Texas abortion bill/law

[Doc]

Lots of lefties getting ready to jump off a bridge over this. And of course brings court packing up. Don't like a supreme court ruling then change the game. That is how it rolls.

A couple things. As some know, I am pro-choice. Note that is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. But the whole argument and phrasing is a great example of how the left dictates the wording. Abortion is about "WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS" and "ACCESS TO WOMEN'S HEALTH". Both of these are misnomers. Abortion is by definitions not "reproductive". In fact it is anti-reproductive. The definition of reproduction is

the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
Its like saying Gun rights is about getting rid of guns. It is not about reproduction at all.

Second is "women's health"...since when did being pregnant because an illness?

As I stated, I am pro-choice...and I like an argument. But I also like an honest argument.



As for the bill, for me this isn't about abortion as much as a states rights. I was opposed to Trump when he tried to enact nation wide covid measure (like democrats), and am opposed to Biden doing the same (something democrats now support). I am opposed to all FEDERAL government overreach. The Texas bill is what Texans want. If they don't then they elected the wrong people, and should rectify it in the next election. Otherwise, Washington needs to stay out of the affairs on something that the court ruled was a state issue because the ruling was not a pro or anti abortion ruling. It was on whether or not the state has a right to regulate. The court found it does, on a partisan decisions, with the liberals saying nope and the conservative yes (and no, I don't consider Roberts a conservative) --LINK (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html)

[dan_bgblue]

First words out of their mouths was this will kill Roe V. Wade. It should have nothing to do with Roe V Wade as Roe was a case decided in one state and the ruling stands in that state. What Roe does is to set ground rules based on the particular points of law that were used in the state ruling. The Texas state ruling has nothing to to with Roe V Wade and will not be used as baseline law to even call Roe into account for a new examination of that law.

[bigsky]

Not really a Supreme Court opinion. More like a return to sender. It will make its way thru the courts.

[Catonahottinroof]

Sounds like a Mississippi case will be before the court soon that is a bit similar to this one.

[KeithKSR]

It’s amazing how most of the critics are extreme liberals who are mostly beyond their child bearing years. The Texas law doesn’t deny anyone abortions, it just limits them to a set time period. The liberals have only themselves to thank as laws like this are in response to the liberals philosophy that babies can be aborted post birth.

[kingcat]

They should have made special allowance for rape and incest which often does not come to light until farther along.
To the greatest extent morally possible, I want the government to stay away from reproductive issues and the rights of the unborn.

It's a sticky wicket, and one which can enable government to move from a reactive stance to taking a proactive stance towards those rights.
While abortion was an issue before Nazi Germany came to the fore, they went on to demonstrate how a government could manipulate that argument to accomplish great evil. But their entire aim was to frame the reproductive rights argument with a goal of claiming the rights of the unborn for themselves.

I am pro choice, but within certain guidelines established by common sense principles. And yet I realize for the sake of precedent, some are enabled to abuse the right to choose.
I feel there is not one thing that can be done to stop that from happening in such a rapidly decaying society, short of forsaking individual freedom and equality under the law.

There have always been such problems and issues, but in these last days we are constantly and publicly bombarded by them.

That can be both a good and terrible thing.

As I have said in the past, I believe the sin of adultery to be the root of such evil from a Christian perspective. And to adequately weigh when life begins I'd suggest reading the law of Moses before you decide. This would have applied to pregnancies' suspicioned to be adulterous also. (Notice in 14, the term defiled indicates menstruating) It has multiple meanings in translation however.
.
INumbers 5:11-21

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,

13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;

14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:

15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord:

17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:

18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:

20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:

21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;

22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.

25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar:

26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.

27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;

30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.

31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

[Doc]

It’s amazing how most of the critics are extreme liberals who are mostly beyond their child bearing years. The Texas law doesn’t deny anyone abortions, it just limits them to a set time period. The liberals have only themselves to thank as laws like this are in response to the liberals philosophy that babies can be aborted post birth.

And those in the child bearing years are so butt ugly that pregnancy isn't an issue because no guy in his right mind would knock boots with anything that homely

[catmanjack]

A lady being rapped would not wait 6 weeks to get an abortion.


