Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Texas Republicans file bill to impose drastic limitations on the availability of abortions. Almost unbelievably, this is not a repeat from yesterday   (blog.chron.com ) divider line 126
    More: Sad, Republican, abortions  
•       •       •

2081 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jul 2013 at 9:11 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-19 08:49:32 AM  
Are you TRYING to have a brain drain?
 
2013-07-19 08:49:35 AM  
I don't understand--why not just file a bill to outlaw abortion in general? Why the piecemeal 20 weeks, then 6 weeks stuff? We all know complete outlawing is the target.
 
2013-07-19 09:01:11 AM  

Somacandra: I don't understand--why not just file a bill to outlaw abortion in general? Why the piecemeal 20 weeks, then 6 weeks stuff? We all know complete outlawing is the target.


Because like dividing by zero, it is not allowed.  But you can figure the limit a weeks approach zero.
 
2013-07-19 09:16:59 AM  
Stop with the "any new regulations shuts down any abortion clinic" lie.

Pennsylvania has already been through the new regulations with liberals claiming it would Shut. Down. Everything.  2 whole clinics close, the rest met new regulations and continue to operate.

You never see liberals claim this about other industries, than any new regulation shut down the industry.  CAFE standards increased!  There is no more automobile industry!  No, they just have to meet new regulations.  And the ones in Texas were not that onerous.  They were standard regulations for most medically related clinics. Yet it doesn't stop the mass hysteria.

The vast majority of Americans (yes, women are included) support third trimester abortions.  Over 60% support 2nd trimester.  Europe has their abortion timeline at 14 weeks.  The only extremists here are the "until the day you get popped out abortion is legal" crowd.
 
2013-07-19 09:17:08 AM  
So, since charging interest on a loan is a sin, are they going after the banks soon too?
 
2013-07-19 09:17:27 AM  
forums.steroid.com

won't someone think of the weird, half-mammalian/half-reptilian stomach parasites?
 
2013-07-19 09:18:02 AM  

Somacandra: I don't understand--why not just file a bill to outlaw abortion in general? Why the piecemeal 20 weeks, then 6 weeks stuff? We all know complete outlawing is the target.


Because if Roe v Wade is gone, then so is the boogeyman.  There's more value in it being there and taking whacks at it.  If there weren't real world consequences to women's health, I'd be impressed at the work and the level of thought the right puts into this.
 
2013-07-19 09:18:16 AM  
Next up:

Mandatory confinement for the remainder of pregnancy in a secured medical bed.
 
2013-07-19 09:18:48 AM  

Somacandra: I don't understand--why not just file a bill to outlaw abortion in general? Why the piecemeal 20 weeks, then 6 weeks stuff? We all know complete outlawing is the target.


One republican filing is not representative of the entire party.  Or else that would be like saying every democrat is for it to be a felony to harass or annoy an officer (introduced in the NY Senate by a democrat).  The bill will be shelved quickly.  Liberals just need to be outraged all the time.
 
2013-07-19 09:22:21 AM  
So this is just gonna be a daily thing now, huh?
 
2013-07-19 09:22:49 AM  

logic523: Next up:

Mandatory confinement for the remainder of pregnancy in a secured medical bed.


That sounds suspiciously like socialized medicine.
 
2013-07-19 09:23:29 AM  

MyRandomName: The only extremists here are the "until the day you get popped out abortion is legal" crowd.


This is an almost unpopulated group.  The right to an abortion is the right to end a pregnancy.  It is not a right to kill a fetus under any circumstances.  If fetuses can be removed without their being killed, that is the morally obligatory option.  Even Judith Jarvis Thomson, author of the classic "A Defense of Abortion" thinks this.  Even Mary Anne Warren thought this, and she held the view that killing INFANTS was not murder.
 
2013-07-19 09:23:32 AM  
Which state legislature will be the first to try getting around  Roe v. Wadeby allowing abortion in theory, but banning it in cases where a fetus has been detected? Placing a sneaky bet on Arizona...they've been out of the headlines for far too long, weeks even.
 
