Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-04-2016, 03:58 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrexDigit View Post
Also - an interesting catch by Ginsburg.
Admitting privileges conveniently unnecessary for these West Texas women.
No one forced them to close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2016, 03:59 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,191,640 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
You're jumped from falsely claiming that states aren't allowed to enact Any laws re 1st trimester abortions, to arguing that the Texas law in This case doesn't impose an undue burden. Does that mean you finally accept that states can pass laws re pre-viability abortions if the laws don't impose an undue burden/substantial obstacles for women ?
Not in the first trimester. Do you have a point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 04:32 PM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,506,034 times
Reputation: 4622
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Not in the first trimester. Do you have a point?
You don't get the point, and never will, because you refuse to accept the fact that states are allowed to pass laws re 1st trimester abortions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,268 posts, read 26,199,434 times
Reputation: 15639
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Not in the first trimester. Do you have a point?
Why is it so hard for you to just acknowledge that they created an undue hardship on clinics with this law.


I noticed that you are the lone survivor on this side of the issue, I assume very few are even willing to attempt to rationalize this bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 04:52 PM
 
Location: CO
2,172 posts, read 1,453,673 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
No one forced them to close.
Unnecessary medical restrictions did.
Colonoscopies are more dangerous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 06:02 PM
 
11,755 posts, read 7,116,249 times
Reputation: 8011
It's appalling that, ever since the Casey case, anti-choice proponents in state legislatures have passed all sorts of dumb requirements that are simply meant to impede legal access to abortion . . . . they do nothing for mother's health or other legitimate public policy. It's all just a pretext to chip away at Roe vs. Wade until there is absolutely nothing left of it.

You really ought to try to get Roe vs. Wade reversed by the SCOTUS. That's what principled people would do, instead of enacting countless BS regulations. It's a shame that Scalia succumbed to a vicious pillow . . . he would have been a difference maker.

Mick
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Ohio
2,801 posts, read 2,309,466 times
Reputation: 1654
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Good news? How are these restrictions 'good news'? I think it only reasonable that such a risky procedure take place where adequate emergency treatment is available in case something goes wrong.

But, hey, putting lives at risk doesn't bother the Left, I guess. The life of the child is expendable, so why not the mother if something should go wrong? Who cares ... right?
That is NOT why the Right Wing Sexually repressed Nutjobs want these restrictions, it is ONLY to control a woman's right to her reproduction, that's ALL. They want Birth Control BANNED, they want ALL Abortion BANNED regardless of reason, Hell they even want to BAN Sex Education in School.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 06:32 PM
 
7,185 posts, read 3,699,705 times
Reputation: 3174
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It didn't happen just because you say so.
Hey, guess what - it did happen, and I'm pretty sure the SC will rule based on the 'undue burden' it places on women.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,461 posts, read 3,234,540 times
Reputation: 5269
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
It looks like all that stuff the Religious right was going “take Back “wasn’t even theirs to begin with. What looks like an embarrassment of riches for the moderates and liberals, IMO isn’t really so because most of the rulings were no brainers.

Now politicians on the far right will have to come clean and let on that they are no more powerful than the constitution allows them to be. I think it was a rural Missouri politician whose reelection promise was that he voted for the farm bill and to repeal Obamacare. That’s tantamount to saying I did nothing.

If it is a violation of their religious freedom to perform abortions, sell birth control, and give marriage licenses to same sex couples, why is it not a violation of their religious freedom to sell guns to murderers and armed robbers? It would be real easy to find out who they are before you sold them a gun. Maybe those two of the Ten Commandments are negotiable.
Uh, nobody supports selling guns to murders and armed robbers. Nobody.

Good grief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2016, 12:00 AM
 
Location: CO
2,172 posts, read 1,453,673 times
Reputation: 972
Clarence Thomas was the 1 'no' vote earlier today.....

Louisiana limit on abortion blocked temporarily

Some differences w/ the Texas case:

Quote:
The Louisiana situation is factually different from that in Texas, since doctors and clinics in Louisiana have argued that enforcement of the admitting privileges requirement would leave the state with a single clinic with only a single doctor, while the Texas law has been challenged on the basis of worry that it would leave eight or nine clinics throughout the state. Another difference is that the admitting privileges provision has been in effect across the state of Texas for months, but has been in force in Louisiana for only nine days.

In addition, the Texas controversy also focuses on another provision in the Texas law that is not in the Louisiana statute: a requirement that all abortion clinics upgrade to be able to provide significant surgical services, whether or not the clinic ever does any surgery. Presumably, in the preliminary vote the Justices cast in private on Friday would take into account both the privileges restriction and the one mandating surgical facilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:14 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top