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.
And your argument is nonsensical. Vasectomies are safe, right? Do you advocate having the procedure done in alleys? Having a tooth pulled is safe, right? Again, do it in alleys?
The Supreme Court is legitimate. This case was decided this way the Texas law was not about healthcare, it was about stopping abortion, and controlling women.
Seriously? Everyone knows the Supreme Court isn't legitimate, even liberals know it.
Liberals don't believe the court was legitimate in the "Heller" case, or McDonald v. Chicago, or Citizens-United, or countless other decisions that split 5-4, and that they didn't agree with.
For that matter, the liberals are freaking out right now because Scalia died, and both parties desperately want the presidency so that they can appoint possibly several new Supreme Court Justices.
The liberals jumped up and down when Scalia died, because they believed Obama would appoint a "left-leaning" justice, who would "vote" their way.
The Supreme Court is a political appointment, and only a moron would believe otherwise.
I was merely responding to a person who had dismissed the law as unwarranted, on the grounds that only 1/4th of 1% of women who have abortions end up in the hospital.
My statement was that, based on already-established liberal principles, a law is necessary if it saves a single life. Thus, had there been any evidence that the law would save lives(since hundreds of women have died from abortions), then on those principles, the law should stand. And if liberals opposed it because it didn't save "enough lives", then they were being hypocritical.
But, if the law protects no one, then its only possible purpose would be to prevent women from getting abortions. That goes against Roe v. Wade, and it is unsurprising that it was overturned.
The death rate from pregnancy and childbirth is much higher. Statistically, more women's lives are saved from abortion than if they didn't.
Miscarriage treatment If you're suffering a miscarriage, you can still run to an ordinary doctor's office. As one physician writes: "Truth be told, the surgical management of a miscarriage is exactly the same as a first trimester surgical abortion. Exactly the same. I am permitted to perform a dilation and curettage in my clinic as long as it is in the context of a miscarriage, however this is not so in the case of the termination of an otherwise normal pregnancy."
No, you are making feminists look like the hypocrites we know them to be. You want to be in control of your body until it is inconvenient, then the guy has partial responsibility. You are either a grown woman that takes responsibility for her actions or you are a little girl that needs help from a man. You woman created the situation you find yourselves in now.
Take the pill, make the man wear a condom or take the morning after pill. Or don't be a ***** and only have sex with people you are in a committed relationship with.
Then men should stay out of women's business about birth control!
A photo showing a witness panel completely made up of men testifying on President Obama's proposed birth control benefit on Capitol Hill: Birth control panel photo
Not seeing it. The same is required of ambulatory surgery centers. Why shouldn't women's health care have to meet the same standards as everyone else's?
Frankly, I'm stumped as to why so many of you are willing to accept and celebrate the SCOTUS ruling that allows facilities that treat women, exclusively, to have lower standards.
There were over 60,000 abortions performed in Texas in 2013 and only 30 had complications and you feel it is necessary to meet construction standards under ASC and for doctors to have admitting rights?
Almost half the clinics closed in 2013, you are ignoring the downside of women needing to travel great distances to not only seek abortion but also the loss of basic health care, contraception and education that was provided. If your mission was to prevent more abortions this legislation was wrong headed in so many aspects.
This isn't a celebration by the way, Texas has caused undue hardship on these women by placing religious ideology ahead of their constituents needs. Now they can get back to providing reasonable health care.
While I understand that the issue is what the law was intended to do, but having abortion providers meet licensing requirements for a procedure that can be very dangerous isn't a bad thing.
They were a;ready regulated, and even the attorneys for the state could not show how the new laws would have made it safer for even one patient.
It's quite clear that many don't want that. Better to keep women 2nd class citizens in regards to their health care. They're actually celebrating that.
...and yet, when a law increases the quality of care for women, to make it safer for them, you fly into a rage. As we have seen with some abortion clinics, some of the doctors are only in it for the money, the health of the mother and regard for the baby are of little to no concern.
You are celebrating lowered quality of care, think on that.
By all means, yes. Let's let abortion centers perform surgical procedures on women without having to meet minimumambulatory surgery center standards. /heavy sarcasm
Why can't you all see this is a HUGE regression in equal treatment? Just yet another attack in liberals' War on Women?
Give it a break. No one in here is going to be swayed by your attempt to believe that the GOP is doing this for the benefit of womens health and that somehow by opposing it you want to return them to the Dark Ages.
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.