2013-07-19 09:25:06 AM  
Wait, but..."clump of cells".
 
2013-07-19 09:25:39 AM  

Vodka Zombie: logic523: Next up:

Mandatory confinement for the remainder of pregnancy in a secured medical bed.

That sounds suspiciously like socialized medicine.


It's not socialism if people are put in confinement.  Remember, military spending and penal spending are exceptions to general principles about economics.
 
2013-07-19 09:25:50 AM  

From The Woods: [forums.steroid.com image 412x720]

won't someone think of the weird, half-mammalian/half-reptilian stomach parasites?


holy Chick-fil-A Batman!
 
2013-07-19 09:27:00 AM  

MyRandomName: Somacandra: I don't understand--why not just file a bill to outlaw abortion in general? Why the piecemeal 20 weeks, then 6 weeks stuff? We all know complete outlawing is the target.

One republican filing is not representative of the entire party.  Or else that would be like saying every democrat is for it to be a felony to harass or annoy an officer (introduced in the NY Senate by a democrat).  The bill will be shelved quickly.  Liberals just need to be outraged all the time.


Somacandra  didn't say anything about it being representative of the whole Party.

How many sponsors must a bill have before it can be legitimately questioned in your view? Must we wait for it to be passed to discuss it?
 
2013-07-19 09:27:43 AM  

MyRandomName: Somacandra: I don't understand--why not just file a bill to outlaw abortion in general? Why the piecemeal 20 weeks, then 6 weeks stuff? We all know complete outlawing is the target.

One republican filing is not representative of the entire party.  Or else that would be like saying every democrat is for it to be a felony to harass or annoy an officer (introduced in the NY Senate by a democrat).  The bill will be shelved quickly.  Liberals just need to be outraged all the time.


I'd buy this if a dozen states hadn't already passed laws banning abortion for at least some period of time before viability. This fits very well with other efforts around the country, especially North Dakota which has a ban after 6 weeks. It also fits very well with the national GOP platform that thinks abortion should be 100% illegal.
 
2013-07-19 09:28:02 AM  
I don't understand why anyone would want to live in Texas. Even including Austin.
 
2013-07-19 09:32:04 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I don't understand why anyone would want to live in Texas. Even including Austin.


I'm getting to the point where I wonder why anyone would want to live in the United States.
 
2013-07-19 09:35:13 AM  
Serious Black:  ... laws banning abortion for at least some period of time before viability.


Viability is a ridiculous moral standard to use in this context.  It's a duct tape solution to a tricky legal problem.  No physician will deliver a baby on the first day it is "viable".  There is just too much risk to the infant.  Viability is such a highly technology-dependent and resource availability-dependent concept that it cannot be the correct marker for when an abortion becomes morally impermissible.

/not pointing fingers at you, just at the use of this concept in the general debate
 
2013-07-19 09:37:30 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I don't understand why anyone would want to live in Texas. Even including Austin.


There are a ton of jobs here.  Also, no state income tax.  Plus if you like guns, fuggetaboutit.

/lived in Jersey
//now in Texas because of a job
 
rpm
2013-07-19 09:38:54 AM  

logic523: If fetuses can be removed without their being killed, that is the morally obligatory option


Would like a word with you:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-19 09:39:32 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I don't understand why anyone would want to live in Texas. Even including Austin.


they are in the lead in the race to the bottom so it is cheaper to do business there.
 
2013-07-19 09:39:45 AM  

logic523: Lost Thought 00: I don't understand why anyone would want to live in Texas. Even including Austin.

There are a ton of minimum wage, zero benefit jobs here.  Also, no state income tax.  Plus if you like guns, so does literally everyone else. fuggetaboutit.

/lived in Jersey
//now in Texas because of a job


it sounds lovely
 
2013-07-19 09:40:57 AM  

logic523: Lost Thought 00: I don't understand why anyone would want to live in Texas. Even including Austin.

