5th Circuit Upholds Texas Abortion Regulations

[fskimospy]

No, what is ludicrous is your position that it is impossible .

Yes, it is impossible for 100% of the abortion clinics that could not meet this regulation to build their own hospitals. There is simply no plausible set of circumstances where this could ever happen.

Just stop, sometimes it's okay to admit that you're wrong.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yes, it is impossible for 100% of the abortion clinics that could not meet this regulation to build their own hospitals. There is simply no plausible set of circumstances where this could ever happen.

Just stop, sometimes it's okay to admit that you're wrong.

You have a faulty understanding of the word impossible.

Hint: "plausible" has no place in this discussion.

Just stop, sometimes it's okay to admit that you're wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

You have a faulty understanding of the word impossible.

Hint: "plausible" has no place in this discussion.

Just stop, sometimes it's okay to admit that you're wrong.

Oh Jesus, this descent into pedantry is embarrassing. If we use this sort of definition then basically nothing is impossible due to quantum tunneling effects, etc. Needless to say, if something is so improbable that there is no way to see a way in which it could plausibly occur, people tend to call it impossible as plausibility means everything for rational discussion. If you find this nonsense to be a mature and rational way to discuss things I guess that's on you.

Interestingly, a quick search of your posts show that you have called things 'impossible' in the past as well. Considering that nothing humanity knows of can be considered truly impossible due to aforementioned quantum effects and the like it would appear that your understanding of the word could use some work as well. 😛

Or you could just swallow your pride and grow up a little.

 

[TerryMathews]

Or you could just swallow your pride and grow up a little.

Ditto.

I gave you many opportunities to back down. I even said, if you meant to say economically infeasible I'd agree with you. Yet you accuse me of pedantry.

The point you are failing to grasp is that there is a specific reason why I have framed my argument the way I have. Precedence is clear: economic infeasibility by itself is not enough to overturn regulation. Look at coal mining. Look at power generation. The manufacture of any number of products.

I have said several times and I will say yet again: this law was clearly intended to restrict access to abortions. The problem with your argument against it, is that it is possible for 100% of clinics to comply. It will not be overturned for that reason.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Nothing like the party of small government creating more regulations........

Yet the left loves big government and regulations because they believe that imposing regulations on EVERYTHING keeps you safe, right????? Which is why the left uses government like a club but once that club of government and regulation is used against them and their causes it's suddenly a big injustice.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[fskimospy]

Ditto.

I gave you many opportunities to back down. I even said, if you meant to say economically infeasible I'd agree with you. Yet you accuse me of pedantry.

I do! You realize that pedantry is defined as 'excessive concern with minor details', right? Attempting to draw a distinction between a set of circumstances that is 100% impossible vs. something that is simply enormously, enormously unlikely and implausible is basically the dictionary definition of pedantry.

The point you are failing to grasp is that there is a specific reason why I have framed my argument the way I have. Precedence is clear: economic infeasibility by itself is not enough to overturn regulation. Look at coal mining. Look at power generation. The manufacture of any number of products.

Who cares? I never argued that economic infeasibility was a cause to overturn this regulation, nor has anyone else in this thread to my knowledge. My argument is that it lacks a rational basis.

It is baffling to me that you claim to have painstakingly crafted an argument that is irrelevant. Do you even know what you're arguing about?

I have said several times and I will say yet again: this law was clearly intended to restrict access to abortions. The problem with your argument against it, is that it is possible for 100% of clinics to comply. It will not be overturned for that reason.

Well that's clearly wrong. Whether or not 100% of clinics can comply with the regulations has basically nothing to do with whether or not it would be overturned. There is no need for the possibility of universal compliance in this law or any other and I'm unaware of anyone who has argued that. More importantly, the "possibility" of 100% of clinics being able to comply with this is most certainly not the reason it will be upheld. On what legal basis are you claiming that the fact that clinics could theoretically comply by building their own hospitals is the basis for this law's constitutionality? That's a new one.

Not only that, but my point about whether or not clinics could build their own hospitals had nothing to do with whether or not it was constitutional; it had to do with why the law was bad.

 

[ivwshane]

Ditto.

I gave you many opportunities to back down. I even said, if you meant to say economically infeasible I'd agree with you. Yet you accuse me of pedantry.

The point you are failing to grasp is that there is a specific reason why I have framed my argument the way I have. Precedence is clear: economic infeasibility by itself is not enough to overturn regulation. Look at coal mining. Look at power generation. The manufacture of any number of products.

I have said several times and I will say yet again: this law was clearly intended to restrict access to abortions. The problem with your argument against it, is that it is possible for 100% of clinics to comply. It will not be overturned for that reason.

Lol! He called you out on your BS statement and now you are arguing about something he never argued against. Give it up already.

 

[Incorruptible]

Actually both are rights enshrined in the Constitution as confirmed by the Supreme Court.

I believe in both the right to own a personal firearm AND in the right to control over our own bodies. Maybe you should think about that sometime.

The 2nd Amendment is but not abortion especially when it's taxpayer funded. Does a woman have a right to an abortion at 9 months with the taxpayer being forced to pay for it?

