Appellate Ruling Upholds Texas Abortion Law

[Katzndogz]

I'm not at all arguing against abortion so don't manipulate what I'm saying as some kind of position to ban abortion. Planned Parenthood pressures women to have an abortion the same way as any Catholic Church would pressure women to have a baby. Planned Parenthood shelters and protects adult men who impregnate children. If Planned Parehthood is so vital to the abortion industry that any wrongdoing done by it should be ignored, be honest and address that. It is entirely separate from whether or not abortion should be legal.

We got to the legalization of abortion somehow. It didn't just fall out of the sky. It started with a change in public opinion that having a child is no longer a worthwhile endeavor. Planned Parenthood promotes the idea that women who choose to have babies are somehow not as good as women who have an abortion. Underlying the decision making process when women are considering their "choice" are the ideas that women who have abortions are braver. stronger, smarter, than those who choose to have a baby. Worst of all, women that choose to have babies are manipulated and under the influence of religious zealots. It is not a real baby in there. Don't remind women or suggest that this is a real child. It's important to deny a fetus humanity. It removes any lingering guilt.

When a woman can look in the mirror and accept that she is ending the life of another human being and for whatever reason important to her she is okay with that, by all means, keep abortion legal and safe.

 

[Jroc]

What does that have to do with my post? I already said states can't ban abortion but they can regulate it as with any medical procedure some of these libs here think we can simply kill a baby at any stage of pregnancy which is sick, evil practice

DO I need to explain the big words to you?

They've been trying the banning through regulation shit for years, and the courts usually strike it down because it's obvious that's what they are up to. Bolton makes most of those regulations moot.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester, where it isn't anything vaguely close to being a baby.

The few late trimester abortions that happen usually happen because something has gone horribly wrong in a pregnancy the people involved wanted. The last thing they need at that point is some tiny-brained religious fanatic sticking their noses where they don't belong.

What's the topic of this thread again? this law doesn't ban or even attempt to ban anything stick to the topic genius.

 

[JoeB131]

What does that have to do with my post? I already said states can't ban abortion but they can regulate it as with any medical procedure some of these libs here think we can simply kill a baby at any stage of pregnancy which is sick, evil practice

DO I need to explain the big words to you?

They've been trying the banning through regulation shit for years, and the courts usually strike it down because it's obvious that's what they are up to. Bolton makes most of those regulations moot.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester, where it isn't anything vaguely close to being a baby.

The few late trimester abortions that happen usually happen because something has gone horribly wrong in a pregnancy the people involved wanted. The last thing they need at that point is some tiny-brained religious fanatic sticking their noses where they don't belong.

What's the topic of this thread again? this law doesn't ban or even attempt to ban anything stick to the topic genius.

The purpose of the law is to disuade women from getting abortions. That's why it's unconstitutional.

 

[jillian]

I can see the point of those who support the law. My only added point is then those who support it should be willing to pay more taxes to help support the child once it is born. If we want to outlaw abortion then we as a society must be willing to pay for programs that help support the child because we all know if this doesnt happen the child has no realisitic chance of a good start. Cant have it both ways.

that's an easy point to respond to. They wouldn't support doing a thing to help the children they insist be brought into the world.

They're pro birth; not pro life.

And if you notice, the vast majority of anti-choice radicals who want to divest women of their rights... are men.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm not at all arguing against abortion so don't manipulate what I'm saying as some kind of position to ban abortion. Planned Parenthood pressures women to have an abortion the same way as any Catholic Church would pressure women to have a baby. Planned Parenthood shelters and protects adult men who impregnate children. If Planned Parehthood is so vital to the abortion industry that any wrongdoing done by it should be ignored, be honest and address that. It is entirely separate from whether or not abortion should be legal.

We got to the legalization of abortion somehow. It didn't just fall out of the sky. It started with a change in public opinion that having a child is no longer a worthwhile endeavor. Planned Parenthood promotes the idea that women who choose to have babies are somehow not as good as women who have an abortion. Underlying the decision making process when women are considering their "choice" are the ideas that women who have abortions are braver. stronger, smarter, than those who choose to have a baby. Worst of all, women that choose to have babies are manipulated and under the influence of religious zealots. It is not a real baby in there. Don't remind women or suggest that this is a real child. It's important to deny a fetus humanity. It removes any lingering guilt.

