Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 64

Thread: Abortion

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by oldmunchkin View Post
    Regardless of what you think, there is a large...very large...portion of this country that is very rural. Sometimes it's even a hundred miles or more to get to a doctor. Sheesh, add that cost to the others! I don't know about the ubercrowded cities in this country, but out here PP even makes "house calls", coming to a town closer to where some women live. So, I am basing it on "personal" experience that leads to common sense! Not everyone is a city dweller. Some of us prefer the rural areas, even when it means we have to travel for care. You know...out here in Real America!
    And there are plenty of locations in Real America there aren't Planned Parenthood centers.

    Yet somehow the people in Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Maine, etc... don't seem to be suffering a fate worse than death.

    Perhaps they would! But then, maybe not, since the government wants to keep it's fingers in the pie! Hell, if Woman's Health Clinic X performed abortions, the government would refuse to keep it's promise to have reproductive health care for women in rural areas!
    And?

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    And there are plenty of locations in Real America there aren't Planned Parenthood centers.

    Yet somehow the people in Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Maine, etc... don't seem to be suffering a fate worse than death.

    And?
    In your opinion! You found a map! Yippie! Yeah, it shows the locations of PP clinics. Some of these clinics do clinics in towns that don't qualify for PP offices. Maybe you didn't read some of those comments left for the clinics, but this map seems to be leaning toward getting rid of the clinics. "Death clinic" was the comment left on the Denver site.

    And since the government doesn't seem to be interested in women's health issues. They want to defund one of the few organizations that is interested solely in women's issues. All because some locations perform a surgical procedure.
    I don't have a problem with authority....I just don't like being told what to do!Remember, the toes you step on today may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow!RIP Fluffy! 01-07-09 I'm so sorry Fluffster! People who don't like cats were probably mice in an earlier life! My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!The nice part about living in a small town: When you don't know what you're doing, someone else always does!
    Atari bullshit refugee!!

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by oldmunchkin View Post
    In your opinion! You found a map! Yippie! Yeah, it shows the locations of PP clinics. Some of these clinics do clinics in towns that don't qualify for PP offices. Maybe you didn't read some of those comments left for the clinics, but this map seems to be leaning toward getting rid of the clinics. "Death clinic" was the comment left on the Denver site.

    And since the government doesn't seem to be interested in women's health issues. They want to defund one of the few organizations that is interested solely in women's issues. All because some locations perform a surgical procedure.
    And therein lies the problem with relying on governmental funding. It makes you beholden to the whims of government. TANSTAAFL.

  4. #34
    Abortion Bans to Replace Roe

    Click here for current status of state policy
    Introduced in 20 states
    Bill Statute:
    Passed at least one chamber in MT, ND, OK and VA
    Ballot initiative approved in TN


    MONTANA: In April, the Senate defeated a measure that would have banned abortion through a ballot initiative to amend the constitutional definition of “person” to include “all members of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development, including the stage of fertilization or conception.” The bill passed the House in March.

    MONTANA: In March, the House approved a measure that would ban abortion through a ballot initiative to amend the constitutional definition of “person” to include “all members of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development, including the stage of fertilization or conception.” No further action is expected since the legislature has adjourned its regular session.

    NORTH DAKOTA: In April, the Senate defeated a bill that would have banned abortion by defining a human being as an “an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development.” The bill, which would have allowed for lifesaving medical treatment and the use of contraceptives, passed the House inFebruary.

    OKLAHOMA: In March, the House approved a measure that seeks to ban abortion by amending the statutory definition of “person” to include “a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception.” No further action is expected since the legislature has adjourned its regular session.

    TENNESSEE: In May, the House approved a measure that places a proposal on the 2014 ballot to add an amendment to the state’s constitution establishing that no constitutional right to abortion exists in Tennessee. The measure, which also would establish that the state constitution does not require state funding for abortion, was approved by the Senate in April.

    VIRGINIA: In February, a Senate committee defeated a measure that would have banned abortion by defining a human being within state law as “the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.” The bill passed the House in February.