 

[fskimospy]

The 2nd Amendment is but not abortion especially when it's taxpayer funded. Does a woman have a right to an abortion at 9 months with the taxpayer being forced to pay for it?

Nope sorry, abortion is.

As for taxpayer funding of abortion that has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[glenn1]

Not only that, but my point about whether or not clinics could build their own hospitals had nothing to do with whether or not it was constitutional; it had to do with why the law was bad.

So why exactly is the law bad, please explain. It can't be due to cost or impracticality since your side has repeatedly rejected those arguments against regulation before. It can't be for general civil liberties reasons since your side also has long-standing experience with puritanical nanny state laws. It can't be because access to abortion has been made slightly more inconvenient because your side passes laws to impede or generally harass gun purchases all the time that are just as bad or worse than the abortion laws in question.

 

[Exophase]

Man knocks woman up - next time wear a condom, next time pull out, next time keep your penis in your pants, next time do anal,,,,.

So you're okay with people having anal sex then? So long as it's a man and a woman?

 

[Sunburn74]

So why exactly is the law bad, please explain. It can't be due to cost or impracticality since your side has repeatedly rejected those arguments against regulation before. It can't be for general civil liberties reasons since your side also has long-standing experience with puritanical nanny state laws. It can't be because access to abortion has been made slightly more inconvenient because your side passes laws to impede or generally harass gun purchases all the time that are just as bad or worse than the abortion laws in question.

Its a bad law because its essentially a Jim crow type law: something with no practical purpose but serving a discriminatory agenda. Keep in mind there has been no physician driven request for this law, there have been no high profile cases of sad outcomes where if such a law were in place those outcomes could have been averted, that this law so rapidly shuts down almost all abortion clinics in the state (can you imagine a law being passed that instantly made all cars in your state illegal or all schools or all grocery stores. No such law would ever pass. There would be a grace period of some sort likely of years in duration), and that no other state is pending such legislation. These are Jim crow tactics in another form.

If physicians feel they need surgical backup for procedures, they write that into guidelines which are updated every year. And thats the thing: this law isn't even about appropriate medical or surgical backup but instead operates through a requirement for admitting practices which is a half assed way to really ensure that adequate backup is available. Why does a doctor need backup or admitting priveleges if he is giving you methotrexate (a pill you take at home oncw or twoce a week) as an abortion agent? Does your your rheumatologist need priveleges to prescribe methotrexate? Or you GI doctor? Or your cancer doctor whi gives much higher and much more toxic doses of this agent than what is required for an early abortion? If doctors themselves are driving this law and don't see it as a patient safety issue, why is it being proposed at all?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So you're okay with people having anal sex then? So long as it's a man and a woman?

Context and point of view means everything.

 

[ivwshane]

So why exactly is the law bad, please explain. It can't be due to cost or impracticality since your side has repeatedly rejected those arguments against regulation before. It can't be for general civil liberties reasons since your side also has long-standing experience with puritanical nanny state laws. It can't be because access to abortion has been made slightly more inconvenient because your side passes laws to impede or generally harass gun purchases all the time that are just as bad or worse than the abortion laws in question.

Great! Then I expect the next time an issue the dems to the same thing that goes against your views that you will just shut the fuck up? Or are you now a hypocrite and have no problem with failed logic when it's to your views benefit.

Or you could just stop being a partisan hack and call out any bad law based on bad logic. But that's just wishful thinking isn't it?

 

[DominionSeraph]

You must be a plan B type of person.

Plan A:
- Honesty
- Integrity
- Uphold the Constitution

Plan B:
- Lies
- Deceit to try to get around Plan A'ers

You're a plan B type of person.

Your racism and your religion, by hook or by crook.

 

[Exophase]

Context and point of view means everything.

Not in this case. He has specifically criticized gay marriage on the grounds of health risks due to anal sex. Ones that apply to male to femae anal sex every bit as much as male to male.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Not in this case. He has specifically criticized gay marriage on the grounds of health risks due to anal sex. Ones that apply to male to femae anal sex every bit as much as male to male.

I know what he has said however, in this case he was giving an example what other people would be saying and not what he feels.

 

[glenn1]

Great! Then I expect the next time an issue the dems to the same thing that goes against your views that you will just shut the fuck up? Or are you now a hypocrite and have no problem with failed logic when it's to your views benefit.

Or you could just stop being a partisan hack and call out any bad law based on bad logic. But that's just wishful thinking isn't it?

I'll gladly call it out next time a conservative does something similar, as a libertarian it's basically my job to call out laws like this from both sides. As I already said back in post #39 it's an "extremely stupid but constitutional law" just as most gun control laws and regulations harassing businesses on "environmental" grounds. I find it rather amusing and completely non self-aware for you to accuse someone else of being a partisan hack for the behavior you're only decrying because it's your ox that's being gored. If you're truly willing to consistently decry this practice no matter which side does it and regardless if it benefits your side, then feel free to join me in condemning the behavior the next time an example is posted and start raising hell whenever your side does it. Eskimospy would be ideally placed for that role considering he lives in NYC and that seems to be a hotbed of this type of puritanical nanny state behavior lately.