They should have made special allowance for rape and incest which often does not come to light until farther along.
To the greatest extent morally possible, I want the government to stay away from reproductive issues and the rights of the unborn.

It's a sticky wicket, and one which can enable government to move from a reactive stance to taking a proactive stance towards those rights.
While abortion was an issue before Nazi Germany came to the fore, they went on to demonstrate how a government could manipulate that argument to accomplish great evil. But their entire aim was to frame the reproductive rights argument with a goal of claiming the rights of the unborn for themselves.

I am pro choice, but within certain guidelines established by common sense principles. And yet I realize for the sake of precedent, some are enabled to abuse the right to choose.
I feel there is not one thing that can be done to stop that from happening in such a rapidly decaying society, short of forsaking individual freedom and equality under the law.

There have always been such problems and issues, but in these last days we are constantly and publicly bombarded by them.

That can be both a good and terrible thing.

As I have said in the past, I believe the sin of adultery to be the root of such evil from a Christian perspective. And to adequately weigh when life begins I'd suggest reading the law of Moses before you decide. This would have applied to pregnancies' suspicioned to be adulterous also. (Notice in 14, the term defiled indicates menstruating) It has multiple meanings in translation however.
.
INumbers 5:11-21

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,

13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;

14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:

15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord:

17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:

18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:

20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:

21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;

22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.

25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar:

26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.

27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;

30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.

31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

[catmanjack]

Great and true post.
Seems the Democrats like to use special wording so they can control all their zombies.


It’s amazing how most of the critics are extreme liberals who are mostly beyond their child bearing years. The Texas law doesn’t deny anyone abortions, it just limits them to a set time period. The liberals have only themselves to thank as laws like this are in response to the liberals philosophy that babies can be aborted post birth.

[kingcat]

A lady being rapped would not wait 6 weeks to get an abortion.

As it is commonly never reported, a child or young adult being raped by a family member or friend likely would. They would wait it out as long as possible.

And I think you are mistaken in general. It is not an easy decision for many regardless. Even for those who have such abortions...as both our discussion and the situation itself proves.

[kingcat]

As for after birth abortions there are no Americans that support that. There were discussions (in NY I believe) related to the rare case of a non-viable, but surviving fetus being delivered and euthanized at the mothers request and with multiple doctors signing off on it.
That rather than trying to keep the infant alive. In the case put forth the life expectancy was up to 24 hours

And as not much good comes from Australia these days, there were
also those two whackos there who wrote about post birth abortion and first created the talking point.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne wrote several years ago that after-birth abortion should be permissible where normal abortion was justified.”

So it became a huge talking point for those not afraid to mislead and abuse the truth. Or lie as we once called it.

Infanticide is murder in every sane American's mind.
And to be clear: killing an infant after birth is illegal, and people on both sides of the abortion debate agree that the act should be illegal.

Under federal law, the definitions of a person, human being, child and individual all include infants "born alive at any stage of development."

The 2019 Virginia legislation is now being blatantly used to support the viscous and misleading accusation.
I submit because they (those who do so for political purposes could care less about truth.
It characterizes Democrats as supporters of allowing abortions during and after a live birth.
It surfaced in early 2019, when a subcommittee of the Virginia House of Delegates considered a bill aimed at loosening the state’s abortion laws.

In Virginia, a woman can choose to obtain an abortion through the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, up to 28 weeks from her last menstrual period.

After that point, abortions are legal if they happen in a hospital and three physicians certify that "the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman."

The law also requires physicians to make "measures for life support for the product of such abortion" available if there is "any clearly visible evidence of viability" after an attempted abortion.

The bill Virginia lawmakers considered in 2019 proposed multiple changes to state laws addressing abortion, including the provision regulating the procedure in the third trimester.

The proposal would have lowered the number of physicians required to authorize a third-trimester abortion from three to one and remove the "substantial and irremediable" threshold in the law.

I know it's easier to take the word of our political heroes, but we do America a huge disservice spreading such dangerous disinformation imo.