There are a ton of jobs here.  Also, no state income tax.  Plus if you like guns, fuggetaboutit.

/lived in Jersey
//now in Texas because of a job


Some things are more important than being a slave to dollar bills.
 
2013-07-19 09:41:23 AM  
Y'all do realize that unexpected/unwanted pregnancies often aren't even *discovered* until after six weeks have passed? Effectively this bill says that if you know you're pregnant, it's already too late.

/Can't wait to get out of this nightmarish state.
 
rpm
2013-07-19 09:41:43 AM  

MyRandomName: Somacandra: I don't understand--why not just file a bill to outlaw abortion in general? Why the piecemeal 20 weeks, then 6 weeks stuff? We all know complete outlawing is the target.

One republican filing is not representative of the entire party.  Or else that would be like saying every democrat is for it to be a felony to harass or annoy an officer (introduced in the NY Senate by a democrat).  The bill will be shelved quickly.  Liberals just need to be outraged all the time.


What about when it's utterly consistent with the official party platform? Is he representative then, or is he just rogue even though it's official policy?

Official Platform, TX GOP:
We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
We affirm our support for the appointment and election of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect
traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life
 
2013-07-19 09:42:18 AM  
My Random Name:
Stop with the "any new regulations shuts down any  every abortion clinic" lie. (FTFY)

Pennsylvania has already been through the new regulations with liberals claiming it would Shut. Down. Everything.  2 whole clinics close, the rest met new regulations and continue to operate.

You never see liberals claim this about other industries, than any new regulation shut down the industry.  CAFE standards increased!  There is no more automobile industry!  No, they just have to meet new regulations



1) Pennsylvania has been through their own set of new regulations and, according to a recent article, those clinics that met the new requirements did so by virtue of pouring money into the effort. You may not be aware of this but, unlike the car industry, Uncle Sam isn't going to sweep in with funding - they can't. Even if they could? It would lead the right-wingers to rant about - well, you know that chorus. So, yes, the clinics are "safer" there just is less money for the actual health care part.

2) Will EVERY clinic close? no indeed - and really, what is the problem if even half of them close in a state the size of Texas? Unlike, say, buying a car, a woman has all the time in the world to compare various clinics, seeking what she wants, certainly over the course of several weekends (if not a holiday weekend when clinics, like car dealerships, have fluttery banners and free hot dogs, too).

Woman's health care has little to do with the automotive industry - Was your point  big government regulation of women's clinics is really for the best but most other examples (banks, wallstreet, gun ownership, the NSA, the EPA) are over-expensive burdens on the american public that probably don't do half of what they are supposed to and are the work of evil leftist control freaks?
 
2013-07-19 09:42:38 AM  

MyRandomName: You never see liberals claim this about other industries, than any new regulation shut down the industry. CAFE standards increased! There is no more automobile industry! No, they just have to meet new regulations. And the ones in Texas were not that onerous. They were standard regulations for most medically related clinics. Yet it doesn't stop the mass hysteria.


So you think that vasectomy providers should have to meet the same requirements? Because they currently don't, among a range of "medically related clinics" that don't have to have admitting privileges or hospital-sized hallways.  Oh, it specifically targeted abortion providers? Maybe something other than patient safety was the impetus.
 
2013-07-19 09:43:12 AM  
Fetal heartbeat bills are unconstitutional under Roe.

If one were passed, it would only be passed so it could be a test case for overturning Roe and Casey. At great expense to the taxpayers, I might add.

Republicans -- we will gladly litigate 40 year old court battles with your tax dollars, but can't be arsed to find money to feed hungry kids because soshulisms.
 
2013-07-19 09:43:36 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I don't understand why anyone would want to live in Texas. Even including Austin.


If I owned Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas.
 
2013-07-19 09:44:03 AM  
They've already banned abortion after twenty weeks - why not just pass a law decreeing that life begins 21 weeks before conception?
 