 

[ivwshane]

I'll gladly call it out next time a conservative does something similar, as a libertarian it's basically my job to call out laws like this from both sides. As I already said back in post #39 it's an "extremely stupid but constitutional law" just as most gun control laws and regulations harassing businesses on "environmental" grounds. I find it rather amusing and completely non self-aware for you to accuse someone else of being a partisan hack for the behavior you're only decrying because it's your ox that's being gored. If you're truly willing to consistently decry this practice no matter which side does it and regardless if it benefits your side, then feel free to join me in condemning the behavior the next time an example is posted and start raising hell whenever your side does it. Eskimospy would be ideally placed for that role considering he lives in NYC and that seems to be a hotbed of this type of puritanical nanny state behavior lately.

Lol. I've already called out this bs before, infact I created a thread about it. Stupid laws not based on facts and stats are stupid laws no matter who put it forth.

And if you agree, which it sounds like you do, then you, eskimospy, and me are all on the same page, we apparently are all ignoring this though😉

 

[Texashiker]

You're a plan B type of person.

Your racism and your religion, by hook or by crook.

Religion plays very little in my opinons.

Religion removed, we have a moral compass which tells us (most of us anyway, but I doubt you do) right from wrong.

Just as protecting slaves was the right thing to do,
Just as protecting Native Americans was the right thing to do,
Just as protecting jews in 1930s and 1940s Germany was the right thing to do,
so is protecting unborn children the right thing to do.

History will look back on this time period with shame. Shame that we allowed untold millions of children to be murdered.

We excuse our indifference with a shield of legality. If something is legal, then it must be right.

The law is not always right. But it is a convenient scapegoat.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

History will look back on this time period with shame. Shame that we allowed untold millions of children to be murdered.

Indeed, it probably will. Likely because at some point in the future, we'll develop a birth control that is 100% effective and 100% safe and unwanted pregnancies will cease to exist, at which point terminating a pregnancy will certainly seem to be a barbaric act on par with bleeding someone to treat cholera. Unfortunately, we don't have that technology yet, so we're stuck with this reality until that comes around.

 

[Texashiker]

Indeed, it probably will. Likely because at some point in the future, we'll develop a birth control that is 100% effective and 100% safe and unwanted pregnancies will cease to exist,

I am not trying to be combative with this reply.

In all honesty and seriousness, how many birth control options do we need?

Pill
Condom
IUD
Depo-Provera
Anal
Sponge
Female Condom
Pull out before train arrives

The main reason why we have no many unplanned pregnancies is due to laziness. We have cheap, easy to use and readily available birth control on the market right now, and have had for decades.

I say that, but my 17 year old daughter was not planned.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I am not trying to be combative with this reply.

In all honesty and seriousness, how many birth control options do we need?

Pill
Condom
IUD
Depo-Provera
Anal
Sponge
Female Condom
Pull out before train arrives

The main reason why we have no many unplanned pregnancies is due to laziness. We have cheap, easy to use and readily available birth control on the market right now, and have had for decades.

I say that, but my 17 year old daughter was not planned.

I disagree that the reason we have so many unplanned pregnancies is due to laziness. We have a lot of options, but none of them are 100% effective (short of sterilization, which young people won't consider), and all of them have inadequacies which can limit their effectiveness (such as antibiotics stopping birth control pills from working). That, and it's very hard to plan for a "logical" approach to sex, seeing as how sex hormones switch the thinking portion of our brains off (especially in the presence of that wonderful social lubricant alcohol). If you take precautions to prevent a pregnancy (the man is wearing a condom and the woman is on the pill) and pregnancy still occurs, do you think a woman should be required to take that pregnancy to term despite her best efforts to prevent it?

 

[brycejones]

If you take precautions to prevent a pregnancy (the man is wearing a condom and the woman is on the pill) and pregnancy still occurs, do you think a woman should be required to take that pregnancy to term despite her best efforts to prevent it?

The whore was having sex wasn't she? /s

 

[Texashiker]

That, and it's very hard to plan for a "logical" approach to sex, seeing as how sex hormones switch the thinking portion of our brains off (especially in the presence of that wonderful social lubricant alcohol).

My frank opinion, if we had open and honest discussions on birth control with young people, make birth control pills over the counter, hand out condoms like candy, that abortions rates would probably go down.

There are convenience stores in southwest Louisiana where condoms are kept on the counter in a big plastic fish bowl. While buying a coke or chips,,, whatever, the customer can grab a handful of condoms free of charge. Someone from the local health department keeps the bowls full.

That is an honest and open approach to birth control.

One of the problems is women have to jump through hoops to obtain birth control. Women have to get a pap smear, get a prescription, get the prescription filled, then wait a month for the pill to take effect. Some doctors will hand out pills at the visit.

But even if birth control was on demand, would people use it. And I think that is one of the big questions about curbing abortion rates.

There are lot of people out there who say, screw it, I will worry about it later.