9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

They might to someone who can't tell the difference between a zygote and an adult human being in a uniform.

Now....see if you can follow this: zygotes-> foetuses->babies.


Too difficult for you to comprehend?


Not too difficult for those who purchase condoms to comprehend.

But a zygote is not yet a baby.....is it?

That's why it's called a zygote and not a baby.

Obviously PC has never had sex or she would know condoms break. What an idiot.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



Looks like the reason to destroy human beings, in almost 90% of the cases, was, basically...'I felt like it.'


I guess that's why you voted for the "Infanticide President," huh?

Where is the guv'ments authority, or yours for that matter, to reach into a woman's vagina and control it. That is the type of proposition a fascist regime would believe an option of their power/control.

Cite that Governmental Authority with Amendments IX & XIV constitutionally blocking that absurd notion!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I wonder if the reasons for abortion are of interest to you....or do you take the position that any reason a woman chooses is good enough?



The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”
Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries


b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).


Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

So what?

Most abortions are because a woman has either had enough children or isn't prepared for motherhood?

Those sound like excellent reasons to have an abortion.

As long as men want to have sex with women for any reason there will be hundreds of reasons why women don't want to have the baby. Men don't want to have ANY ******* RESPONSIBILITY here!

If it tore up their bodies like it does a woman's you can bet damn straight that men would be in favor of abortion and this issue would be moot. But as it stands they not only can skirt the physical aspect of giving birth, they can skirt the financial aspect, too.


I say they need to do their part and keep their zipper closed if they thing abortion is wrong.

"Men don't want to have ANY F****G RESPONSIBILITY here!"


See....that's where we differ.

Those that you describe aren't 'men'.....they are the result of the infantilizing that results from a Liberal education....e.g., you.

"You can stay on your parents' healthcare policy 'til you're 26!"
Whoopee!



Remediation:
Men go out into the world and support themselves.
Men support, protect, and take care of their wives and children.


Ever hear that before?

 

[bodecea]

Now....see if you can follow this: zygotes-> foetuses->babies.


Too difficult for you to comprehend?


Not too difficult for those who purchase condoms to comprehend.

But a zygote is not yet a baby.....is it?

That's why it's called a zygote and not a baby.

Obviously PC has never had sex or she would know condoms break. What an idiot.

Exactly.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

And of course when they run out of money for 9200 new social services cases, they are gonna come grovelling to Uncle Sam (ie. Blue State tax revenues) for a handout.

Exactly. What else can they do if they cannot afford to have these children?
And the stupid ******* Tea Baggers want lower taxes. Ha! Funny how they don't see a conflict of interest in this.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So what?

Most abortions are because a woman has either had enough children or isn't prepared for motherhood?

Those sound like excellent reasons to have an abortion.

As long as men want to have sex with women for any reason there will be hundreds of reasons why women don't want to have the baby. Men don't want to have ANY ******* RESPONSIBILITY here!

If it tore up their bodies like it does a woman's you can bet damn straight that men would be in favor of abortion and this issue would be moot. But as it stands they not only can skirt the physical aspect of giving birth, they can skirt the financial aspect, too.


I say they need to do their part and keep their zipper closed if they thing abortion is wrong.

"Men don't want to have ANY F****G RESPONSIBILITY here!"


See....that's where we differ.

Those that you describe aren't 'men'.....they are the result of the infantilizing that results from a Liberal education....e.g., you.

"You can stay on your parents' healthcare policy 'til you're 26!"
Whoopee!



Remediation:
Men go out into the world and support themselves.
Men support, protect, and take care of their wives and children.


Ever hear that before?

So Deadbeat Dads are all Democrats. You really are that stupid.

Looks like a lot of RED states to me in this map:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-parent-households-decreases-1-2-million.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



Looks like the reason to destroy human beings, in almost 90% of the cases, was, basically...'I felt like it.'


I guess that's why you voted for the "Infanticide President," huh?

Where is the guv'ments authority, or yours for that matter, to reach into a woman's vagina and control it. That is the type of proposition a fascist regime would believe an option of their power/control.

Cite that Governmental Authority with Amendments IX & XIV constitutionally blocking that absurd notion!

It seems that you frequently require my aid in understanding reality.

Well, noblesse oblige.....



1. Conservatism embraces this brand of pro-choice sentiment: we fully acknowledge a woman’s ability to make choices about her own body, and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The choice that operates is this: contraceptives may fail…the decision to engage in sexual intercourse is to accept the possibility that pregnancy may occur. This means the decision to accept all of the responsibilities that may become necessary.


a. When deciding to buy a house, there is the implicit acceptance of future mortgage payments, upkeep, insurance, etc.

b. The choice to which an individual has the right of decision is to have sex or not, rather than to abort or not.

c. No unjust intrusion on the unborn child’s right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is allowed.



2. Based on this position, the obligation of government is to protect the lives of the unborn by restricting access to abortion only to those situations in which the mother’s life is in danger, or to cases of rape or incest.



3. The conservative rejects the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.

On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson.

“Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As long as men want to have sex with women for any reason there will be hundreds of reasons why women don't want to have the baby. Men don't want to have ANY ******* RESPONSIBILITY here!

If it tore up their bodies like it does a woman's you can bet damn straight that men would be in favor of abortion and this issue would be moot. But as it stands they not only can skirt the physical aspect of giving birth, they can skirt the financial aspect, too.


I say they need to do their part and keep their zipper closed if they thing abortion is wrong.

"Men don't want to have ANY F****G RESPONSIBILITY here!"


See....that's where we differ.

Those that you describe aren't 'men'.....they are the result of the infantilizing that results from a Liberal education....e.g., you.

"You can stay on your parents' healthcare policy 'til you're 26!"
Whoopee!



Remediation:
Men go out into the world and support themselves.
Men support, protect, and take care of their wives and children.


Ever hear that before?

So Deadbeat Dads are all Democrats. You really are that stupid.

Looks like a lot of RED states to me in this map:

1 in 3 US children live without their father according to census as the number of two-parent households decreases by 1.2 million | Mail Online

"So Deadbeat Dads are all Democrats. You really are that stupid."


Clearly, I never said that.
The indicates that the truth of my earlier post severely wounded you.

Good.
That may be how you learn.

 

[Jroc]

Abortion is the hypocrite's crutch, it requires nothing of the hypocrite, controlling the lives of another person is what they desire most, taking care of or assisting the same person is something they loathe. Empty moralizing is their trademark. A child dies every 15 seconds in the world of natural causes, do you ever hear the hypocrites mention them? And every married couple, every month aborts life, unless they attempt to conceive the potential life present, they just pretend it is something other than what it is. The same people who argue against supporting a woman's right to contraceptive medicine, gladly pay for boner medicine, I guess males matter more than women in their world, and so it goes.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey


http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/301002-a-new-forum-maybe-post7469334.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...way-it-was-pre-roe-v-wade-11.html#post6717483

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...luding-late-term-abortions-2.html#post5858288

"....controlling the lives of another person...."

Very close to the definition of abortion.

Ironic, huh?

Get ready to put your money where your pie hole is when these parents or single mothers have to go on welfare to raise these unwanted children, or if these kids are simply abandoned.

Texas will have to start opening orphanages, like we had in the previous, archaic and controlled society of the 19th century which is where your head is.

Get ready for 18 years of support per unwanted child, and we KNOW how righties love their money and want to reduce taxes, so please STFU when it comes YOUR turn to pay for them.

Kinda funny how these leftist support bringing in poor children from other countries and putting them on the government dole, but lets kill our own, because they might be a burden on the system

 

[Agit8r]

Teabaggers should listen to their heroes:

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."

-- Ayn Rand; from 'The Ayn Rand Letter'

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



Looks like the reason to destroy human beings, in almost 90% of the cases, was, basically...'I felt like it.'


I guess that's why you voted for the "Infanticide President," huh?

Where is the guv'ments authority, or yours for that matter, to reach into a woman's vagina and control it. That is the type of proposition a fascist regime would believe an option of their power/control.

Cite that Governmental Authority with Amendments IX & XIV constitutionally blocking that absurd notion!

It seems that you frequently require my aid in understanding reality.

Well, noblesse oblige.....



1. Conservatism embraces this brand of pro-choice sentiment: we fully acknowledge a woman’s ability to make choices about her own body, and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The choice that operates is this: contraceptives may fail…the decision to engage in sexual intercourse is to accept the possibility that pregnancy may occur. This means the decision to accept all of the responsibilities that may become necessary.


a. When deciding to buy a house, there is the implicit acceptance of future mortgage payments, upkeep, insurance, etc.

b. The choice to which an individual has the right of decision is to have sex or not, rather than to abort or not.

c. No unjust intrusion on the unborn child’s right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is allowed.



2. Based on this position, the obligation of government is to protect the lives of the unborn by restricting access to abortion only to those situations in which the mother’s life is in danger, or to cases of rape or incest.



3. The conservative rejects the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.

On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson.

“Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

Your typical obfuscation and avoidance!

Again, what is the Constitutional authority for a government entity to place ANY control on a woman's vagina in any wise? I don't give a tinkers damn about your contrived moralistic quotes...they ain't law. What is your basis in the law of the land for the People to trample on their Amendment IX & XIV retained non-enumerated and due process rights?

Cite the Constitutional Authority for any government entity to impede or obstruct a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester, little one. I can't make it any clearer. The easy response would be that there is none!

 

[Vorskla]

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic:
"In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
Looks like the reason to destroy human beings, in almost 90% of the cases, was, basically...'I felt like it.'
I guess that's why you voted for the "Infanticide President," huh?"

I understand the numbers very well, but what about those that can barely support themselves without help? Should they be forced to bring an unplanned baby into this world who is, most likely, going to suffer as a result? Isn't it more humane to not even attempt it?