When a woman can look in the mirror and accept that she is ending the life of another human being and for whatever reason important to her she is okay with that, by all means, keep abortion legal and safe.

When righties and lefties try to manipulate the politics at the national and state levels on abortion, then they are either right wing or left wing progressives.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is nothing Constitutional about abortion. It isn't even mentioned. Knowing the thinking of the day, the founding fathers would have come closer to thinking that a woman who wants an abortion for convenience is mentally ill rather than in need of a right to privacy to commit what they would have thought was murder.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. It was decided on an erroneous point of law. It was decided by creating penumbra rights that represent unenumerated powers of the government.

There is no Constitutional right, so it has to be a state right since all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution is quite clear. There's no ambiguity there. The issue of abortion is not an enumerated power of the federal government. It is reserved to the states and to the people. So vote on it, state by state.

 

[JoeB131]

There is nothing Constitutional about abortion. It isn't even mentioned. Knowing the thinking of the day, the founding fathers would have come closer to thinking that a woman who wants an abortion for convenience is mentally ill rather than in need of a right to privacy to commit what they would have thought was murder.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. It was decided on an erroneous point of law. It was decided by creating penumbra rights that represent unenumerated powers of the government.

There is no Constitutional right, so it has to be a state right since all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution is quite clear. There's no ambiguity there. The issue of abortion is not an enumerated power of the federal government. It is reserved to the states and to the people. So vote on it, state by state.

There's a whole body of 40 years of Supreme Court rulings that say otherwise.

Personally, I thought the citing of the 14 Amendment in Roe and all it's subsequent decisions is a stretch. But in this case, the justices were just being practical.

The dirty little secret of pre-Roe. Women were getting abortions with impunity, and no one really thought there was all that much wrong with it. There was not a huge drop in the birth rate after Roe was decided. Women who wanted babies kept them, and women who didn't want babies ended their pregnancies. Just like they were before, but now they found them in a phone book instead of someone who knows someone who can take care of that for you.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is nothing Constitutional about abortion. It isn't even mentioned. Knowing the thinking of the day, the founding fathers would have come closer to thinking that a woman who wants an abortion for convenience is mentally ill rather than in need of a right to privacy to commit what they would have thought was murder.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. It was decided on an erroneous point of law. It was decided by creating penumbra rights that represent unenumerated powers of the government.

There is no Constitutional right, so it has to be a state right since all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution is quite clear. There's no ambiguity there. The issue of abortion is not an enumerated power of the federal government. It is reserved to the states and to the people. So vote on it, state by state.

There's a whole body of 40 years of Supreme Court rulings that say otherwise.

Personally, I thought the citing of the 14 Amendment in Roe and all it's subsequent decisions is a stretch. But in this case, the justices were just being practical.

The dirty little secret of pre-Roe. Women were getting abortions with impunity, and no one really thought there was all that much wrong with it. There was not a huge drop in the birth rate after Roe was decided. Women who wanted babies kept them, and women who didn't want babies ended their pregnancies. Just like they were before, but now they found them in a phone book instead of someone who knows someone who can take care of that for you.

All that means is that 40 years of legal decisions based on the original erroneous decisions are also wrong. Immediately following Roe there certainly was not a huge rise in the number of abortions. How about now?

When Roe was decided I had a conversation with a judge who was a good friend of mine. I thought Roe was a sensible solution. She did not. She based her decision on the fact that once Roe gave a right to abortion there was no way to tell where it was going to go. At the time Roe was decided partial birth abortion was still illegal. There was no such thing as legal post birth abortion. My Judge friend told me way back when that we would be killing babies while they were being born, and then after they are born. John Holdren one of obama's czars claims that abortion should be legal up to a child's second birthday. That's what we got after 40 years of expanded abortion rights.

I am not here to tell you that in 40 years "scientific" proof that a two year old is not a human being won't be accepted political dogma. Had I said 40 years ago that killing a child while it was being born was too horrific to contemplate, I would obviously have been wrong.

