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.
Do you not understand that states DO NOT implement constitutional amendments?
It seems you don't understand the meaning of implemented when used as a verb.
implemented: put into practical effect; carried out.
TX implemented the 10th Amendment in their heartbeat law by empowering the people to enforce restrictions on abortion as a civil matter instead of criminalizing it, which I've clearly stated.
Quote:
Those relatives cannot show any injury from a woman having an abortion. Not having a grandchild that was never born is not an injury.
Indeed, it is. Killing an unborn child is an actionable tort.
Hyperbolic. And the way to do it is to prosecute abortionists for committing fetal homicide just like others are prosecuted for committing fetal homicide. Performing abortions is a violation of their Hippocratic Oath (first, do no harm), anyway, and as such is professionally unethical. They actually should be losing their state licenses/registration to practice medicine for performing abortions that are solely for the sake of convenience, which is over 98% of all abortions.
So, to you, when a doctor is involved with the abortion, the woman getting one should not be punished in any way? But she should be punished with fetal homicide if she did the abortion herself through abortion inducing drugs?
So, to you, when a doctor is involved with the abortion, the woman getting one should not be punished in any way? But she should be punished with fetal homicide if she did the abortion herself through abortion inducing drugs?
Whoever is involved in the actual killing of the unborn child solely for the sake of convenience should be prosecuted. That includes the abortionist and the pregnant woman. A woman can't kill her newborn without facing criminal prosecution. Killing an unborn child is no different, and we know that is a fact due to states' fetal homicide laws. A homicide is a homicide.
The TX heartbeat law implements the 10th Amendment by not criminalizing abortion and leaving the power of enforcement to the people, per the 10th Amendment. The injured party/parties can either file a tort, or not, depending on how they feel about abortion. They don't have the child, grandchild, niece/nephew, etc., they would have had if the pregnancy had come to term.
Wow, I hope you have a really good lawyer. You must be expecting tons of lawsuits due to your birth control use (thereby preventing "child, grandchild, niece/nephew, etc."), right?
Wow, I hope you have a really good lawyer. You must be expecting tons of lawsuits due to your birth control use (thereby preventing "child, grandchild, niece/nephew, etc."), right?
Seriously.
In any case, most states do not grant grandparents rights to their grandchildren unless the parents are divorced and a custodial in-law is keeping the child from them or the childs parents are deceased. I.E. if your child does not want you to see your grandchild, you usually will not get a court to order visitation.
Hard to believe standing would be granted to a grandparent, much less a niece/nephew when they don't even have the right to see a grandchild.
Whoever is involved in the actual killing of the unborn child solely for the sake of convenience should be prosecuted. That includes the abortionist and the pregnant woman. A woman can't kill her newborn without facing criminal prosecution. Killing an unborn child is no different, and we know that is a fact due to states' fetal homicide laws. A homicide is a homicide.
It's because of people seriously believing this that I believe in the 2nd amendment.
It seems you don't understand the meaning of implemented when used as a verb.
implemented: put into practical effect; carried out.
TX implemented the 10th Amendment in their heartbeat law by empowering the people to enforce restrictions on abortion as a civil matter instead of criminalizing it, which I've clearly stated.
Indeed, it is. Killing an unborn child is an actionable tort.
The case you referenced applied to a mother, not a grandparent or some other relative.
In addition, it was less about abortion and more about medical malpractice as it applied to a woman who intended to have her child who presented at the emergency room with the symptoms and a history of ectopic pregnancy.
Further it's a clear example of the misuse of these laws by activist pro-life judges to advance an agenda. It endangers women from receiving appropriate medical care. This decision also totally ignored the legislative intent that these laws not be applied to doctors who made well intentioned mistakes with regard to pregnancy.
Interestingly, there is no reported resolution of this case despite the fact that the so called pro life side heralded it as some kind of win on their side to be interfering with the medical care of a woman which should be between her and her doctor, not her and a judge! Makes me think the outcome was not that favorable to the busy bodies.
It seems you don't understand the meaning of implemented when used as a verb.
implemented: put into practical effect; carried out.
TX implemented the 10th Amendment in their heartbeat law by empowering the people to enforce restrictions on abortion as a civil matter instead of criminalizing it, which I've clearly stated.
Indeed, it is. Killing an unborn child is an actionable tort.
You are once again, completely and utterly wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong on the meaning of implementation with respect to states passing laws. The amendment is NEVER, EVER, "implemented" by a state.
A grandparent, uncle or aunt, etc, has suffered no tort damage if a woman gets an abortion. The case you cited is not relevant, as the plaintiff was a woman who was pregnant, and wished to remain pregnant and suffered a miscarriage as a result of the actions of a doctor. She was injured as a result of the doctor's actions.
In that case, tell us why in the world did Ireland vote to repeal its near total ban on abortion to the tune of 66.4% to 33.6%. In my opinion, that tells you how such a vote would go in all or nearly all of the states. Ireland now seems okay with legal abortion on demand up to the 12th week.
I was in Ireland just before that vote. You should have seen the scare posters the Catholic nuns put up all over the place! Makes the anti-abortionists in the USA look like amateurs. It didn't work, which somewhat surprised me, as 25 years ago, Ireland was as religious as any Southern State. Now? As secular as Canada, even more so perhaps.
What happened?
They embraced education and they got turned off by the Catholic scandals. Many of the Red States denounce education, and turn a blind eye to the scandals of their churches.
The case you referenced applied to a mother, not a grandparent or some other relative.
What makes you think a biological relative doesn't have a legitimate stake in an unborn child's life?
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.
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 the way to do it is to prosecute abortionists for committing fetal homicide just like others are prosecuted for committing fetal homicide. Performing abortions is a violation of their Hippocratic Oath (first, do no harm), anyway, and as such is professionally unethical. They actually should be losing their state licenses/registration to practice medicine for performing abortions that are solely for the sake of convenience, which is over 98% of all abortions.