What about people that know they are going to be shitty parents (druggies, alkies, etc...). Some people are actually aware of their limitations, shortcomings and failures and try to avoid forcing others to suffer for their "sins". So, why take away the choice?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Abortion is simply a tool used to cull the black herd. That was it's original intent according to Ginsberg.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm sure that abortions are down in Texas. I suspect the D & C procedures are up. In fact, I can remember before Roe Vs. Wade when there were no abortions. Oddly enough, however, there sure were a hellova lot of D & C's!

 

[JoeB131]

Au contraire, ErroneousJoe....


It is imperative to both point out that intercourse is the precursor, a fact over which one almost always has control....

....and to indicate evil to our Liberal pals who seem unable to recognize same.

sure.

You have control.

If you want to have sex, you can.

If you want to suck "that little problem" into a sink, you can.

And no religious asshole has jack-shit to say about it.

What a ******* country.

 

[JoeB131]

Classic Republican moronic logic at work: If you pretend it no longer exists that means it ceases to exist! POOF! No more abortions because we restricted access!

By the fallacy of that logic, NO ONE was drinking during the prohibition era because alcohol was banned!

How utterly stupid of anyone to think that abortions will magically stop because Texas restricted access to them. Texas sent them underground or out of state is all.

Like stricter gun laws will magically stop gun purchases and gun crime. It will go underground.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

well, guns have to be manufactured...

Shhhh.

Let's pretend the rest of the industrialized world hasn't already solved this problem.

 

[FA_Q2]

More strict Abortion laws save lives.




Report Estimates 9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law | CNS News

Aren't the political party positions on abortion reversed from how they should be? Shouldn't Republicans be for abortion since most who opt for them are probably the less wealthy types? And Democrats be against it, since less abortion equals more poor people and likely Democrats?

You make the false (though very common) assumption that most abortions are for economic reasons (women can't afford a child).

IIRC, this has been repeatedly been proven false. Most abortions are by middle class women.

Simply stating it is false without proof is asinine.

The facts speak quite differently – the majority of all abortions are done out of convenience with much of those being directly linked to carrier/money.

The ones that are done for ‘heath’ are misrepresented as well considering that there does not have to be any actual health problem diagnosed by a physician for that classification. A small minority of abortions are performed because they are necessary.

By the way – middle class does not mean can’t afford. The ability to afford a child is something that is subjective and dependent on the lifestyle that the parent wished to maintain. Most of those are not cases of ‘can’t afford’ so much as do not want to spend money on.

 

[FA_Q2]

Teabaggers should listen to their heroes:

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."

-- Ayn Rand; from 'The Ayn Rand Letter'

Why? Why would they want to be like you and let other do their thinking for them when they can actually come to conclusions themselves.

That’s the problem though – they are not ‘heroes.’ Rand is not and has never been a ‘hero.’ She was a woman with theories that many agree with – or at least agree with parts. Sorry that you cannot bother to understand this.

 

[FA_Q2]

Interesting.

The question I have is why? What has this law don’t to reduce abortions? Has it simply restricted access and if that is the case (as I think it is) are you banking on this being a good thing? I have serious issues with the government interceding with anyone’s body – even in the case of pregnancy. I can also see this as essentially killing the bill in the courts – limiting access based on arbitrary rules.

I actually agree with the 20 weeks part – it makes sense to me that abortion should be regulated within the gestational period BUT I would doubt that is the barrier that reduced abortions overall. Closing all the clinics down – that is the likely cause.

It did not restrict access, it simply set a bar for safety that was a bit higher than the coat hanger shops the abortion mills were running. The coat hanger shop owners apparently left to go to other states where they can get more profit per abortion.

Well, just flatly stating that really doesn’t mean anything. It did interest me though and it seems there are some numbers behind that.

Court Records Indicate Nearly 1,000 Abortion Patients Likely Hospitalized Annually in Texas

The problem? I can’t find any of this from a legitimate source. Operation rescue, right to life or nay other advocacy group is not really an objective and believable source with this type of information. Do you have anything more concrete?

 

[Noomi]

More strict Abortion laws save lives.

A year after the passage of a controversial bill restricting abortion in Texas, there will be an estimated 9,200 fewer abortions performed in the state, according to a report published earlier this month by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project.

"Compared to Period 1 [the six months prior to the bill's debate], there was a 13% decline in the state's abortion rate in Period 3 (the same six-month period one year later), corresponding to about 9,200 fewer abortions annually," according to the report, entitled “Change in Abortion Services After Implementation of a Restrictive Law in Texas.”

It also says that Texas had 41 abortion clinics as of May 2013. By November 2013, that number had been reduced to 22 and is expected to fall as low as six by September, when all abortion clinics in Texas must follow ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements.

The number of chemical abortions also decreased by 70 percent.

The legislation, which was passed and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry last July, prohibits most abortions after 20 weeks, requires that all abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and mandates that all chemical abortions be performed according to FDA regulations.

Report Estimates 9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law | CNS News

There will be fewer abortions that you know of, you mean. Abortions will happen regardless. They will simply be unsafe abortions - which is what you conservatives want.