    Mandatory Counseling and Waiting Periods Before Abortion


    State-Directed Counseling
    Click here for current status of state policy
    Introduced in 11 states
    Bill Status:
    Passed at least one chamber in IN, LA and MT
    Enacted in IN, KS and ND

    (ENACTED) INDIANA: In May, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) signed an omnibus abortion measure that expands the state’s abortion counseling requirements to include a statement that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm," as well as information on the fetus’s purported ability to feel pain. The measure also bans the state from contracting with abortion providers and includes provisions related to abortion at or beyond 20 weeks’ gestation, abortion coverage in the health exchange, hospital privileges for providers, medical emergency, ultrasound and reporting requirements. It goes into effect in July.

    INDIANA: In February, the Senate approved a measure that would amend the state’s abortion counseling requirements and require an abortion provider to offer an ultrasound to a woman seeking an abortion. The bill would require that abortion counseling include information on fetal pain as well as statements that having an abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer and that personhood begins at conception. The bill would also amend the state’s parental consent law and require an abortion provider to have hospital admitting privileges. No further action is expected since the legislature adjourned its regular session.

    (ENACTED) KANSAS: In April, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed into law an omnibus abortion measure that would expand abortion counseling to include a written statement that an abortion “will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” The bill, which also includes provisions on postviability abortion, parental consent and “partial-birth” abortion, and reporting requirements for abortions and minors’ judicial waivers, goes into effect in July.

    LOUISIANA: In May, the House approved a measure that would amend the state’s counseling requirements. The bill would require that some of the abortion counseling be provided by the medical provider who will perform the abortion; it would also require that the counseling include information on all abortion-related risks that have been published in peer-reviewed journal. The bill, which would also require facilities to post signs on coerced abortion and revise the state’s refusal clause, is awaiting action in the Senate.

    MONTANA: In March, the Senate defeated a measure that would have expanded the state’s abortion counseling requirements. The measure would have required abortion counselors to inform women of any research showing that some groups of women (based on their “physical, psychological, demographic or situational” characteristics) may be at higher risk of complications associated with having had an abortion. The bill, which also includes an exception for abortions necessary due to a medical emergency, passed the House in February.

    (ENACTED) NORTH DAKOTA: In April, Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) signed into law an omnibus bill that requires the state to develop counseling materials that include information on the purported link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer and a statement that the state prefers childbirth to abortion. The measure also requires abortion providers to give the woman “any” information that a “reasonable person” would consider important when considering abortion. The measure, which also includes provisions on medication abortion, medical emergency, abortion reporting requirements and parental consent, goes into effect in August.


    There's more, including banning health exchanges and private insurance companies from covering abortion services.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente...tes/index.html

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Planned Parenthood should be de-funded precisely because it is none of the governments business. If you let government control the purse strings you are allowing the organization to become beholden to the whims of governmental bureaucracy. You don't want government interfering with the operations of private organization? I can get behind that. Just realize that means cutting financial support as well.

    Apparently PP is the only game in town.

    I love the false dichotomy. Fund PP or your lover/mother/sister/aunt/grandma will die!
    Kansas has one PP, and two other abortion clinics. That's three for the entire state. Their legislature is passing bills that would impact any abortion provider, even private clinics, forcing their closure. That's got nothing to do with "government purse strings".

    Also, PP is a major provider for women's healthcare---mammograms, PAPs, cancer screenings, etc. Wielding the 33% financial cut is a direct 33% cut on the majority of non-abortion services, since they don't use federal dollars for abortions.


    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Yes, if the voter feels strongly enough about it to make it a litmus test for their vote. Are you asking if any of us feel that way? I think we all know that there are only 2 *maybe 3* people on here who are that strongly opposed to abortion. So what, what possible relevance does that?

    Is religious belief a proper metric? You really should explain that a bit more but pretty much what everyone is thinking *even if they don't realize it* is that they're making a choice based on morality or some equivalent thinking system. Religious belief is probably a direct root for many, and an indirect root for most, whichever side they end up coming down on. So are you really asking if morality is something we should be legislating? Personally I think the answer is no, but most people on here think the answer is yes. It just so happens that most on here also happen to land on the allowing abortion side of that moral choice.
    I'd rather have scientists and physicians making medical definitions defining life, viability, medications and treatment procedures. Not religious groups. If some want to call it life the moment sperm meets egg, and anything interrupting that is immoral or sinful....even BCP or "abortifacients"....that doesn't mean it should apply to everyone else.

