isn't a particularly meaningful piece of information. Your analogy is the equivalent of "Those libs want to give gays the freedom to marry but what about our freedom to teach creationism in school? Buncha hypocrites."

SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

If I could herp my derp, wouldn't my anus be famous?

Biological Ali: It's a bad analogy because access to firearms involves an entirely different set of ethical and public policy considerations than access to medical procedures.

nope.

considering they're both considered constitutional practices at present time, the analogy is fine.

USP .45: Biological Ali: It's a bad analogy because access to firearms involves an entirely different set of ethical and public policy considerations than access to medical procedures.

nope.

considering they're both considered constitutional practices at present time, the analogy is fine.

What does what you said have to do with what I said?

USP .45: Lord_Baull: So, no.

in California it is legal to open carry (concealed carry is almost impossible), but there can be no cartridges in the pistol - which if you know anything about firearms, sorta defeats the purpose.

going to demand a citation?

Hey, we have the right to keep and bear arms, not bullets.

SkinnyHead: If democrats really believe their slogan about keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare," shouldn't they be supporting this bill?

If Republicans really believe their slogan about Small Government and Free Market shouldn't they be against this bill?

* Libertarian, the TRUE conservatives

1. Do everything possible, legal and illegal, to discourage medical professionals from providing abortion services

2. Cite low quality of abortion services as justification for step 1

USP .45: Biological Ali: It's a bad analogy because access to firearms involves an entirely different set of ethical and public policy considerations than access to medical procedures.

nope.

considering they're both considered constitutional practices at present time, the analogy is fine.

If the only thing you think of when you think of guns or abortion is the constitution, you may have a huge problem.

Biological Ali: What does what you said have to do with what I said?

nothing, because what you mentioned isn't relevant.

Kome: If the only thing you think of when you think of guns or abortion is the constitution, you may have a huge problem.

It isn't the only thing, but in the context of a nation governed by the rule of law, the constitution would be a primary consideration. Good try though.

Guidette Frankentits: Unlike the 30s 40s and 50s when abortion was outlawed, the internet didn't exist

There will be websites showing women how to have abortions.

What are you gonna do then, fundies?

There are also airplanes and automobiles. Like I said before, in hard core blue states (West Coast plus Northeast), abortion will never be outlawed.

Of course, this only means people that can afford to take a trip across the country will be able to get one...

USP .45: Biological Ali: What does what you said have to do with what I said?

nothing, because what you mentioned isn't relevant.

Certainly more relevant than what you mentioned. Might as well have said "Of course the analogy is fine; they're both words that have an "A" in them".

But in case you're still not getting what I'm trying to explain to you, let's take another set of "constitutional" rights to further illustrate the point. Let's say, due process and equal protection under the law. Would it astound you to learn that there are people out there who might value one or both of those more than they'd value easy access to firearms? Would you consider those people hypocrites, or whatever other point you were trying to make with this tangent?

USP .45: Kome: If the only thing you think of when you think of guns or abortion is the constitution, you may have a huge problem.

It isn't the only thing, but in the context of a nation governed by the rule of law, the constitution would be a primary consideration. Good try though.

Well if it isn't the only thing, maybe you could start talking about those other things, because harping on the constitution with regards to gun access in a thread about limiting access to a medical procedure is pretty silly and irrelevant.

USP .45: Kome: If the only thing you think of when you think of guns or abortion is the constitution, you may have a huge problem.

It isn't the only thing, but in the context of a nation governed by the rule of law, the constitution would be a primary consideration. Good try though.

So you accept that there are other perfectly valid factors that may lead a person to value one of those rights more than the other. I'm glad we agree.

Biological Ali: Let's say, due process and equal protection under the law. Would it astound you to learn that there are people out there who might value one or both of those more than they'd value easy access to firearms? Would you consider those people hypocrites, or whatever other point you were trying to make with this tangent?

I was never trying to accuse anyone of being a hypocrite, I was simply asking those who have differing opinions on either issue, to consider analogous laws that infringe upon an otherwise constitutional right. Furthermore, "easy access to firearms" is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the 2A, but no need to further deviate from the thread topic with that discussion.