2013-07-19 09:46:06 AM  

gglibertine: Y'all do realize that unexpected/unwanted pregnancies often aren't even *discovered* until after six weeks have passed? Effectively this bill says that if you know you're pregnant, it's already too late.

/Can't wait to get out of this nightmarish state.


I'm waiting for the "mandatory three week waiting period to get an abortion" follow-up bill
 
2013-07-19 09:46:33 AM  

yeegrek: Because if Roe v Wade is gone, then so is the boogeyman.  There's more value in it being there and taking whacks at it.  If there weren't real world consequences to women's health, I'd be impressed at the work and the level of thought the right puts into this.


No, see, that was the  theory and the reason the relatively grounded and intelligent GOP leaders in the '80s and '90s kept the issue instead of letting it drop.  It was supposed to be a bit of lip service to hold the religious voting bloc.

Now, it's backfired dramatically and become an actual, functional part of the GOP platform as part of the GOP's new "inmates running the asylum" experiment they started in 2006 or so under leadership too dim or unskilled at maintaining control to keep it from going pear.
 
2013-07-19 09:49:45 AM  
Please, stop feeding MyRandomTroll.
 
2013-07-19 09:51:53 AM  

logic523: Serious Black:  ... laws banning abortion for at least some period of time before viability.


Viability is a ridiculous moral standard to use in this context.  It's a duct tape solution to a tricky legal problem.  No physician will deliver a baby on the first day it is "viable".  There is just too much risk to the infant.  Viability is such a highly technology-dependent and resource availability-dependent concept that it cannot be the correct marker for when an abortion becomes morally impermissible.

/not pointing fingers at you, just at the use of this concept in the general debate


Yeah, viability is an arbitrary marker. But then again, any bright line test on abortion is going to be arbitrary to some extent. It depends on what we want to use as supporting evidence. Pain? Oh man, gotta ban them after 20 weeks. Heartbeat? Gotta ban them earlier than that. Unique DNA? Gotta ban them all.
 
2013-07-19 09:52:17 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Fetal heartbeat bills are unconstitutional under Roe.


Do you happen to know whether that is explicitly part of the opinion or where it might have been established through precedent?
 
2013-07-19 09:53:01 AM  

rpm: logic523: If fetuses can be removed without their being killed, that is the morally obligatory option

Would like a word with you:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x290]


I admit, I'm not familiar with the picture.  Who is that?
 
2013-07-19 10:01:37 AM  

Serious Black: logic523: Serious Black:  ... laws banning abortion for at least some period of time before viability.


Viability is a ridiculous moral standard to use in this context.  It's a duct tape solution to a tricky legal problem.  No physician will deliver a baby on the first day it is "viable".  There is just too much risk to the infant.  Viability is such a highly technology-dependent and resource availability-dependent concept that it cannot be the correct marker for when an abortion becomes morally impermissible.

/not pointing fingers at you, just at the use of this concept in the general debate

Yeah, viability is an arbitrary marker. But then again, any bright line test on abortion is going to be arbitrary to some extent. It depends on what we want to use as supporting evidence. Pain? Oh man, gotta ban them after 20 weeks. Heartbeat? Gotta ban them earlier than that. Unique DNA? Gotta ban them all.


I agree that those particular proposed borders are fraught.  But that leads me to think that the line is further down the spectrum one way or the other.  That is, I think it is probably the case that either abortions are not deeply immoral and neither is infanticide, or else nearly all abortions are deeply immoral and society is obligated to compel pregnant women to behave in ways comparable to the obligations parents have toward actual born children (e.g. parents must not act in any negligent way toward them, and is subject to criminal prosecution for the negligent death of them).

For a really nice argument to the contrary, see Jane English "Abortion and the Concept of a Person".
 
2013-07-19 10:02:21 AM  
Lots of people smoke dope where they're bored and have nothing better to do. Texas legislators do that, too, but then they like to play doctor.