    These legislators are also opening a whole new can of worms by putting definitions of life/personhood in their constitutions. That could "criminalize" all sorts of things involving pregnant women, even when they're not aware of the pregnancy.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Kansas has one PP, and two other abortion clinics. That's three for the entire state. Their legislature is passing bills that would impact any abortion provider, even private clinics, forcing their closure. That's got nothing to do with "government purse strings".

    Also, PP is a major provider for women's healthcare---mammograms, PAPs, cancer screenings, etc. Wielding the 33% financial cut is a direct 33% cut on the majority of non-abortion services, since they don't use federal dollars for abortions.
    GGT, you are confusing and conflating two disparate ideas. One can be supportive of not subsidizing PP and still not be supportive of bills restricting the right women have to abortions. This is a point that's been repeatedly made in the past that you still haven't recognized.

    Atari was a major provider of software in the 80's. If the government subsidized 33% of Atari's operating budget, and then removed that funding, does that mean that all software would become unavailable to everyone?

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    If the government subsidized 33% of Atari's operating budget, and then removed that funding, does that mean that all software would become unavailable to everyone?
    My problem is that you risk it becoming unavailable to the people who may need it most. Low income residents, or regions that would otherwise make operating such centers unprofitable. This somewhat bleeds into the thread about how the government has to prop up various utilities (in various ways) to rural areas.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    GGT, you are confusing and conflating two disparate ideas. One can be supportive of not subsidizing PP and still not be supportive of bills restricting the right women have to abortions. This is a point that's been repeatedly made in the past that you still haven't recognized.
    I recognize those personal opinions, but that's not what legislators are saying/doing. They've said PP funding will be fully reinstated once they stop performing abortions, knowing full well that (a) PP doesn't use gov't funds for abortions, and (b) the women hurt by de-funding are the ones needing mammograms and PAPs and birth control.

    They're using the Hyde Amendment (funding laws which are already followed) to expand restrictions on all abortions. First at PP and then at private clinics. Anti-abortion groups admit their goal is to undo Roe v Wade state-by-state with cumbersome legal restrictions, eventually leading to NO access to abortions, beginning with Kansas. What good is a right to abortions if it can't be found in an entire state?

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    This somewhat bleeds into the thread about how the government has to prop up various utilities (in various ways) to rural areas.
    It's also another example of individual states making laws to bypass or override federal laws and "rights". It's being done in gun control, medical marijuana, immigration and employment, marriage equality....

    Sure, it's a tangent, but an important one.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I'd rather have scientists and physicians making medical definitions defining life, viability, medications and treatment procedures. Not religious groups. If some want to call it life the moment sperm meets egg, and anything interrupting that is immoral or sinful....even BCP or "abortifacients"....that doesn't mean it should apply to everyone else.

    These legislators are also opening a whole new can of worms by putting definitions of life/personhood in their constitutions. That could "criminalize" all sorts of things involving pregnant women, even when they're not aware of the pregnancy.
    I think legislating advisories is kinda silly myself. But you know, democracy is democracy. Are people being coerced? No. Are their protected rights being infringed on? No. Are legislators and the voting public using government to encourage the results they want in a "soft" manner? Absolutely, which is the right method for engaging in that kind of social engineering, though I still prefer people let others live their own lives. People have the right to try and convince others that they're wrong. You favor doing that, personally or in legislation, all the freaking time. But when people are doing that in a direction you don't agree with well "OMG, something terrible is going on." BULLSHIT!

    I will note, I don't give a rat's ass what measures got defeated or only passed one house, or which got vetoed. The key word for "meaningless grandstanding to pander to voters" is meaningless.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I think legislating advisories is kinda silly myself. But you know, democracy is democracy. Are people being coerced? No.
    Since you mentioned that...some states are requiring placards be posted stating "You cannot be forced into an abortion".

    Are their protected rights being infringed on? No.
    Again, what good is a right if it can't be practiced? Women of means can travel out of state for a legal abortion (in Kansas for example), but poor women can't. If their access is restricted to just three providers, and those are forced to close...their right IS being infringed.

    Not to mention infringing on physicians' rights to practice legal medicine. Kansas has effectively driven clinicians out of practice by creating zoning laws, suing abortion providers for "public nuisance", landlords refusing clinic tenants....


