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.
This will not stop abortions.
It will stop woman from getting a safe medical procedure. Going back to before Roe V Wade that was the main issue.
Back room abortions, women becoming unable to have children in the future. With death being a possible outcome for the woman.
The issue is the SCOTUS is saying woman will not be able to get a safe medical procedure. They are taking away a persons right to decide what is best for them.
The GOP controlled states will go back in time to an era which is not safe for women.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,592 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50626
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
And states are already drafting new law that will ban the morning after pill.
BTW the morning after pill is not the same thing used for a medical abortion.
Right. The morning after pill just keeps a fertilized egg from implanting, which would be against Louisiana's new law of declaring a fertilized egg a human being with full human rights.
This will not stop abortions.
It will stop woman from getting a safe medical procedure. Going back to before Roe V Wade that was the main issue.
Back room abortions, women becoming unable to have children in the future. With death being a possible outcome for the woman.
The issue is the SCOTUS is saying woman will not be able to get a safe medical procedure. They are taking away a persons right to decide what is best for them.
The GOP controlled states will go back in time to an era which is not safe for women.
Ok, I will relate my 1982 ruptured ectopic pregnancy when abortion was legal after Roe. My doctor suspected it and told me if I experienced bleeding and pain to call him immediately. When I did, he said that there were no beds available at the non-sectarian hospital he was affiliated with, and I would have to go to the Catholic hospital. "I am very sorry" he said. Did not get his meaning of that but I quickly learned.
First thing they gave was a pregnancy test. Nurse said, "This is a Catholic Hospital and we don't do abortions here". Then I was totally left alone. Instinctively I knew I could not just lay in that bed and fall asleep. I got up and walked the halls until my doctor could get there. The nurses glared at me and I glared back at them. They did not even give me pads so I stuffed paper towels in my panties for the bleeding.
When my doctor finally got there and saw me walking the halls he SCREAMED at the hospital staff. "I ordered her to be put on an IV and her BP monitored". "Did you do a Sonogram?" Oh, of course no Sonogram. They did NOT want to know this was a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. NOT Abortion. They could not save a dead baby and did not care about saving me.
Cannot remember but one Intern later told me that I was taken to surgery yelling, "You are not going to KILL ME". "I WILL live to see my daughter grow up"
Afterwards, I had a parade of staff doctors by my bedside discussing my case as if I wasn't there. "Miracle" with all her internal bleeding that she didn't go into a coma, or die. That same Intern, who was from the Caribbean, took my hand, and said to those other doctors, "In my country, we know that sometimes the mind can be the most powerful medicine there is". He went out of his way to be very kind to me.
I was treated worse than an animal at that hospital. When family and friends heard of how I was treated, they all said I should have sued that hospital.
Edit; This was years after Roe. So what do women have to look forward to after it is repealed.
Women have to be able to get those pills. I do not believe they are over the counter.
There will be a flourishing black market. Anyway, drugs can be prescribed online - what are red states going do - open UPS packages. Interstate commerce is the Feds. They can be obtained in Mexico where they do not even require a prescription. Texas can pass all the laws they want, women will "know" where to get them. They only work up to 9 weeks though.
And what Texas Republican in response to the above situation doesn't dearly want a law written as soon as possible to literally ban all abortion, except when needed to save life of mother.
Texas Republicans don't believe that pregnancy can ever be a threat to the mother's life. If there's an issue, it's because she's an ignorant **** who deserves to die for not honoring God enough.(that's sarcasm for the terminally clueless)
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,468 posts, read 12,487,658 times
Reputation: 10440
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
Texas Republicans don't believe that pregnancy can ever be a threat to the mother's life. If there's an issue, it's because she's an ignorant **** who deserves to die for not honoring God enough.(that's sarcasm for the terminally clueless)
Saying off the wall things just for shock value doesn't make them true.
It is ironic imho how those who are most attached to the idea of a limited government are disinterested in the founding document that was made to ensure it remain so. The first ten amendments were added for the same reason. Government can only exercise the powers granted to it by the Constitution. These are clarified in Article I, section 8. A limited government with specific enumerated powers does not include the power to violate an individual’s rights.
Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to violate a person’s rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
The U.S. Constitution is a limit of the federal government, not government. The Founders were rightly fearful of a powerful, central government based on the life experiences.
The purpose of the Constitution of the United States is a lot more than “a limit of the federal government, not government”.
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.[3] It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution. Originally comprising seven articles, it delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress (Article I); the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers (Article II); and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts (Article III). Article IV, Article V and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 States to ratify it. It is regarded as the oldest written and codified national constitution in force.[4]
Government can only exercise the powers granted to it by the Constitution. It should be noted the Constitution does not mention ‘women’ or ‘reproduction’ or ‘marriage’ or ‘sex’. At the time it was written enslaved folks were regarded as property & treated de facto as property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
The question is, whose rights should government protect.
Are you posing this as a question? My opinion is the people, rightly defined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
The individual right to privacy & equal protection of the laws. Channeling old states' rights arguments does not change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
There is no individual right to privacy to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Griswold was SCOTUS Justices engaging in the most egregious form of outcome based judicial activism. If there was a Constitutional right to individual privacy, someone would surely have noticed before 1965.
Are you kidding? Or are you one of those folks who feel uncomfortable with fact-based History?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
Justice Douglas created the right out of then air, very thin air. Here is what he said, "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
Say what? Penumbras and emanations? By that standard you could literally ban or allow any thing no matter how outrageous.
Are you kidding? Voting rights for African American people & women were created “right out of thin air”?
Channeling old & lame states' rights arguments does not change the facts-based history.
States’ rights arguments as they relate to individual rights were rendered moot by the American Civil War. Granted, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were ‘litigated’ for over a century.
If she doesn't want to be pregnant, why is she negligent about her own reproductive health?
Her doctor didn't explain that the antibiotics that were prescribed might make birth control ineffective. The birth control failed. The man's condom broke. The 16 year old girl believed the boy who told her she couldn't get pregnant the first time. There's numerous reasons. In real life, birth control fails something like 10% of the time. And that's ignoring the fact that it really is none of anyone elses business what decisions a woman makes about her reproductive health.
I'm sure there might be some state legislators that might want to completely ban all abortions. But I find that highly unlikely to happen because the vast majority of people do see that there are legitimate reasons for getting an abortion in the first trimester. Rape and incest are just a few of the popular exceptions.
Those exceptions are not in Texas law. Our idiot Lt Governor has explicitly stated that rape and incest are not valid reasons to get an abortion, with the implication that the girl/woman who became pregnant in those situations deserved it.
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.
