no more abortions!

[Baron Von Crowder]

I'm against paying for them. BTW, I thought you were a guy?

Yeah, I'm a guy who believes in personal responsibility. I agree, the government should not be involved in any way, shape or form.

[GhostTX]

You are aware that Texas has a state constitution as well, right?

Yes. Any place in the Texas Constitution? By the way, you're grasping for straws. Besides, a LAW was passed that didn't violate anything in the TX Constitution as well.

Yeah, I'm a guy who believes in personal responsibility. I agree, the government should not be involved in any way, shape or form.

I agree. And personal responsibility would be raising a child, not killing it because it's too inconvenient.

We already have laws against murder, so how is this different? Other than the small nuance that you're hung up on when exactly a fetus/baby becomes a human being.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Yes. Any place in the Texas Constitution? By the way, you're grasping for straws. Besides, a LAW was passed that didn't violate anything in the TX Constitution as well.


I agree. And personal responsibility would be raising a child, not killing it because it's too inconvenient.

We already have laws against murder, so how is this different? Other than the small nuance that you're hung up on when exactly a fetus/baby becomes a human being.

Im not getting into that debate. Everyone has a differing opinion on it, and in the end, it just ain't any of our buisness.

[GhostTX]

Im not getting into that debate. Everyone has a differing opinion on it, and in the end, it just ain't any of our buisness.

Obviously, we disagree, and apparently a majority of voters and their representatives.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Obviously, we disagree, and apparently a majority of voters and their representatives.

The problem is, you are stuck on the for or against the issue, and you've missed the forest for the trees.

I'm not for abortion. Never said I was. I'm against government involvement. If the state and many voters decided that nothing good happens between 2 am and 5 am, and made it a mandatory blackout period with no travel or out door activities during that time without exigent circumstances, you would be against that, right?

[Forever_frost]

Outside the usage allowed under the Hyde amendment, it can't. Planned Parenthood keeps detailed public records of their finances to consistently verify that they are not using the money for abortions.

Your naivete not withstanding, this baseless assertion cannot be proven because all the evidence supports the fact that you are not funding abortions, outside of the allowances made in the Hyde amendment.

Opportunity costs. Since they are free to use their government funds to run day to day programs, they are free to use 'other funds' to fund abortion. If someone wants one, they should have to pony up the FULL cost themselves.

[Forever_frost]

Everyone missed the part where 20 weeks is still the cutoff. That wasn't struck down

[Maddhattter]

Opportunity costs. Since they are free to use their government funds to run day to day programs, they are free to use 'other funds' to fund abortion.

Irrelevant. The subsidies provided by the federal government are not used to provide abortions outside of allowed uses per the Hyde Amendment. What a private company does with their profits is outside the scope of where the federal funds are being used.

Otherwise, you'd have to support removing federal funding and subsidies from all private hospitals as well as those associated with religious groups.

If someone wants one, they should have to pony up the FULL cost themselves.

Then they should for every other medical procedure. After all the point of this bill was to make abortion clinics get treated like every other clinic, right?

Everyone missed the part where 20 weeks is still the cutoff. That wasn't struck down

I don't know that anyone missed this fact. Ultimately, nobody really cared. As I stated in a previous post, outside of a few medical issues (which, to my knowledge, were exempted in this bill), no one was really challenging this point of the bill.

[Forever_frost]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-reinstates-most-texas-abortion-restrictions

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that most of Texas' tough new abortion restrictions can take effect immediately — a decision that means as least 12 clinics won't be able to perform the procedure starting as soon as Friday.

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital can take effect while a lawsuit challenging the restrictions moves forward. The panel issued the ruling three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel said the provision serves no medical purpose.

In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the provision "may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions." However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having "the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate" a law that serves a valid purpose, "one not designed to strike at the right itself."

The panel left in place a portion of Yeakel's order that prevents the state from enforcing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol for abortion-inducing drugs in cases where the woman is between 50 and 63 days into her pregnancy. Doctors testifying before the court had said such women would be harmed if the protocol were enforced.

After Yeakel halted the restrictions, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had made an emergency appeal to the conservative 5th Circuit, arguing that the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges is a constitutional use of the Legislature's authority.

"This unanimous decision is a vindication of the careful deliberation by the Texas Legislature to craft a law to protect the health and safety of Texas women," Abbott, a Republican who is running for governor, said in a written statement.

Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers had argued that the regulations did not protect women and would shut down a third of the abortion clinics in Texas.

In a statement Thursday, Planned Parenthood said the appeals court decision means "abortion will no longer be available in vast stretches of Texas."

"This fight is far from over," Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in the statement. "This restriction clearly violates Texas women's constitutional rights by drastically reducing access to safe and legal abortion statewide

The court's order is temporary until it can hold a complete hearing, likely in January.

The restrictions are among the toughest in the nation and gained notoriety when Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster against them in June. Davis has since launched her own gubernatorial campaign and could face Abbott in the November 2014 election. Republican Gov. Rick Perry has said he will not seek another term.

The law that the Legislature passed this summer also bans abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy and beginning in October 2014 requires doctors to perform all abortions in surgical facilities.

Officials for one chain of abortion clinics testified in the trial that Yeakel oversaw that they've tried to obtain admitting privileges for their doctors at 32 hospitals, but so far only 15 accepted applications and none have announced a decision. Many hospitals with religious affiliations will not allow abortion doctors to work there, while others fear protests if they provide privileges. Many have requirements that doctors live within a certain radius of the facility, or perform a minimum number of surgeries a year that must be performed in a hospital.

[Broncojohnny]

Then they should for every other medical procedure. After all the point of this bill was to make abortion clinics get treated like every other clinic, right?

Sounds good to me.

[Maddhattter]

Sounds good to me.

Well, if you're out to abolish all insurance and charity for medical purposes, then you've got bigger problems than this bill.

[Broncojohnny]

Well, if you're out to abolish all insurance and charity for medical purposes, then you've got bigger problems than this bill.

I don't have any problems, as I couldn't care less if women can get abortions or not. I do care about liberty though. Why is it that liberals are all about government regulation and intrusion into rights until that intrusion is against one of their pet causes? Seems hypocritical to the ideology of the great progressive leap forward. The shitstained masses have voted repeatedly for this big government philosophy, now I say they got what they voted for.

[Maddhattter]

I don't have any problems, as I couldn't care less if women can get abortions or not. I do care about liberty though

Cool. We've not no issues then.

Why is it that liberals are all about government regulation and intrusion into rights until that intrusion is against one of their pet causes? Seems hypocritical to the ideology of the great progressive leap forward. The shitstained masses have voted repeatedly for this big government philosophy, now I say they got what they voted for.

Considering the people who've declared themselves conservatives created this bill, you should probably take that up with them.

[Broncojohnny]

Considering the people who've declared themselves conservatives created this bill, you should probably take that up with them.

You are missing the point. I'm speaking to the fact that at the end of the day this is just regulation of abortion. Heavy handed as it may be.

[Forever_frost]

Well, if you're out to abolish all insurance and charity for medical purposes, then you've got bigger problems than this bill.

If it's for medical purposes, then I have no issue. If it's to perform an elective surgery that will, 100% of the time, result in the stopping of a heartbeat? Then you're on your own paying for it.