    Are legislators and the voting public using government to encourage the results they want in a "soft" manner? Absolutely, which is the right method for engaging in that kind of social engineering, though I still prefer people let others live their own lives. People have the right to try and convince others that they're wrong. You favor doing that, personally or in legislation, all the freaking time. But when people are doing that in a direction you don't agree with well "OMG, something terrible is going on." BULLSHIT!
    I wouldn't call this a "soft" manner. I favor convincing individuals that what they're doing -- right or wrong-- can be achieved by education and marketing 'propaganda', yes. That's why PP is instrumental in reducing the need for abortions. I object to Bible thumpers convincing legislators that the "best way" to reduce abortions is to.....de-fund Planned Parenthood. I'd prefer they listen to scientists and physicians.

    I favor legislation and Regulation of groups when individuals are impacted.....ie, I don't object to health and safety guidelines for all abortion clinics, any more than I'd object to those same things applying to dental clinics or plasma centers. But when the purpose is to restrict or deny a service, instead of making it safer or needed less, that's a horse of a different color.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    .....I still prefer people let others live their own lives. People have the right to try and convince others that they're wrong. You favor doing that, personally or in legislation, all the freaking time. But when people are doing that in a direction you don't agree with well "OMG, something terrible is going on." BULLSHIT!
    And don't you say the same thing when state ballot initiatives are directed at prohibiting marriage equality?

    Is this about the "direction" of populist law or what is considered protected Civil rights or Minority rights? Should these rights be something states or cities can deny to others, simply by creating new sets of laws?

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Since you mentioned that...some states are requiring placards be posted stating "You cannot be forced into an abortion".
    Again, seems somewhat silly. I don't see how it matters, and it is at least a true statement, at least as far as government and legislation is concerned.

    Again, what good is a right if it can't be practiced? Women of means can travel out of state for a legal abortion (in Kansas for example), but poor women can't. If their access is restricted to just three providers, and those are forced to close...their right IS being infringed.

    Not to mention infringing on physicians' rights to practice legal medicine. Kansas has effectively driven clinicians out of practice by creating zoning laws, suing abortion providers for "public nuisance", landlords refusing clinic tenants....
    Fun fact. You don't have a right to an abortion. None whatsoever. Your right is to not have the government try and control your body. A necessary corollary to that is that the government cannot set up hard barriers to your efforts to practice that control of your body. It is NOT a necessary corollary that it must spend money to lower any other barriers in your life. That comes as a matter of legislative preference which, in a democracy, pretty much means expressing a cultural gestalt representative of a majority of the population. If you want that gestalt to be in line with your own preferences, you're gonna have to work on the voters.

    I wouldn't call this a "soft" manner.
    Now that's just literally not true, you called these sorts of measures 'soft' in multiple replies to Enoch and Veldran in multiple threads over the last few months.

    I favor convincing individuals that what they're doing -- right or wrong-- can be achieved by education and marketing 'propaganda', yes. That's why PP is instrumental in reducing the need for abortions. I object to Bible thumpers convincing legislators that the "best way" to reduce abortions is to.....de-fund Planned Parenthood. I'd prefer they listen to scientists and physicians.

    I favor legislation and Regulation of groups when individuals are impacted.....ie, I don't object to health and safety guidelines for all abortion clinics, any more than I'd object to those same things applying to dental clinics or plasma centers. But when the purpose is to restrict or deny a service, instead of making it safer or needed less, that's a horse of a different color.
    False distinction. You regularly lump individuals together as aggregates, separate organizations out as individual agents and mix and match when you want legislation and regulation and when we should focus on trying to "convince" agents as is necessary to achieve whatever your agenda is. You cry out against the religious types "threatening" abortion and putting pressure on women not to get them and ignore the pressure from others on their girlfriends or children to get an abortion they don't really want, you rant about banks and upside mortgages and ignore all the people who still came out ahead because they got easier terms on their mortgages. Hard and soft, individual, organized groups, or unorganized groups, the only thing you care about is whichever "individual" you decided was a victim and which 'group' was the big bad entity hurting them.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    And don't you say the same thing when state ballot initiatives are directed at prohibiting marriage equality?
    I campaigned against the initiative, but I didn't even favor the court challenges, I thought that it was legal and my side lost. For now. I've repeatedly said that I think the conservatives and religious types ahve already lost this particular cultural conflict. None of these measures are going to last, the younger generations do not share the opinions of their grandparents, increasingly parents don't share the opinions of their own parents, and we're not seeing significant switches in those attitudes as they age. But even by your incredibly confused and inconsistent standards, prohibition would surely be classified as a "hard" measure, yes? And I am usually opposed to hard barriers on private behavior. Do note, legal same-sex marriage does not and should not include ANY sort of legal requirement for anyone but a government official to perform a ceremony. Ministers, priests, ship captains, etc. are all free to refuse service. Such refusals would be a "soft" barrier, in the parlance you use for abortion, and they are perfectly permissible. I would actually object to an attempt to force someone besides a government official to perform a marriage ceremony. Such an attempt would infringe on THEIR rights.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Again, seems somewhat silly. I don't see how it matters, and it is at least a true statement, at least as far as government and legislation is concerned.
    Seems silly to me too. But anything that slows or impedes the process of getting an abortion is translated as a success for anti-abortion groups.