In case you would ask for link.
President Obama's Bizarre "Science Czar": Dr. John R Holdren, Professional Alarmist | Population Research Institute

Holdren apparently agrees with the Princeton University “ethicist” that infants up to the age of two or so are not really human beings, and so can be eliminated without qualms.

There is only one way to reduce the number of abortions. Reduce the concept that having an abortion is preferable to having a baby. Monitor the counseling of organizations like Planned Parenthood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is nothing Constitutional about abortion. It isn't even mentioned. Knowing the thinking of the day, the founding fathers would have come closer to thinking that a woman who wants an abortion for convenience is mentally ill rather than in need of a right to privacy to commit what they would have thought was murder.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. It was decided on an erroneous point of law. It was decided by creating penumbra rights that represent unenumerated powers of the government.

There is no Constitutional right, so it has to be a state right since all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution is quite clear. There's no ambiguity there. The issue of abortion is not an enumerated power of the federal government. It is reserved to the states and to the people. So vote on it, state by state.

Write SCOTUS then, please.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is nothing Constitutional about abortion. It isn't even mentioned. Knowing the thinking of the day, the founding fathers would have come closer to thinking that a woman who wants an abortion for convenience is mentally ill rather than in need of a right to privacy to commit what they would have thought was murder.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. It was decided on an erroneous point of law. It was decided by creating penumbra rights that represent unenumerated powers of the government.

There is no Constitutional right, so it has to be a state right since all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution is quite clear. There's no ambiguity there. The issue of abortion is not an enumerated power of the federal government. It is reserved to the states and to the people. So vote on it, state by state.

Write SCOTUS then, please.

SCOTUS is pretty much driven by liberal ideaology. They aren't founts of knowledge, but founts of opinon. Mostly political opinion. There was a time when the feeling was that SCOTUS was looking for a test case that they could use to overturn Roe. With the addition of liberals like Kagan and Sotomayor no one would have that opinon now. Does anyone really think that the Kelo decision was constitutional? I hope not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is nothing Constitutional about abortion. It isn't even mentioned. Knowing the thinking of the day, the founding fathers would have come closer to thinking that a woman who wants an abortion for convenience is mentally ill rather than in need of a right to privacy to commit what they would have thought was murder.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. It was decided on an erroneous point of law. It was decided by creating penumbra rights that represent unenumerated powers of the government.

There is no Constitutional right, so it has to be a state right since all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution is quite clear. There's no ambiguity there. The issue of abortion is not an enumerated power of the federal government. It is reserved to the states and to the people. So vote on it, state by state.

Write SCOTUS then, please.

SCOTUS is pretty much driven by liberal ideaology. They aren't founts of knowledge, but founts of opinon. Mostly political opinion. There was a time when the feeling was that SCOTUS was looking for a test case that they could use to overturn Roe. With the addition of liberals like Kagan and Sotomayor no one would have that opinon now. Does anyone really think that the Kelo decision was constitutional? I hope not.

SCOTUS is solidly conservative, not libertarian, and thank heavens for that. Write SCOTUS, tell them to change Roe, and go get a beeer.

 

[Katzndogz]

Well, to a liberal anything to the right of Chairman Mao is conservative.

The way to fight abortion isn't in the courts or the legislature. It's one by one, countering the idea that killing a baby is more fulfilling than having a baby.

 

[Katzndogz]

On the other hand, you might REALLY believe that writing to SCOTUS has an effect. Oh please educate yourself. It doesn't work that way. You need a test case. They don't respond to letters. Just for your information, since you didn't know.

 

[JoeB131]

All that means is that 40 years of legal decisions based on the original erroneous decisions are also wrong. Immediately following Roe there certainly was not a huge rise in the number of abortions. How about now?

When Roe was decided I had a conversation with a judge who was a good friend of mine. I thought Roe was a sensible solution. She did not. She based her decision on the fact that once Roe gave a right to abortion there was no way to tell where it was going to go. At the time Roe was decided partial birth abortion was still illegal. There was no such thing as legal post birth abortion. My Judge friend told me way back when that we would be killing babies while they were being born, and then after they are born. John Holdren one of obama's czars claims that abortion should be legal up to a child's second birthday. That's what we got after 40 years of expanded abortion rights.

