Supreme Court refuses to block Texas abortion restrictions

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you care to address that these admitting privilege restrictions are in place for drug induced abortions as well, despite the fact that they are non-surgical? Can you provide any credible medical evidence for why this is necessary or good?

Although much safer, there's still a chance of serious complications resulting from drug induced abortions.

Of the 233,805 abortions during the study period, 385 women had a serious side effect, including 238 who sought ER treatment, 135 who were admitted to the hospital, 114 who had a blood transfusion and 57 who required intravenous antibiotics. All of those women survived.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/21/medication-induced-abortions-are-safe-study-finds/

 

[nixium]

The law is entirely necessary. Late term abortions ought to be severely restricted.

But it seems pro-abortion posters here are more aghast at the fact that we dressed an anti-abortion law in the language of women's health. I suppose they never stopped to think who gave us the idea.

I'm extremely socially liberal, and IMO Roe v Wade should be struck down. That's really the only definitive way to end this nonsense once and for all. Liberal states will legalize it, and trash states like (probably) the one you are from will make it illegal. Eventually, after enough women have suffered and died via illegal abortions and babies have been abandoned, it'll become legalized. Either that, or women will simply cross state lines to get abortions. The pro-life crowd will then employ more and more authoritarian measures to prevent them from doing it. Finally, their own authoritarianism will reduce them to a joke in the public's eye.

As society moves more to the social left, the above is inevitable. Otherwise this wedge issue is constantly going to bother us. I say bring it down! The suffering would be limited to backward trash states anyway.

 

[nixium]

Well, we're already starting with a euphemism.

It's not a decision about their own "health". It's a decision to kill their unborn child after 20 weeks.

Restricting that is a step in the right direction.

I applaud you, at least you're calling it for what it is - a sneaky way to restrict abortion rights.

Too bad the other conservatives in this thread aren't as honest.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm extremely socially liberal, and IMO Roe v Wade should be struck down. That's really the only definitive way to end this nonsense once and for all. Liberal states will legalize it, and trash states like (probably) the one you are from will make it illegal. Eventually, after enough women have suffered and died via illegal abortions and babies have been abandoned, it'll become legalized. Either that, or women will simply cross state lines to get abortions. The pro-life crowd will then employ more and more authoritarian measures to prevent them from doing it. Finally, their own authoritarianism will reduce them to a joke in the public's eye.

As society moves more to the social left, the above is inevitable. Otherwise this wedge issue is constantly going to bother us. I say bring it down! The suffering would be limited to backward trash states anyway.

You do realize that even with legal abortion all 50 states enacted special laws to enable babies to be abandoned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_haven_laws

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

When women choose to have an abortion, I would think that their safety would be of the most utmost concern for everyone...especially in light of past practices when abortion was illegal. The Supreme Court got this one right imo.

 

[Jimzz]

Although much safer, there's still a chance of serious complications resulting from drug induced abortions.



http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/21/medication-induced-abortions-are-safe-study-finds/

And more people die a year from Acetaminophen (Tylenol) than women that had "serious side effect" in your Fox story.

Guess we should only allow doctors to prescribe Acetaminophen and they also must have hospital privileges right?

 

[nixium]

When women choose to have an abortion, I would think that their safety would be of the most utmost concern for everyone...especially in light of past practices when abortion was illegal. The Supreme Court got this one right imo.

what happened to small government/personal responsibility?

Oh right, the fine print indicates that certain things are excluded -

- abortion
- defense department
- evangelical christianity
- etc etc

 

[nehalem256]

And more people die a year from Acetaminophen (Tylenol) than women that had "serious side effect" in your Fox story.

Guess we should only allow doctors to prescribe Acetaminophen and they also must have hospital privileges right?

But if you make Tylenol illegal, more people will die from using illegal Tylenol :sneaky:

 

[nehalem256]

what happened to small government/personal responsibility?

Oh right, the fine print indicates that certain things are excluded -

- abortion
- defense department
- evangelical christianity
- etc etc

Is that kinda like how a fetus isn't a child except when liberals want the government to pay for WIC and Medicaid for pregnant women for the benefit of the child? 😕

 

[Atreus21]

I'm extremely socially liberal, and IMO Roe v Wade should be struck down. That's really the only definitive way to end this nonsense once and for all. Liberal states will legalize it, and trash states like (probably) the one you are from will make it illegal. Eventually, after enough women have suffered and died via illegal abortions and babies have been abandoned, it'll become legalized. Either that, or women will simply cross state lines to get abortions. The pro-life crowd will then employ more and more authoritarian measures to prevent them from doing it. Finally, their own authoritarianism will reduce them to a joke in the public's eye.

As society moves more to the social left, the above is inevitable. Otherwise this wedge issue is constantly going to bother us. I say bring it down! The suffering would be limited to backward trash states anyway.

What do you suppose life was like before Roe v. Wade?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Although much safer, there's still a chance of serious complications resulting from drug induced abortions.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/21/medication-induced-abortions-are-safe-study-finds/

It's not just "safer," it's considered medically safe. Your own link says that studies found a rate of hospitalization of 1 in 625 with a grand total of one fatality in 230,000+ abortions. To cite "safety" as a reason for this legislation is absurd. You know what carries a higher risk of injury or death than a medication-induced abortion? Owning a gun. I'm assuming Texas will crack down on that next. Because "safety." Give me a break.