    Fun fact. You don't have a right to an abortion. None whatsoever. Your right is to not have the government try and control your body. A necessary corollary to that is that the government cannot set up hard barriers to your efforts to practice that control of your body. It is NOT a necessary corollary that it must spend money to lower any other barriers in your life. That comes as a matter of legislative preference which, in a democracy, pretty much means expressing a cultural gestalt representative of a majority of the population. If you want that gestalt to be in line with your own preferences, you're gonna have to work on the voters.
    It is my right to have an abortion. It goes along with the right to control my own body, and to have the government not impede my right to control my body.... with laws requiring ultrasounds, repeat ultrasounds, waiting periods, lectures about beginning of life, fetal pain (before medical definitions of what a fetus means), or redefining what life means.



    Now that's just literally not true, you called these sorts of measures 'soft' in multiple replies to Enoch and Veldran in multiple threads over the last few months.
    Are you keeping track? Maybe tons of "soft" measures, taken together, mean "hard" measures.



    False distinction. You regularly lump individuals together as aggregates, separate organizations out as individual agents and mix and match when you want legislation and regulation and when we should focus on trying to "convince" agents as is necessary to achieve whatever your agenda is. You cry out against the religious types "threatening" abortion and putting pressure on women not to get them and ignore the pressure from others on their girlfriends or children to get an abortion they don't really want, you rant about banks and upside mortgages and ignore all the people who still came out ahead because they got easier terms on their mortgages. Hard and soft, individual, organized groups, or unorganized groups, the only thing you care about is whichever "individual" you decided was a victim and which 'group' was the big bad entity hurting them.
    What's your motivation here, besides analyzing ME instead of analyzing the bigger picture?



    I campaigned against the initiative, but I didn't even favor the court challenges, I thought that it was legal and my side lost. For now. I've repeatedly said that I think the conservatives and religious types ahve already lost this particular cultural conflict. None of these measures are going to last, the younger generations do not share the opinions of their grandparents, increasingly parents don't share the opinions of their own parents, and we're not seeing significant switches in those attitudes as they age. But even by your incredibly confused and inconsistent standards, prohibition would surely be classified as a "hard" measure, yes? And I am usually opposed to hard barriers on private behavior. Do note, legal same-sex marriage does not and should not include ANY sort of legal requirement for anyone but a government official to perform a ceremony. Ministers, priests, ship captains, etc. are all free to refuse service. Such refusals would be a "soft" barrier, in the parlance you use for abortion, and they are perfectly permissible. I would actually object to an attempt to force someone besides a government official to perform a marriage ceremony. Such an attempt would infringe on THEIR rights.
    Then abortion rights and marriage equality are not analagous. The time factor alone makes it quite different.

    The legal measures do, indeed, last. Far longer than 20 weeks. It matters more for women with an unintended pregnancy, than it does for same-sex people trying to get married with full authority of a government and can "wait" for years. You're right, it's a false distinction.

    But it's still a Civil Rights issue.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Seems silly to me too. But anything that slows or impedes the process of getting an abortion is translated as a success for anti-abortion groups.
    Well it's good for them that they set their sights low?

