Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It can take a good six or eight weeks before you know. That leaves twelve weeks to make decision, figure out if you have the support needed to have a child, get an appointment, time off work, multiple appointments and waiting periods, it can push the timeline. And states are attempting new legislation to increase the difficulty. Judge blocks Arkansas from enforcing 4 abortion restrictionsIf you are poor, don't have transportation, work multiple jobs or jobs with little flexibility this adds up.
You had time to get pregnant. I'm pretty sure it took less than 20 weeks.
All of which are medically unnecessary.
The requirement of a consultation prior to a medical procedure isn't limited to abortion. Any invasive medical procedure requires a GP consultation and referral prior to that procedure. Such procedures typically require a minimum of ONE visit with the surgeon or specialist prior to the procedure. So, surgical removal of a mole will take as many three visits.
There are 14 states that require a pre-visit, two of those states waive that if you live 100 miles or more from the clinic. One state allows any that visit to be at any medical clinic and at least one allows that visit to be over the telephone.
So, ten states require a single in office pre-visit before undergoing an invasive medical procedure. I submit that if you cannot attend two doctors visits within a 20 week period then you certainly don't have the available free time to become pregnant, which takes somewhat longer than a doctor visit.
How long is your average doctor visit?
Honest question, I haven't been to a doctor in more than 2 decades.
Does it really matter? It is no more or no less of a kid, time does not matter.The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...
---------------------------------
Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.
House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics
It can take a good six or eight weeks before you know. That leaves twelve weeks to make decision, figure out if you have the support needed to have a child, get an appointment, time off work, multiple appointments and waiting periods, it can push the timeline. And states are attempting new legislation to increase the difficulty. Judge blocks Arkansas from enforcing 4 abortion restrictionsIf you are poor, don't have transportation, work multiple jobs or jobs with little flexibility this adds up.
You had time to get pregnant. I'm pretty sure it took less than 20 weeks.
All of which are medically unnecessary.
The requirement of a consultation prior to a medical procedure isn't limited to abortion. Any invasive medical procedure requires a GP consultation and referral prior to that procedure. Such procedures typically require a minimum of ONE visit with the surgeon or specialist prior to the procedure. So, surgical removal of a mole will take as many three visits.
There are 14 states that require a pre-visit, two of those states waive that if you live 100 miles or more from the clinic. One state allows any that visit to be at any medical clinic and at least one allows that visit to be over the telephone.
So, ten states require a single in office pre-visit before undergoing an invasive medical procedure. I submit that if you cannot attend two doctors visits within a 20 week period then you certainly don't have the available free time to become pregnant, which takes somewhat longer than a doctor visit.
In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.I am confident that the courts will agree with me on this. . . To the extent that a woman's rights are compromised by her prenatal children during pregnancy. . . Unless she was raped, she (along with the help of her partner) compromised them herself.
The courts haven't agreed...abortion is legal.
Abortion is only legal because the SCOTUS tried (foolishly) to make compromises between children's rights the women's, ignoring personhood and trying to find the interest of the State.
The court is not infallible and the fist amendment insures that the people can file for redress until the court gets it right.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
It can take a good six or eight weeks before you know. That leaves twelve weeks to make decision, figure out if you have the support needed to have a child, get an appointment, time off work, multiple appointments and waiting periods, it can push the timeline. And states are attempting new legislation to increase the difficulty. Judge blocks Arkansas from enforcing 4 abortion restrictionsIf you are poor, don't have transportation, work multiple jobs or jobs with little flexibility this adds up.
You had time to get pregnant. I'm pretty sure it took less than 20 weeks.
All of which are medically unnecessary.
Does it really matter? It is no more or no less of a kid, time does not matter.The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...
---------------------------------
Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.
House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics
Abortion should not be a federal issue, they have no credibility on the matter.
In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.The courts haven't agreed...abortion is legal.
Abortion is only legal because the SCOTUS tried (foolishly) to make compromises between children's rights the women's, ignoring personhood and trying to find the interest of the State.
The court is not infallible and the fist amendment insures that the people can file for redress until the court gets it right.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
It does not change anything.When you stupidly get drunk, get high or just acting like a dumbass punk and you get behind the wheel. . .. how does the law treat you and your act of Consent when you crash into a family of four and kill them all?
When the Supreme court said during Roe that if a State established personhood for children in the womb, the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make. . . Did they say "unless the woman did not consent to the pregnancy?"
No.
The answer is no. They didn't.
That's not quite what the court said. Re-read the quote in your signature. If it were established that the fetus is a person under the 14th amendment, the argument for abortion would become nearly impossible to make. That doesn't mean if any state decides to pass a law saying that a fetus is a person, the USSC must now accept that as being true for all fetuses at all stages under the 14th. A state can call a fetus a person all it wants to, but unless it can establish that a fetus is a person as used in the 14th amendment, it does not fit your statement.
The court used the words "near impossible." not me.
What do you suppose they were getting at?
First, where did the court use those words?