Kome: Well if it isn't the only thing, maybe you could start talking about those other things, because harping on the constitution with regards to gun access in a thread about limiting access to a medical procedure is pretty silly and irrelevant.

well the 2A is a means to defend the sovereign individual. Let me repeat that - sovereign individual. If you take more than 1 minute to examine what the purpose of the right is other than "it's to get guns," you'd see how it's highly relevant to an abortion discussion.

The fact that people weight them differently is true, but erroneous on their part.

USP .45: Kome: Well if it isn't the only thing, maybe you could start talking about those other things, because harping on the constitution with regards to gun access in a thread about limiting access to a medical procedure is pretty silly and irrelevant.

well the 2A is a means to defend the sovereign individual. Let me repeat that - sovereign individual. If you take more than 1 minute to examine what the purpose of the right is other than "it's to get guns," you'd see how it's highly relevant to an abortion discussion.

The fact that people weight them differently is true, but erroneous on their part.

Again, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You can't compare legislation regarding a medical service to legislation about gun access (which is precisely what the legislation you're going on about is typically about, rather than about regulation of a militia). Compare legislation regarding a medical service to legislation about a different medical service if you want a good analogy. Your analogy is bad, and now you're just thread jacking because you cannot actually defend your analogy. Unless you want to posit that fetuses should be allowed to own guns, there is no reason to be discussing gun legislation in this thread.

Kome: Unless you want to posit that fetuses should be allowed to own guns, there is no reason to be discussing gun legislation in this thread.

or we're discussing two issues which concern individual sovereignty. reasonably analogous. prove otherwise.

USP .45: Kome: Unless you want to posit that fetuses should be allowed to own guns, there is no reason to be discussing gun legislation in this thread.

or we're discussing two issues which concern individual sovereignty. reasonably analogous. prove otherwise.

*sigh*

You're making a comparison that is only valid at a level of abstraction that is inappropriate here. Since you can't seem to show similarities between the two at a different level of abstraction, and the conversation is not taking place that that level, your analogy is bad in this context at this level of abstraction. For the purposes of this thread, the context you wish to keep bringing up is wholly inappropriate because it gives us nothing of value to actually discuss. Yes, they both concern individual sovereignty. And... what? So do prohibition laws against taking narcotics, or regulations about how much alcohol I can have in my system when I drive, or whether or not I can even purchase alcohol on Sunday, or where I'm allowed to smoke a cigarette, or whether I am legally allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. None of those are really relevant comparisons to abortion either, but they are all equally about individual sovereignty. Individual sovereignty is not the only issue that matters when discussion what is legal, what is prohibited, what we should have access to, and so on. That is why your analogy is bad.

"Hospital" is never defined in the bill, at least. Maybe they oughtta declare the abortion clinic as a limited-service hospital under House Bill 1390, and then they're fine. Every doctor may have the power to admit patients ...

Text of House Bill 1390.

Kome: For the purposes of this thread, the context you wish to keep bringing up is wholly inappropriate because it gives us nothing of value to actually discuss.

discuss instances in which enumerated rights and SCOTUS interpreted rights are infringed upon by roundabout legislation designed to de facto prohibit said rights.

the article brings up one example. I brought up another example. Continue to bring up more examples. pretty simple.

USP .45: Kome: For the purposes of this thread, the context you wish to keep bringing up is wholly inappropriate because it gives us nothing of value to actually discuss.

discuss instances in which enumerated rights and SCOTUS interpreted rights are infringed upon by roundabout legislation designed to de facto prohibit said rights.

the article brings up one example. I brought up another example. Continue to bring up more examples. pretty simple.

Ok, we're done here. I'm not saying your obsession with guns isn't important, only that it is inappropriate for a thread about abortion because apart from some very general and vague similarities, the issues at play are radically different enough that they really are two distinct conversations. When a gun legislation thread shows up, I will be right there alongside you on the gun thing. Because that would be an appropriate medium for the discussion you keep trying to have. It is not appropriate here. You cannot make it appropriate by appealing to vague characteristics of abortion legislation and gun regulations that are equally characteristic of why I can't shoot up heroin, get in my car and drive home after 4 hours of tequila shots at the bar, or run through airports yelling "There's a bomb in the building!" So stop. The discussion is on abortion, not guns. If you don't want to have that discussion, then we have nothing to discuss because you're in the wrong room. To paraphrase Monty Python, you came for an argument, but this is abuse.