    It is my right to have an abortion. It goes along with the right to control my own body, and to have the government not impede my right to control my body.... with laws requiring ultrasounds, repeat ultrasounds, waiting periods, lectures about beginning of life, fetal pain (before medical definitions of what a fetus means), or redefining what life means.
    It is your right to control your body. It is not your right to get whatever you want for or to your body no matter what the circumstances. For instance, it is not your right to get any medical procedure you might want for free. Government *and the voting public behind government* may decide that allowing that sort of thing is worthwhile, but that doesn't make it a right, and as they can decide it's worthwhile, they can decide it's not worthwhile as well. The government can't put a substantive barrier in place *for instance, if the list of requirements was so onerous and time-consuming to fulfill that it became difficult-to-impossible to meet them all before it was too late to get an abortion* but measures like requiring an ultra-sound, a counseling session, or a few days waiting period don't measure up to that, even in aggregate. They may not be convenient but hey, convenience isn't a right either.

    What's your motivation here, besides analyzing ME instead of analyzing the bigger picture?
    If you don't want it discussed perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up. Plus hypocrisy bugs me.

    Then abortion rights and marriage equality are not analagous. The time factor alone makes it quite different.

    The legal measures do, indeed, last. Far longer than 20 weeks. It matters more for women with an unintended pregnancy, than it does for same-sex people trying to get married with full authority of a government and can "wait" for years. You're right, it's a false distinction.

    But it's still a Civil Rights issue.
    If it's not analogous, perhaps you shouldn't have presented raised the point in the first place. I'm sensing an emerging pattern from you here. By the by, that's not civil rights. Privacy rights, perhaps an emerging field of health-care rights, but civil-rights is about our interactions with civil institutions like voting or, in this case, marriage.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    If it's not analogous, perhaps you shouldn't have presented raised the point in the first place. I'm sensing an emerging pattern from you here. By the by, that's not civil rights. Privacy rights, perhaps an emerging field of health-care rights, but civil-rights is about our interactions with civil institutions like voting or, in this case, marriage.
    Civil Rights are also historically about whose denying the right, as in public education (Brown v Board of Education) and in abortion services (Roe v Wade). Health Care Rights can be interpreted as an extension of Civil Rights. Medicaid is a good example---federal law prohibits providers denying service based on poverty/income level or type of reimbursement. This is one of the details states are eager to ignore, as they try to re-define abortion services.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Civil Rights are also historically about whose denying the right, as in public education (Brown v Board of Education) and in abortion services (Roe v Wade). Health Care Rights can be interpreted as an extension of Civil Rights. Medicaid is a good example---federal law prohibits providers denying service based on poverty/income level or type of reimbursement. This is one of the details states are eager to ignore, as they try to re-define abortion services.
    No. Brown v Board is indeed a civil rights case, but it's got nothing to do with who was denying the right. All rights-infringement under the US constitution is done by governments because those are the only rights the system addresses *and, in a number of theory frameworks, those are the only rights there are* Brown v. Board was about access to a civil institution, public education. Roe. v Wade was about privacy rights. Those are about persons, not about civil institutions. Health care rights are an extension of privacy rights and, in some limited cases, can intersect with civil rights as well, through public health care systems. Roe v Wade had absolutely NOTHING to do with public health care and was addressed exclusively at control over one's own body, to wit a privacy right.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  18. #48
    They're both Civil Rights issues, though. Whether access to a public institution (education) or privacy rights and, by extension, health care rights (abortion).

    You said yourself that
    Health care rights are an extension of privacy rights and, in some limited cases, can intersect with civil rights as well, through public health care systems.

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    They're both Civil Rights issues, though. Whether access to a public institution (education) or privacy rights and, by extension, health care rights (abortion).

    You said yourself that
    I am aware that you're trying to force a backdoor, yes. And as I also plainly said, you're wrong. Nice tangent away from all those other points you've tried to throw up wrt abortion, too.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    11,847
    Roe vs Wade about Civil Rights? I doubt that very very much. I could not construe any legal reasoning that would lead to that conclusion.
    Congratulations America

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I am aware that you're trying to force a backdoor, yes. And as I also plainly said, you're wrong. Nice tangent away from all those other points you've tried to throw up wrt abortion, too.
    In other words, you think this is an exercise in being right or wrong. And you just want to be right.