I am not here to tell you that in 40 years "scientific" proof that a two year old is not a human being won't be accepted political dogma. Had I said 40 years ago that killing a child while it was being born was too horrific to contemplate, I would obviously have been wrong.

In case you would ask for link.
President Obama's Bizarre "Science Czar": Dr. John R Holdren, Professional Alarmist | Population Research Institute

Holdren apparently agrees with the Princeton University “ethicist” that infants up to the age of two or so are not really human beings, and so can be eliminated without qualms.

There is only one way to reduce the number of abortions. Reduce the concept that having an abortion is preferable to having a baby. Monitor the counseling of organizations like Planned Parenthood.

If you are going to use demagougic terms like "partial birth abortion" (a lie) I'm not sure if there is much to really talk to you about.

and the tired "slippery slope to infanticide", I've heard that bullshit back in the days of "Catholic Indoctrination" in the 70's. It was kind of silly then and it's even sillier now.

No one has a late abortion unless something has gone horribly wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

On the other hand, you might REALLY believe that writing to SCOTUS has an effect. Oh please educate yourself. It doesn't work that way. You need a test case. They don't respond to letters. Just for your information, since you didn't know.

I am mocking your thinking, katz. Yes, the SCOTUS is conservative. You are not. You are far beyond the rational.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are discussing your experiences, and I am sure you are correct in that.

However, that is only one clinician's story and, as such, can be taken as anecdotal.. Your conclusion is not valid based on your experience, on than for your clinic and only then in that time frame.

How is your anecdotal evidence more valid than Katz's? Are you just naturally more brilliant than anyone else? Are you aware that, despite your anecdotal evidence, there is not a planned parenthood facility in the nation that actually gives pre natal care to women?

You are coming to grips with how to argue, and that is a good thing, QWB.

One can give anectodal evidence, but one has to back it up more fully with more in-depth evidence.

I don't have to contradict anything, merely point that the burden of proof has not been fulfilled.

That has been your problem on a couple of threads where you have failed in doing more than making a simple assertion without sustaining evidence. Assertions are personal. The evidence makes your assertion more tenable.

Give it a try.

Except yuor never back your evidence up.

By the way, kudos on learning from my example.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

DO I need to explain the big words to you?

They've been trying the banning through regulation shit for years, and the courts usually strike it down because it's obvious that's what they are up to. Bolton makes most of those regulations moot.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester, where it isn't anything vaguely close to being a baby.

The few late trimester abortions that happen usually happen because something has gone horribly wrong in a pregnancy the people involved wanted. The last thing they need at that point is some tiny-brained religious fanatic sticking their noses where they don't belong.

What's the topic of this thread again? this law doesn't ban or even attempt to ban anything stick to the topic genius.

The purpose of the law is to disuade women from getting abortions. That's why it's unconstitutional.

A couple of judges disagree with you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How is your anecdotal evidence more valid than Katz's? Are you just naturally more brilliant than anyone else? Are you aware that, despite your anecdotal evidence, there is not a planned parenthood facility in the nation that actually gives pre natal care to women?

You are coming to grips with how to argue, and that is a good thing, QWB.

One can give anectodal evidence, but one has to back it up more fully with more in-depth evidence.

I don't have to contradict anything, merely point that the burden of proof has not been fulfilled.

That has been your problem on a couple of threads where you have failed in doing more than making a simple assertion without sustaining evidence. Assertions are personal. The evidence makes your assertion more tenable.

Give it a try.

Except yuor never back your evidence up. By the way, kudos on learning from my example.

That you never back up your evidence up?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What's the topic of this thread again? this law doesn't ban or even attempt to ban anything stick to the topic genius.

The purpose of the law is to disuade women from getting abortions. That's why it's unconstitutional.

A couple of judges disagree with you.

I imagine murder statutes are there to persuade people to not commit the crime.

That's constitutional.

 

[Katzndogz]

The purpose of the law is to disuade women from getting abortions. That's why it's unconstitutional.

A couple of judges disagree with you.

I imagine murder statutes are there to persuade people to not commit the crime.

That's constitutional.

Looks like you shoud be writing a letter to tell those judges how wrong they are!