Second, you either didn't actually read my post or clearly didn't understand what I said. The Supreme Court is under no obligation to accept the reasoning of a state law when they make a decision, particularly if that state law runs counter to previous USSC precedent. I can only assume you are talking about the quote from your signature, which does not say that "if a State established personhood for children in the womb, the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make"; instead it says that if personhood under the 14th amendment is established for fetuses, the case for abortion could collapse. A state making a law regarding, say, fetal homicide, does not mean a fetus is a person under the 14th.
In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.Abortion is only legal because the SCOTUS tried (foolishly) to make compromises between children's rights the women's, ignoring personhood and trying to find the interest of the State.
The court is not infallible and the fist amendment insures that the people can file for redress until the court gets it right.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the constitution talks about life and rights beginning at conception. I know the constitution mentions birth, but I didn't realize conception was in there. Could you point me to the relevant passage(s)?
If rights are incurred rebirth then why not post death...In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.Abortion is only legal because the SCOTUS tried (foolishly) to make compromises between children's rights the women's, ignoring personhood and trying to find the interest of the State.
The court is not infallible and the fist amendment insures that the people can file for redress until the court gets it right.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the constitution talks about life and rights beginning at conception. I know the constitution mentions birth, but I didn't realize conception was in there. Could you point me to the relevant passage(s)?
I went to my dermatologist for follow up on another issue
It does not change anything.
When the Supreme court said during Roe that if a State established personhood for children in the womb, the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make. . . Did they say "unless the woman did not consent to the pregnancy?"
No.
The answer is no. They didn't.
That's not quite what the court said. Re-read the quote in your signature. If it were established that the fetus is a person under the 14th amendment, the argument for abortion would become nearly impossible to make. That doesn't mean if any state decides to pass a law saying that a fetus is a person, the USSC must now accept that as being true for all fetuses at all stages under the 14th. A state can call a fetus a person all it wants to, but unless it can establish that a fetus is a person as used in the 14th amendment, it does not fit your statement.
The court used the words "near impossible." not me.
What do you suppose they were getting at?
First, where did the court use those words?
Second, you either didn't actually read my post or clearly didn't understand what I said. The Supreme Court is under no obligation to accept the reasoning of a state law when they make a decision, particularly if that state law runs counter to previous USSC precedent. I can only assume you are talking about the quote from your signature, which does not say that "if a State established personhood for children in the womb, the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make"; instead it says that if personhood under the 14th amendment is established for fetuses, the case for abortion could collapse. A state making a law regarding, say, fetal homicide, does not mean a fetus is a person under the 14th.
In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the constitution talks about life and rights beginning at conception. I know the constitution mentions birth, but I didn't realize conception was in there. Could you point me to the relevant passage(s)?
Does the Constituion say that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . Or does it say only persons we can no longer find reasons to deny?
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the constitution talks about life and rights beginning at conception. I know the constitution mentions birth, but I didn't realize conception was in there. Could you point me to the relevant passage(s)?
Does the Constituion say that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . Or does it say only persons we can no longer find reasons to deny?
The constitution does not define persons specifically, so far as I am aware. The USSC decided that a fetus does not constitute a person under the 14th in Roe. I would guess that a fetus cannot be a natural born citizen, either, since it has not been born.
I went to my dermatologist for follow up on another issue
So, at least ONE pre-visit on your part was required. You also mentioned a waiting period. The longest waiting period before an abortion in any states is 72 hours. That doesn't put a significant dent in a 20 week window, does it?
A second trimester abortion, if done safely, is performed in an operating theater, with anesthesia. So a bit more invasive than a doctors office mole removal.
Tell me where you can get a surgical procedure done on a walk-in basis other than abortion and we can compare apples with aborted apples.
who gives the rights...? The constitution (i.e. Government) or something else?In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.The courts haven't agreed...abortion is legal.
Abortion is only legal because the SCOTUS tried (foolishly) to make compromises between children's rights the women's, ignoring personhood and trying to find the interest of the State.
The court is not infallible and the fist amendment insures that the people can file for redress until the court gets it right.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
who gives the rights...? The constitution (i.e. Government) or something else?In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.Abortion is only legal because the SCOTUS tried (foolishly) to make compromises between children's rights the women's, ignoring personhood and trying to find the interest of the State.
The court is not infallible and the fist amendment insures that the people can file for redress until the court gets it right.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
Ok, fair enough, I have a right to my own body.who gives the rights...? The constitution (i.e. Government) or something else?In your opinion. Never before were rights given before birth or personhood recognized before that event. In no other situation is a persons fundamental rights to her own body infringed upon.
The fact that RvW has withstood many challenges implies it was a good ruling. They got it right.
Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
Where do you get this idea that rights (specifically the right that a person has to the life they are living) is something that is "given" to them by others?
Why can't it be inherent?
Will not an ant or a tree fight to survive if something is trying to kill them? What or who hives them the right to do so?
Ok, fair enough, I have a right to my own body.who gives the rights...? The constitution (i.e. Government) or something else?Wait.
You fucking think that personhood and rights are "given" to us by the fucking government?
Are we getting into religion?
Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.
Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.
Where do you get this idea that rights (specifically the right that a person has to the life they are living) is something that is "given" to them by others?
Why can't it be inherent?
Will not an ant or a tree fight to survive if something is trying to kill them? What or who hives them the right to do so?