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    In other words, you think this is an exercise in being right or wrong. And you just want to be right.
    I say one thing. Then you cherry pick from my post and say I said something the exact opposite. And pointing that out means I think this is an exercise in being right or wrong. Got it. This all being your fourth attempt to move away from wherever the discussion is.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Roe vs Wade about Civil Rights? I doubt that very very much. I could not construe any legal reasoning that would lead to that conclusion.
    Civil Rights include the Right to Privacy. That means the relationship between patients and their doctors. We have extra privacy patient HIPPA laws where privacy is utmost.

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I say one thing. Then you cherry pick from my post and say I said something the exact opposite. And pointing that out means I think this is an exercise in being right or wrong. Got it. This all being your fourth attempt to move away from wherever the discussion is.
    Quite rich, coming from the guy who spends more time cherry picking posts as the pedantic nit picker than anyone here.

    Why not stop critiquing others' posts as if you're grading a paper, and post your own damn opinion? You do have your own opinions, outside of how people post, don't you?


  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Civil Rights include the Right to Privacy. That means the relationship between patients and their doctors. We have extra privacy patient HIPPA laws where privacy is utmost.
    And Guam is too a state!
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  26. #56
    Do you have an opinion about Abortion, Fuzzy? Do you have an analysis about state laws restricting Abortions?

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Do you have an opinion about Abortion, Fuzzy? Do you have an analysis about state laws restricting Abortions?
    I've posted that twice now in this thread. You being you, however, the only material I write that ever gets replied to is the side-comment allowing you to drag the conversation away from material you're no longer comfortable discussing.

    And I'm generally fairly good about replying to all the ideas expressed in most people's posts and not cherry-picking. Including yours on this thread. Sometimes I deliberately ignore material to keep the discussion focused on the topic at hand and it's true I do that more with your posts than with others because you are pretty much always the person most interested in pursuing tangents, but I plainly did not do that in this thread so I would kindly ask you to cease this "chase me" game you've been playing.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #58
    Several States Forbid Abortion After 20 Weeks


    By ERIK ECKHOLM
    Published: June 26, 2011



    Dozens of new restrictions passed by states this year have chipped away at the right to abortion by requiring women to view ultrasounds, imposing waiting periods or cutting funds for clinics. But a new kind of law has gone beyond such restrictions, striking at the foundation of the abortion rules set out by the Supreme Court over the last four decades.


    These laws, passed in six states in little more than a year, ban abortions at the 20th week after conception, based on the theory that the fetus can feel pain at that point — a notion disputed by mainstream medical organizations in the United States and Britain. Opponents of abortion say they expect that discussion of fetal pain — even in the face of scientific criticism — will alter public perception of abortion, and they have made support for the new laws a litmus test for Republicans seeking the presidency.


    “The purpose of this type of bill is to focus on the humanity of the unborn child,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee. “Fetal pain is something that people who are in the middle on the abortion issue can relate to.”


    Since Nebraska passed the first 20-week limit last year, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma and, this month, Alabama have followed. A similar law has advanced in the Iowa legislature, and anti-abortion campaigners have vowed to promote such laws in more states next year.


    The laws directly conflict with the key threshold set by the Supreme Court: that abortion cannot be banned until the fetus becomes viable. Viability, the ability to survive outside the womb, usually occurs at the 24th week of pregnancy or later, and is determined in individual cases by a doctor, said Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst in Washington with the Guttmacher Institute, a research group.


    The laws have entered into Republican presidential politics. Support for fetal pain legislation is one item in a pledge that anti-abortion groups are asking potential candidates to endorse. Five have signed, but Mitt Romney and Herman Cain have been criticized for refusing to take part in the pledge, which also asks leaders to make opposition to abortion a test for all appointments and to end taxpayer funding of abortion and Planned Parenthood.


    “These 20-week laws are absolutely unconstitutional,” said Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal group. No one has yet challenged the laws in court, in part because they are so new that few potential plaintiffs have emerged. But advocates for abortion rights are also proceeding warily, fearful that a weak case could end up in the Supreme Court and upend the legal structure established by Roe v. Wade in 1973 and subsequent decisions, with fetal viability as the all-important dividing line between access to abortion and stringent limits.


    “We will file a legal challenge when the circumstances and timing are right,” Ms. Northrup said.


