Oklahoma REALLY doesn't want Women to have Abortions

[Immanuel]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Those two sentences, what a fucking hypocrite.

Oh, well I don't want laws to be broken BUT they won't be broken if we change them! Way to hold up the Constitution of this country there bucko! Another example of Conservatives in favor of the Constitution only when it favors them.

Every citizen has the right to petition the government to change the laws. I don't see a problem with Lonestar's point of view. He's not stating that he believes we should break the law but rather that we should work to change the law.

Personally, I agree with him 100%. If we don't like the current law then we should be working to change the law in any legal manner just as you should be working to change laws that you think are wrong.

Immie

 

[The T]

And everyone of those Civil Rights is someone's idea of morality. Regardless of the law, it is based upon someone's idea of moral living. You may or may not agree with the morality of those who made the law and got it passed, but they wrote it because they believed it was the moral thing to do.

Immie

I don't think so. Laws were based on common law for centuries and our constitution is based on civil rights. You can claim they came from morals, you can claim they agree with your morals, but each and every valid and just law simply prevents one person from enfringing on someone else's civil rights.

And all of that Ravi is based on someone's perception of morality. Your civil rights are based upon the views of morality that some lawmaker somewhere back in history believed that you were entitled to.

Common law goes back to morality. All law is based upon morality.

Think about it... all law is based upon someone's idea of morality. Murder is illegal because someone decided that it was immoral to kill another human being. My driving at 10 miles per hour above the "legal" speed limit is illegal because some politician decided that the basic speed law should read that it is immoral to drive at an unsafe speed. Income tax laws are based on someone's perception that we as a people have a moral obligation to support our government and its projects.

Abortion laws are based upon someone's moral perception. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the morals of the pro-choice movement have won out in this case for the time being. And I do mean morals of the pro-choice movement because despite the fact that I disagree with the movement, I believe they see their side as the morally correct side of the issue.

I see them as wrong, but I believe that they are doing what they believe to be the right thing.

Immie

The ONLY hig *YOU need be concerned of is the Declaration...

*LIFE* Liberty, and the Persuit Of happiness...

Guess which overides all others?

 

[Immanuel]

If I'm an idiot, then tell me how this DOESN'T violate HIPAA laws.

Did I say it didn't violate any laws? If you had been following the thread, which you obviously haven't , you would have seen where I said that if any laws were being broken then perhaps the laws need to be changed.

Yeah, let's rescind our right to privacy........suuure.

If the government wants stats they are available as gross data from the providers without all of the extraneous details.

Sure if you can believe that "gross (ly understated) data.

Immie

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Think Progress » New Oklahoma law will publicy post details of women’s abortions online.

How simply pathetic this is. In this day and age in small communities, those eight questions could easily identify who had a Abortion. These scare tactics used to try and stop women from doing what they feel is right for both wrong and a abuse of laws.

So while Republicans and Democrats who are ultra-religious may enjoy seeing this, I assume Libertarians and those for small Government do not wish to see this. This is obviously Government involving themselves into a person's private matter and forcing them to answer questions they may not feel comfortable answering.

Where is the outrage from those on the right for Government intrusion in this situation? Or is it not Government intrusion because you agree with this?

In your opinion, does House Bill 1595 violate the state constitution of Oklahoma. And if so, why?

 

[Immanuel]

Those laws are written in the "Oklahoma state constitution" and yes they can be amended you stupid fuck!!

Amended to how you like it is what you mean to say. You have shown your view of the Constitution here. You don't give a fuck about the Constitution. You want it to suit YOUR views and YOUR desires. If we allow fucks like you to amend the Constitution whenever you damn well please, eventually everyone's going to be forced to be a God fearing Christian with no freedom of speech, bible being taught in school, science being rejected in the form of creationism, Death Penalties without trials, and a whole bunch of other shit that would make me want to move to Canada.

If I wanted to live the way YOU do, I'd go back in time to the 12th century.

So what you seem to be saying is that only your view of the Constitution is acceptable. No one who thinks differently than you do, has the legal right to work within the legal parameters to change the laws of a state or the states collectively?

That is what I am reading from your post. Please clarify.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

If I'm an idiot, then tell me how this DOESN'T violate HIPAA laws.

Did I say it didn't violate any laws? If you had been following the thread, which you obviously haven't , you would have seen where I said that if any laws were being broken then perhaps the laws need to be changed.

Well then, if this is the case, then the next time that you see a physician for a rash (anywhere on your body), prostate exam, ANYTHING that you have done, or any medications that you are prescribed....are you opposed to EVERYONE knowing the who, what, when, where, and why? If you aren't opposed to this law, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.

From what I have read, this law doesn't name the patient. It simply provides the total number of abortions performed to interested parties.

I can't understand why people on the left have a problem with that.

Quite frankly, if I happened to have AIDS, why would I care if the government reported me as a statistics if they did not name me personally?

Immie

 

[The T]

Think Progress » New Oklahoma law will publicy post details of women’s abortions online.

How simply pathetic this is. In this day and age in small communities, those eight questions could easily identify who had a Abortion. These scare tactics used to try and stop women from doing what they feel is right for both wrong and a abuse of laws.

So while Republicans and Democrats who are ultra-religious may enjoy seeing this, I assume Libertarians and those for small Government do not wish to see this. This is obviously Government involving themselves into a person's private matter and forcing them to answer questions they may not feel comfortable answering.

Where is the outrage from those on the right for Government intrusion in this situation? Or is it not Government intrusion because you agree with this?

In your opinion, does House Bill 1595 violate the state constitution of Oklahoma. And if so, why?

According to what *I* Read from most STATISTS?

The FED has Ultimate POWER, and the will of the People doesn't account for anything nor does the STATE from which the powers are derived.

They are convoluted...and think the 10th means SQUAT...and is to be IGNORED