I'm out. I don't mean to argue and just thought this a subject I could add something to. I know Doc's stance and a couple of others vary from the norm here. Its a tough subject that is better understood only by having to face it in a real world situation.
Many quietly go against their own beliefs when they or someone close is faced with such a decision.

[KeithKSR]

Ralph Northam’s statements clearly indicates he is in support of post birth abortions. https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed

Then there are 44 Dem senators that indicated by their votes that babies that survive abortions and are born alive should be murdered. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2019/02/25/stunning-44-democrats-vote-to-support-post-birth-abortion/

[kingcat]

More alternate facts and misleading facebook politics imo. Such is destroying this nation. Why omit such clarifications if they truly misunderstood? (which they did not)
And why choose to leave out pertinent facts relative to the story?

This was about abortions of non viable fetuses into the third trimester which are aborted alive. I honestly dont know how I feel about it myself. But I trust that a woman and her physician(s) in this case would have wanted that child to be healthy, and live. And had carried that far to that end.

"A Northam spokesperson told Vox that his comments were "absolutely not" a reference to infanticide. Rather, they "focused on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor." He called the idea that he approved of killing infants "disgusting,"

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/27/viral-image/facebook-post-overreaches-claiming-its-ok-kill-new/"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/lawmaker-at-center-of-abortion-bill-firestorm-elected-as-part-of-democratic-wave-that-changed-richmond/2019/01/31/d4f76ecc-2565-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html

[KeithKSR]

More alternate facts and misleading facebook politics imo. Such is destroying this nation. Why omit such clarifications if they truly misunderstood? (which they did not)
And why choose to leave out pertinent facts relative to the story?

This was about abortions of non viable fetuses into the third trimester which are aborted alive. I honestly dont know how I feel about it myself. But I trust that a woman and her physician(s) in this case would have wanted that child to be healthy, and live. And had carried that far to that end.

"A Northam spokesperson told Vox that his comments were "absolutely not" a reference to infanticide. Rather, they "focused on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor." He called the idea that he approved of killing infants "disgusting,"

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/27/viral-image/facebook-post-overreaches-claiming-its-ok-kill-new/"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/lawmaker-at-center-of-abortion-bill-firestorm-elected-as-part-of-democratic-wave-that-changed-richmond/2019/01/31/d4f76ecc-2565-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html

It doesn’t matter what spin Northam’s spokesperson put on things, it was crystal clear the man has no qualms with infanticide.

[kingcat]

The spin can often be found in usual places. And that is in the far right and far left reporting. The truth is readily available. And it was not crystal clear imho Keith. Certainly not clear enough to accuse a man of supporting infanticide.
As for the statements of the delegate that is another matter, as he was not there and the bill was not in any sort of final draft.

Anyway, here is his initial answer (the next day I believe) and the one which is you use to support your argument. I get something entirely different out of it. But I do not presuppose that multiple physicians and the parents of a child brought to term, are inherently evil and intended to bring that child to term just to murder it.
I think that is exactly where such a supposition leads us.

Ralph Northam:
"You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion"

We can watch the live interview in question on YouTube and decide just what he meant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6WD_3H0wKU&t=2380s



https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion-idUSKBN27D2HL

[Doc]

So your saying you don't agree with taking a politicians comments and spinning them? Please. I've seen you refer to Trump as advocating bleach injections, calling white supremicist "good people" and that he collided with Russia despite him clearly doing no such thing with video evidence support that.

[Doc]

PS...I ain't buying what you are selling



“[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

[kingcat]

Just so it's clear to everyone, the above video statement is exactly what the accusation is based on. No other

I will back out gang.

[dan_bgblue]

Texas’s Abortion Law Blunder

One person's editorial opinion (https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-abortion-law-blunder-supreme-court-samuel-alito-john-roberts-whole-womans-health-11630619631?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s)

[KeithKSR]

Texas’s Abortion Law Blunder

One person's editorial opinion (https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-abortion-law-blunder-supreme-court-samuel-alito-john-roberts-whole-womans-health-11630619631?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s)

Neither of the cases cited prevents a reasonable ban on abortions.