Mentat: I wish the Democrats would stop forcing Republicans to engage in this fake war on women.

Hahahaha! I was thinking the exact same thing. Weird.

dr_blasto: I would see the abortion rights more akin to property rights, with the woman's body being her sole property. If you would feel that it was appropriate to tell a woman that she had to maintain another person in her body for 9 months

The question is, if a white woman gets knocked up by her black boyfriend in Florida, can she shoot herself in the stomach and claim it was a 'stand your ground' self defense?

If the State is going to make births mandatory, then it must recognize its obligation to the forced-born. I would agree to the following compromise:

1) Abortion is outlawed.
2) All children are entitled to free public daycare, 0-18.
3) All children are entitled to free public healthcare, 0-21.
4) All children are entitled to a scholarship at the public university or vocational school of their choice.

We'll need to re-establish the public orphanages to accommodate the population explosion that will result from these policies. We'll also have to increase taxes substantially to pay for it all. It's a compromise we can all agree with, especially the pro-lifers -- remember we must protect the innocent babies. No true Christian will stand before their final judgement and say to the Lord their God, "I had an opportunity to end the killing of all those innocent babies, but I just couldn't get on board with paying slightly higher taxes. Sorry God."

Let's get on it.

Things I have learned about the Mississippi legislature:

- Their state Reps are only paid $10k a year
- Their website looks like it was made in Geocities in 1996, although I have actually seen crappier state legislature websites before
- The current State Senators/Reps were elected in November 2011 and serve four-year terms, so they won't be able to be voted out of office until 2015
- You might be tempted to say Mississippi has the government it wants and deserves, but remember the personhood amendment, Initiative 26? It was rejected by Mississippi voters in 2011, which goes a long way towards indicating that Mississippi voters do not want this.

Anyone who refers to a bill as "a common-sense ____" should have "I am farking stupid" tattooed on their forehead.

I honestly can't imagine anyone with a progressive streak being able to take it living in Mississippi, let alone the rest of the South.

Is the mindset really that locked in? Don't progressives ever band together and try to change things?

You never know what complications might arise while performing a vasectomy. Better pass a law requiring all doctors performing vasectomies to have admitting rights to a hospital.

If our friends on the Right joined us in calling for easy, stigma free access to contraception and comprehensive sex ed in our schools (which wouldn't help Mississippi, but still) there would be less need for abortion.

If you're not demanding easy access to contraception, you're not as anti-abortion as you think you are. If you're laughing while Rush calls contraception advocates "sluts" and "whores" you're not as anti-abortion as you think you are.

There's an old saying here in Louisiana: The only reason Mississippi exists is so that Louisiana won't be at the bottom of every list.

Why anyone with an IQ above 50 and more than a 3rd-Grade education would want to stay in that benighted hole is beyond me.

tallguywithglasseson: It looks dire for them," said Leola Reis, vice president for external affairs for Planned Parenthood Southeast.

That's gotta be a tough job.

Life expectancy when having that job is probably terrible too.

Lots of lying for Jesus by those legislators.

Pichu0102: tallguywithglasseson: It looks dire for them," said Leola Reis, vice president for external affairs for Planned Parenthood Southeast.

That's gotta be a tough job.

Life expectancy when having that job is probably terrible too.

Well, as a relatively safe place for that region, she's probably in a relatively liberal place(as far as the south goes), like Charlotte or Raleigh.

quickdraw: [img708.imageshack.us image 640x486]

The coat hanger could be replaced with a bottle of aspirin and still be just as funny.

I thought you pro-abortion folks were all abouth women's health.

Yet none of you have said what YOU would do if complications arise during the abortion.

Seems like if you had any real interest in the health of the woman, you would insist that the abortionist have admitting privileges.

But, we all know it's only politics so you really don't give a shiat if she dies.

dr_blasto: What's an abortionist?

A rational person who's tired of dealing with Republicans.

/I support non-consensual abortions into the 200th trimester.

cchris_39: Yet none of you have said what YOU would do if complications arise during the abortion.

I'm not a doctor. Are you?

EnviroDude: Because any doctor that isn't board certified should be able to abort tissue masses. If only the other doctor hadn't killed his patient, this bill would never be.

/ an abortionist botched the job and mom died as a result.

So your life started out as someone's professional failure?

swaniefrmreddeer: Nobody "loves" abortion. Realists see it as a necessity in some cases. I find it ironic that the people who claim to love every child so much that moms life becomes irrelevant, are the same people fighting birth control, sex education, and welfare for the kids they force women to have. Everyone can agree, the fewer abortions the better, but only liberals have real solutions to achieve that goal.

These people don't care about the woman carrying the fetus (she's obviously a sinner), nor do they care about every child (else there wouldn't be a single child of color or special needs up for adoption, in foster care or in an orphanage). Their goal is to stop people from f*cking. To these backwards baboons, people f*cking, especially for their own enjoyment and not for the purposes of procreation or outside the bounds of a church sanctioned marriage (especially their church) is the greatest evil that humankind can ever perpetrate. Children - unless created their way and under their rules - are a punishment for, well, f*cking. Toss in AIDS and other venereal diseases (remember all that "AIDS is a punishment from god" bullsh*t?), and you have their whole mindset in one sentence - "Thou shalt not f*ck".

No birth control - no f*cking. Hold it in until you burst. No jacking or jilling off either. Just SUFFER.
No sex education - don't learn about f*cking and maybe they won't f*ck.
Welfare for children - ya shouldn't have been f*cking, you whore.

/Needed to be said.
//f*ck yeah

Captain Darling: 1. Do everything possible, legal and illegal, to discourage medical professionals from providing abortion services

2. Cite low quality of abortion services as justification for step 1

That's what happens when conservatives get control over municipal transit systems. No surprises here.

"These are strong, common-sense pro-life bills that will not only end abortion in Mississippi but will enhance efforts to protect children from abuse," Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement Wednesday.

You know what happens when you have unwanted children living in (usually) poor households?

Thick as a brick, these people are.

USP .45: dr_blasto: I would see the abortion rights more akin to property rights, with the woman's body being her sole property. If you would feel that it was appropriate to tell a woman that she had to maintain another person in her body for 9 months

The question is, if a white woman gets knocked up by her black boyfriend in Florida, can she shoot herself in the stomach and claim it was a 'stand your ground' self defense?

There was a girl at my highschool who shot herself in the stomach my senior year. They held everybody in their classrooms until the EMTs picked her up.

I don't remember if it actually worked as an abortion technique, our school was really big and I didn't know her.

Hey, this guy has something really thoughtful to say about the whole "conservative" circus we see now

Link (new window)

Move out west and leave that farking place.

cchris_39: I thought you pro-abortion folks were all abouth women's health.

Yet none of you have said what YOU would do if complications arise during the abortion.

Seems like if you had any real interest in the health of the woman, you would insist that the abortionist have admitting privileges.

But, we all know it's only politics so you really don't give a shiat if she dies.


If complications arise during an abortion they would call an ambulance - like doctors do everywhere else. You know abortions, especially first-trimester ones, are far, far safer than childbirth, right?

The two requirements in the bill are that doctors be board-certified OB/GYNs - which all the doctors at the clinic are - and that they have admitting privileges. Doctors don't NEED admitting privileges in order for patients with complications to be admitted. An one of the reasons it's a barrier is that the hospitals give admitting privileges to doctors who refer at least 8-15 patients per month. The rate of complications at the clinic is way less than that. Basically, one of the reasons the doctors don't have admitting privileges is that abortion is way too safe.

But keep pretending you give a shiat about women's safety. It's cute.

abort Mississippi.

Someone's been making bad analogies in here, I see.



And the secondary argument didn't really resemble the original one anyway.

whidbey: I honestly can't imagine anyone with a progressive streak being able to take it living in Mississippi, let alone the rest of the South.

Is the mindset really that locked in? Don't progressives ever band together and try to change things?

There are many neighborhoods and college towns throughout the South that are progressive. But they don't have the numbers or the influence to enact policies outside of their small neighborhood. And currently with drastic cuts to education many of these college towns are starting to dry up.