Playing doctor for a Texas legislator (even the ones with MDs) means trolling with abortion bills -- so they can show the reaction of citizens as an unruly mob, hippies gone crazy. It makes for more interesting campaign ads in their minds, since they produce nothing worthwhile in Austin.
 
rpm
2013-07-19 10:05:34 AM  

logic523: rpm: logic523: If fetuses can be removed without their being killed, that is the morally obligatory option

Would like a word with you:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x290]

I admit, I'm not familiar with the picture.  Who is that?


Malthus.

If fetus can be removed without being killed, is that morally obligatory when more people will starve because of it? It's morally obligatory to save one when it can result in the eventual thousands starving? (remember exponential growth). Or when those medical resources can be used instead to save that 5 year old with cancer, but there isn't the budget for it because of the cost of saving that fetus?
 
2013-07-19 10:06:00 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: logic523: Lost Thought 00: I don't understand why anyone would want to live in Texas. Even including Austin.

There are a ton of jobs here.  Also, no state income tax.  Plus if you like guns, fuggetaboutit.

/lived in Jersey
//now in Texas because of a job

Some things are more important than being a slave to dollar bills.


True.  But sometimes what is most important to someone can be better sustained through the acquisition of dollar bills under the right working conditions.  Texas has those types of opportunities, too.  The job I have here is literally the best opportunity I could manage to get after an exhausting international search.
 
2013-07-19 10:11:17 AM  

logic523: There are a ton of minimum wage jobs here.  Also, no state income tax.  Plus if you like guns, fuggetaboutit.


FTFY
 
2013-07-19 10:11:44 AM  

rpm: logic523: rpm: logic523: If fetuses can be removed without their being killed, that is the morally obligatory option

Would like a word with you:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x290]

I admit, I'm not familiar with the picture.  Who is that?

Malthus.

If fetus can be removed without being killed, is that morally obligatory when more people will starve because of it? It's morally obligatory to save one when it can result in the eventual thousands starving? (remember exponential growth). Or when those medical resources can be used instead to save that 5 year old with cancer, but there isn't the budget for it because of the cost of saving that fetus?


That's not an argument in favor of abortion if fetuses are people.  Instead, that's an argument that the population should be checked overall if the food supply dwindles sufficiently low.  If the fetuses are part of the population, then the fair solution would seem to be random extermination of persons.  Perhaps we could weight persons based on their contributions to society or something.  Even so, fetuses aren't likely to be singled out on those grounds.
 
2013-07-19 10:14:02 AM  
I'll be glad when women take over the legislatures across the country in the next 15-20 years. Men..you are about to get yours.
 
2013-07-19 10:15:57 AM  
Princess Ryans Knickers
I'll be glad when women take over the legislatures across the country in the next 15-20 years. Men..you are about to get yours.

I'll be glad when fewer women in the legislatures vote for these bills.
 
2013-07-19 10:17:46 AM  
Yup, it's all about women's health and having the proper medical facilities.

[rolls eyes]
 
2013-07-19 10:19:15 AM  

logic523: Next up:

Mandatory confinement for the remainder of pregnancy in a secured medical bed.


I could see that as a mandatory sentence for anyone trying to obtain an illegal abortion. Liberals love to point out that they'll just do it unsafely anyhow. So if that's really inevitable, locking them up is the only way to save their and their baby's life.
 
2013-07-19 10:20:19 AM  

logic523: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Fetal heartbeat bills are unconstitutional under Roe.

Do you happen to know whether that is explicitly part of the opinion or where it might have been established through precedent?


It is not part of the opinion in Roe. Casey strongly implies a heartbeat bill would be unconstitutional following Roe.

There is no way North Dakota's bill (the test case for such legislation) could survive a SCOTUS ruling unless they overrule Roe and Casey.

Even if they do, millions will be spent on the fight, one that should have been over 40 years ago.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report