I'm not suggesting that we should implement gun control. I'm just saying that people claiming that restricting abortions is done for "safety" is a flat-out lie. At this point, abortion is safer than childbirth. People need to stop lying about their motivation and just admit that their goal is to end abortion because they believe it is murder; it has nothing to do with women's health.

 

[nixium]

When people choose to buy guns, I would think their safety would be of the most utmost concern for everyone... especially in light of past practices with mass shootings and such.
People are only allowed to own guns within a certain distance of accessibility to a hospital.

 

[nixium]

What do you suppose life was like before Roe v. Wade?

You mean the the time when you could be beaten to death for being black or gay and women were considered best barefoot and naked and it was OK to refer to mexicans as "wetbacks"? Or conduct witch hunts on suspected communists?

I believe society has moved way more to the left from those glory days of old, so it's quite possible things will be pretty different now.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And more people die a year from Acetaminophen (Tylenol) than women that had "serious side effect" in your Fox story.

Guess we should only allow doctors to prescribe Acetaminophen and they also must have hospital privileges right?

And more people die a year from Acetaminophen overdose than women did from illegal abortions before Roe Vs. Wade. So exactly what was your point again?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's not just "safer," it's considered medically safe. Your own link says that studies found a rate of hospitalization of 1 in 625 with a grand total of one fatality in 230,000+ abortions. To cite "safety" as a reason for this legislation is absurd. You know what carries a higher risk of injury or death than a medication-induced abortion? Owning a gun. I'm assuming Texas will crack down on that next. Because "safety." Give me a break.

I'm not suggesting that we should implement gun control. I'm just saying that people claiming that restricting abortions is done for "safety" is a flat-out lie. At this point, abortion is safer than childbirth. People need to stop lying about their motivation and just admit that their goal is to end abortion because they believe it is murder; it has nothing to do with women's health.

I agree that drug induced abortions are much, much safer. However, does Texas restrict abortions to drug induced only? I think not.

 

[nixium]

You do realize that even with legal abortion all 50 states enacted special laws to enable babies to be abandoned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_haven_laws

Fair enough, but if x babies are abandoned with legal abortion, then it stands that some y non-aborted babies are likely to be abandoned with abortion being illegal, bringing the total to x+y. at some point that figure will cause outrage and a media frenzy with will either cause abortion to be legalized, or more authoritarian measures to be taken (anti abandonment law)

 

[rudeguy]

When people choose to buy guns, I would think their safety would be of the most utmost concern for everyone... especially in light of past practices with mass shootings and such.
People are only allowed to own guns within a certain distance of accessibility to a hospital.

ummm

no

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

what happened to small government/personal responsibility?

Oh right, the fine print indicates that certain things are excluded -

- abortion
- defense department
- evangelical christianity
- etc etc

And what happened to people having reasonably intelligent conversations instead of jumping to preconceived conclusions based on idiotic cartoon stereotypes?

 

[brycejones]

And more people die a year from Acetaminophen (Tylenol) than women that had "serious side effect" in your Fox story.

Guess we should only allow doctors to prescribe Acetaminophen and they also must have hospital privileges right?

Don't forget it could only be administered in a controlled clinical setting as well. That has to have the same standards as a surgical center including supply closets of a certain size (don't know if this was in the Texas law but it was in the law passed in Kansas recently).

 

[Texashiker]

OP: one more man that has a need to control women, even women he has never met.

Not control, but protect. How many women have to die in abortion clinics before something is done?

To use the democrats argument on gun control, if it saves just one life isn't it worth it?

 

[ivwshane]

Although much safer, there's still a chance of serious complications resulting from drug induced abortions.



http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/21/medication-induced-abortions-are-safe-study-finds/

So what you are saying is that the system they had before the law was passed was working just fine.

Because, while complications can happen no matter what, this law does nothing to prevent or minimize those complications.

If you think a background check doesn't address the gun violence issue we have in this country than surely you can agree that requiring admitting privaliges or any of the other restrictions to abortions this law puts in place, doesn't address the issue it claims to address.

 

[zinfamous]

Texas, in its effort to protect the health of women passed a new abortion law. But for some reason pro-abortion groups have challenged the law.

😀

😀


😀

...is all I have to say.

 

[Texashiker]

Serious question: Does a single person here honestly believe that the purpose of these regulations is to protect the health of women seeking abortions?

Yes, I do.

When a hair salon has more regulations that an abortion provider, something is wrong.

If a woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy, fine. But do it with a licensed provider that can take care of the woman if something goes wrong.

Do we really want women going to back alley clinics?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Not control, but protect. How many women have to die in abortion clinics before something is done?

To use the democrats argument on gun control, if it saves just one life isn't it worth it?

How many women in Texas die in abortion clinics? In the last five years, zero (source). Since 2000, 10. 865,000 abortions, 10 deaths in 13 years. And this is about safety? You're either lying or you don't understand math.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, I do.

When a hair salon has more regulations that an abortion provider, something is wrong.

If a woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy, fine. But do it with a licensed provider that can take care of the woman if something goes wrong.

Do we really want women going to back alley clinics?

When the forces more clinics to shut down, exactly where do you think women will be going?

I'm just curious, did you think prohibition was a good idea too?