    Ms. Balch and other advocates say they relish a test of the laws in the Supreme Court, where they believe a narrow victory might be possible, changing the terms of the abortion debate for good.


    Only 1.5 percent of the 1.21 million abortions each year, or about 18,000, occur later than 20 weeks after conception, and many of these involve medical emergencies, said Ms. Nash of the Guttmacher Institute.


    Still, the new laws also place stricter, and what some say are unconstitutional, limits on medical exceptions as well.


    They permit abortions after 20 weeks only to avert the death or “serious physical impairment of a major bodily function” of the mother, or to avoid the death of the fetus. There are no exceptions for rape or incest, none for less dire medical threats or mental health.


    Nor, under the laws, is an abortion allowed after 20 weeks when a fetus is discovered to be catastrophically impaired but still living, as is sometimes discovered by routine ultrasounds in midpregnancy.


    Last fall, Danielle and Robb Deaver of Grand Island, Neb., found that their state’s new law intruded in a wrenching personal decision. Ms. Deaver, 35, a registered nurse, was pregnant with a daughter in a wanted pregnancy, she said. She and her husband were devastated when her water broke at 22 weeks and her amniotic fluid did not rebuild.


    Her doctors said that the lung and limb development of the fetus had stopped, that it had a remote chance of being born alive or able to breathe, and that she faced a chance of serious infection.


    In what might have been a routine if painful choice in the past, Ms. Deaver and her husband decided to seek induced labor rather than wait for the fetus to die or emerge. But inducing labor, if it is not to save the life of the fetus, is legally defined as abortion, and doctors and hospital lawyers concluded that the procedure would be illegal under Nebraska’s new law.


    After 10 days of frustration and anguish, Ms. Deaver went into labor naturally; the baby died within 15 minutes and Ms. Deaver had to be treated with intravenous antibiotics for an infection that developed.


    Ms. Deaver said she got angry only after the grief had settled. “This should have been a private decision, made between me, my husband and my doctor,” she said in a telephone interview.


    Based on current knowledge, medical organizations generally reject the notion that a fetus can feel pain before 24 weeks. “The suggestion that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain is inconsistent with the biological evidence,” said Dr. David A. Grimes, a prominent researcher and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. “To suggest that pain can be perceived without a cerebral cortex is also inconsistent with the definition of pain.”


    In one recent review, in March 2010, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Britain said of the brain development of fetuses: “Connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.”


    Observations of physical recoiling and hormonal responses of younger fetuses to needle touches are reflexive and do not indicate “pain awareness,” the report said.


    On a Web site summarizing their case, abortion opponents counter with recent studies by a handful of scientists claiming that a functioning cortex is not necessary for the experience of pain. They charge that the American and British obstetrical colleges are biased, dominated by abortion supporters.


    “It seems to me that the other side is afraid of challenging this in the courts,” Ms. Balch, of the National Right to Life Committee, said of the 20-week limits. “But we’re going to get this, whether in court or passing it state by state.”


    Caitlin Borgmann, a law professor at City University of New York School of Law and an advocate for abortion rights, said that it was frustrating to see “clearly unconstitutional” laws on the books in several states, so far without challenge.


    But she defended the decision of legal groups to proceed cautiously, saying that “it’s better to wait for a good opportunity than to act too quickly,” with a chance of a disastrous loss.


    “It has to be a very careful balancing,” she said.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us...n.html?_r=1&hp






    But inducing labor, if it is not to save the life of the fetus, is legally defined as abortion, and doctors and hospital lawyers concluded that the procedure would be illegal under Nebraska’s new law.

    They permit abortions after 20 weeks only to avert the death or “serious physical impairment of a major bodily function” of the mother, or to avoid the death of the fetus. Did they mean to say inductions?

  29. #59
    And here we are, ten years later, with a new Texas law that basically prevents a woman from using a constitutionally protected form of birth control. It's intentionally designed to bypass the state's legal authority by using Citizen vigilantes.

    And SCOTUS choked.
    Last edited by GGT; 09-10-2021 at 05:51 AM.

  30. #60
    I am amused by Dread's first comment, in light of recent events. Now, government funding abortion is one of the primary vehicles for establishing standing to sue Texas to get the law forbidding abortion for any reason after six weeks struck down.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •