Courts will do the TX abortion law what they did to Wisconsin's

[JakeStarkey]

You don't have a point to counter effectively.

There is no evidence that the current levels were not acceptable, Marty.

It is what it is, and "it is" is that you will lose in court.

 

[martybegan]

You don't have a point to counter effectively.

There is no evidence that the current levels were not acceptable, Marty.

It is what it is, and "it is" is that you will lose in court.

Standards are raised all the time, even if someone like you doesnt see the reason for it.

Typical progressive as well, relying on unlected lawyers to back you up.

 

[bendog]

Do you think it is unfair to impose those standards on plastic surgeons that have ambulatory surgery centers?

A failed derivative analogy: we are talking about abortion providers.

They are applying the exact same standards to abortion clinics that every single ambulatory center in the state is required to meet. Unless you are prepared to prove that an abortion is not a medical procedure you have got nothing except a totally stupid argument that requiring doctors to use clean instruments during an abortion is against the law.

"medical procedures" are not the issue with licensing abortion clinics as ambulatory centers. And the bill's purpose is not related to women's safety.

Issue in Texas Abortion Debate: What's an Ambulatory Surgical Center? | KUT News

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since Marty and QWB are no more knowledgeable about the medical safety procedures than I am, I will accept the assurances posted elsewhere on the Board and online that the required upgrades are negligible in improvement and are far outweighed by the denying of millions of Texas women to access to clinics.

These points have been settled, guys, and it is on these points the federal courts will say "no" to the legislation.

My cat is more knowledgeable about the standards than you are, which is why I provided a link to the law earlier so you could point out the parts I was misinterpreting. So far all you have done is blathered about access and insulted me for daring to have a different opinion. Feel free to go through the law, compare it to actual court decisions, and show me why it is going to be shot down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A failed derivative analogy: we are talking about abortion providers.

They are applying the exact same standards to abortion clinics that every single ambulatory center in the state is required to meet. Unless you are prepared to prove that an abortion is not a medical procedure you have got nothing except a totally stupid argument that requiring doctors to use clean instruments during an abortion is against the law.

"medical procedures" are not the issue with licensing abortion clinics as ambulatory centers. And the bill's purpose is not related to women's safety.

Issue in Texas Abortion Debate: What's an Ambulatory Surgical Center? | KUT News

Your article is based on the lie that abortion is not surgery, it is.

 

[bendog]

They are applying the exact same standards to abortion clinics that every single ambulatory center in the state is required to meet. Unless you are prepared to prove that an abortion is not a medical procedure you have got nothing except a totally stupid argument that requiring doctors to use clean instruments during an abortion is against the law.

"medical procedures" are not the issue with licensing abortion clinics as ambulatory centers. And the bill's purpose is not related to women's safety.

Issue in Texas Abortion Debate: What's an Ambulatory Surgical Center? | KUT News

Your article is based on the lie that abortion is not surgery, it is.

Your argument rests upon the lie that abortions have not been safely provided for nearly 40 years in clinics that are not equipped as abulatory surgical centers.

 

[bendog]

They are applying the exact same standards to abortion clinics that every single ambulatory center in the state is required to meet. Unless you are prepared to prove that an abortion is not a medical procedure you have got nothing except a totally stupid argument that requiring doctors to use clean instruments during an abortion is against the law.

"medical procedures" are not the issue with licensing abortion clinics as ambulatory centers. And the bill's purpose is not related to women's safety.

Issue in Texas Abortion Debate: What's an Ambulatory Surgical Center? | KUT News

Your article is based on the lie that abortion is not surgery, it is.

Your argument rests upon the lie that abortions have not been safely provided for nearly 40 years in clinics that are not equipped as abulatory surgical centers. And, you lie about the purpose of the bill. In short, you are a liar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"medical procedures" are not the issue with licensing abortion clinics as ambulatory centers. And the bill's purpose is not related to women's safety.

Issue in Texas Abortion Debate: What's an Ambulatory Surgical Center? | KUT News

Your article is based on the lie that abortion is not surgery, it is.

Your argument rests upon the lie that abortions have not been safely provided for nearly 40 years in clinics that are not equipped as abulatory surgical centers.

No it doesn't. My argument rests on the case that it makes perfect sense to apply the same standards to all ambulatory surgery centers, even if they only provide abortions. When I went in for orthopedic surgery a few years ago the doctor had never killed anyone, and had never had a serious problem despite being the primary orthopedic surgeon for three different school districts and the university, and was called in to consult by at least on major league team. He was still required to have an actual medical degree, not have anyone who is prohibited from working in a hospital in contact with the patients, and have hospital admitting privileges. Why not apply those same standards to abortion clinics? Even when his patient was from out of town and was unlikely to go to a local hospital, he still had the fallback if something went wrong during the surgery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A failed derivative analogy: we are talking about abortion providers.

They are applying the exact same standards to abortion clinics that every single ambulatory center in the state is required to meet. Unless you are prepared to prove that an abortion is not a medical procedure you have got nothing except a totally stupid argument that requiring doctors to use clean instruments during an abortion is against the law.

"medical procedures" are not the issue with licensing abortion clinics as ambulatory centers. And the bill's purpose is not related to women's safety.

Issue in Texas Abortion Debate: What's an Ambulatory Surgical Center? | KUT News

Yup, the safety of women is the cover for the law, while behind the blind is the effort to close centers to deny access, period.

You guys can argue your point all you want right up to the point the courts tell you "go away, this is over forever."

 

[JoeB131]

[

How is imposing standards punishing? And where is the consitutional right to be a doctor and practice being a doctor as you see fit?

The purpose of imposing the standards were not contructed by doctors, it was constructed by anti-choice morons to make life more difficult for the clinics and put them out of business.

It's kind of like me dictating you MUST have a child safety lock on your gun even if there are no children in your house.

 

[martybegan]

[

How is imposing standards punishing? And where is the consitutional right to be a doctor and practice being a doctor as you see fit?

The purpose of imposing the standards were not contructed by doctors, it was constructed by anti-choice morons to make life more difficult for the clinics and put them out of business.

It's kind of like me dictating you MUST have a child safety lock on your gun even if there are no children in your house.

So you are 100% sure no doctors were consulted? There is no such thing as a pro-choice doctor? Methinks you are wrong on this point.

And again, guns = right. Not having to drive 100 miles for an abortion = not a right.

 

[JoeB131]

[

How is imposing standards punishing? And where is the consitutional right to be a doctor and practice being a doctor as you see fit?

The purpose of imposing the standards were not contructed by doctors, it was constructed by anti-choice morons to make life more difficult for the clinics and put them out of business.

It's kind of like me dictating you MUST have a child safety lock on your gun even if there are no children in your house.

So you are 100% sure no doctors were consulted? There is no such thing as a pro-choice doctor? Methinks you are wrong on this point.

I'm sure that there are some quacks whose belief in the Magic Sky Pixie didn't stop them from getting a medical degree. Not that I would want one of them working on me, much less making laws.

And again, guns = right. Not having to drive 100 miles for an abortion = not a right.

There are no rights, guy.

There are only privilages society lets you have.

You can't call something a right if it can be taken away from you.

If the majority decides that your too ******* crazy to have a gun, you aren't going to have a gun.

You are lucky only a few hundred of us can see you hear and none of us know your real name.

 

[martybegan]

The purpose of imposing the standards were not contructed by doctors, it was constructed by anti-choice morons to make life more difficult for the clinics and put them out of business.

It's kind of like me dictating you MUST have a child safety lock on your gun even if there are no children in your house.

So you are 100% sure no doctors were consulted? There is no such thing as a pro-choice doctor? Methinks you are wrong on this point.

I'm sure that there are some quacks whose belief in the Magic Sky Pixie didn't stop them from getting a medical degree. Not that I would want one of them working on me, much less making laws.

And again, guns = right. Not having to drive 100 miles for an abortion = not a right.

There are no rights, guy.

There are only privilages society lets you have.

You can't call something a right if it can be taken away from you.

If the majority decides that your too ******* crazy to have a gun, you aren't going to have a gun.

You are lucky only a few hundred of us can see you hear and none of us know your real name.

It has to be a 2/3 house/senate majority and a 3/4 state majority to take away the rights afforded to me under the 2nd amendment. But of course progressive douche-nozzles such as yourself tend to ignore the consitution as you see fit.

And your last statement consitutes a thread, and a cowardly one at that. reported.

 

[JoeB131]

[

It has to be a 2/3 house/senate majority and a 3/4 state majority to take away the rights afforded to me under the 2nd amendment. But of course progressive douche-nozzles such as yourself tend to ignore the consitution as you see fit.

And your last statement consitutes a thread, and a cowardly one at that. reported.

How is pointing out all of us see that you're crazy constitute a threat?

And, no, guy, sorry, all it takes is one less mouthbreather on SCOTUS and the Second Amendment is about Militias, not gun ownership.

 

[martybegan]

[

It has to be a 2/3 house/senate majority and a 3/4 state majority to take away the rights afforded to me under the 2nd amendment. But of course progressive douche-nozzles such as yourself tend to ignore the consitution as you see fit.

And your last statement consitutes a thread, and a cowardly one at that. reported.

How is pointing out all of us see that you're crazy constitute a threat?

And, no, guy, sorry, all it takes is one less mouthbreather on SCOTUS and the Second Amendment is about Militias, not gun ownership.

You calling anyone crazy is a joke. What you said is far more threatening than ANYTHING I have posted on this site.

I love the fact that facists like you hope and pray for courts to take away peoples rights. It guess its the autocratic oligarch in you. As usual, militas are for the states, guns are for the people.

 

[JoeB131]

[

It has to be a 2/3 house/senate majority and a 3/4 state majority to take away the rights afforded to me under the 2nd amendment. But of course progressive douche-nozzles such as yourself tend to ignore the consitution as you see fit.

And your last statement consitutes a thread, and a cowardly one at that. reported.

How is pointing out all of us see that you're crazy constitute a threat?

And, no, guy, sorry, all it takes is one less mouthbreather on SCOTUS and the Second Amendment is about Militias, not gun ownership.

You calling anyone crazy is a joke. What you said is far more threatening than ANYTHING I have posted on this site.

I love the fact that facists like you hope and pray for courts to take away peoples rights. It guess its the autocratic oligarch in you. As usual, militas are for the states, guns are for the people.

I would say if your neighbors saw the crazy shit you say here every day and your desire to shoot people you dont like (and it's a long list, apparently), they would be rightfully concerned about you having a gun.

Lucky for you, none of your neighbors post on USMB.

here's the thing. There's no right to a gun. There's a right to a militia. You want to be in a militia, go down to your national guard recruiting station and sign right up.

They'll only let you have the gun under controlled circumstances, but you'll get to handle a gun.

 

[martybegan]

How is pointing out all of us see that you're crazy constitute a threat?

And, no, guy, sorry, all it takes is one less mouthbreather on SCOTUS and the Second Amendment is about Militias, not gun ownership.

You calling anyone crazy is a joke. What you said is far more threatening than ANYTHING I have posted on this site.

I love the fact that facists like you hope and pray for courts to take away peoples rights. It guess its the autocratic oligarch in you. As usual, militas are for the states, guns are for the people.

I would say if your neighbors saw the crazy shit you say here every day and your desire to shoot people you dont like (and it's a long list, apparently), they would be rightfully concerned about you having a gun.

Lucky for you, none of your neighbors post on USMB.

here's the thing. There's no right to a gun. There's a right to a militia. You want to be in a militia, go down to your national guard recruiting station and sign right up.

They'll only let you have the gun under controlled circumstances, but you'll get to handle a gun.

Liar. Find one quote of me saying I want to shoot people I dont like. FIND IT YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

THE PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. THe states are to keep miltias, but the people are to be armed.

The NG is not the unorganized milita, and you are not allowed to take your weapons home with you, thus defeating the purpose of the milita as the founders saw it in the first place. The State should not have a monopoly on the use of force.

You are the lowest form of life on the planet.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Liar. Find one quote of me saying I want to shoot people I dont like. FIND IT YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

THE PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. THe states are to keep miltias, but the people are to be armed.

The NG is not the unorganized milita, and you are not allowed to take your weapons home with you, thus defeating the purpose of the milita as the founders saw it in the first place. The State should not have a monopoly on the use of force.

You are the lowest form of life on the planet.

The second Amendment also calls for a WELL REGULATED militia.

That's the National Guard, not a bunch of cleetuses running about with their guns compensating for tiny penises.

And, yeah, you don't sound the least bit crazy, guy.

 

[martybegan]

[

Liar. Find one quote of me saying I want to shoot people I dont like. FIND IT YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

THE PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. THe states are to keep miltias, but the people are to be armed.

The NG is not the unorganized milita, and you are not allowed to take your weapons home with you, thus defeating the purpose of the milita as the founders saw it in the first place. The State should not have a monopoly on the use of force.

You are the lowest form of life on the planet.

The second Amendment also calls for a WELL REGULATED militia.

That's the National Guard, not a bunch of cleetuses running about with their guns compensating for tiny penises.

And, yeah, you don't sound the least bit crazy, guy.

Still waiting for you to find where I posted about shooting people I don't like, you liar.

The 2nd amendment also gives the right to the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the Milita, and not the states as a government entity.

The NG is an enlistment with federal connections, and thus does not meet the true meaning of the milita, which is a local organization of the states only, and can only be sent into federal service with the full permission of the states government.

The NG can be nationalized as part of its mission without the state's consent, and is thus not truly the milita as intended.

I'm waiting for you to find where I posted I want to shoot people I dont like. Still waiting.

 

[JakeStarkey]