Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law

[Stann]

I never said that, you're trying to say that. Viability means it has a chance of survival, there are no guarantees that early on.

I just did some reading, the viability for a fetus under 24 weeks is less than 50%. What you're looking for a one-size-fit-all solution. Reproduction is one of the most complex issues we face. There is no one-size-fits-all. Complications can occur at any time. As the state of Texas will no doubt find out during their numerous multimillion-dollar cases against the state filed by people wronged by this bill, if it is allowed to stand.

 

[Rambunctious]

Thank God somebody has come to their senses. This type of insane legislation needs to be stopped right now. Our laws cannot be based on emotions. the pro-life case is nothing but an emotional issue, abortion should have never been a political issue. It's a medical procedure. A difficult choice at best for those who are faced with it, and should be addressed by the woman, husband, if there is one, and her doctor. No one else should be involved, especially not government.

Thank God we have a supreme court that will stop the killing of living unborn babies....

 

[bravoactual]

Abortion needs to remain the decision the woman has to make. No one no person no entity government Court can decide that for her. Who'd want to make that decision. But sometimes it's necessary to make the hard decisions. I work with a forty-three-year-old woman she's married and has four children she recently found out she was pregnant to her disbelief. The CVS testing at 12 weeks proved the fetus she was carrying was positive for Down's Syndrome. Her and her husband and their doctor all agreed abortion was best in this case. It wasn't just the Downs there were other complications but I'm not going to get into all that. I agreed with her decision.

All these Cons who bloviate about how wearing a fucking mask and cry on about "My Body, My Choice" are the same Cons who refuse to accept that Women have that same "My Body, My Choice" over their body.

There is no fetal heart beat at 6-Weeks. Mainly because there is no heart or no brain.

This whole thing is about Controlling Women's Bodies. I am looking forward to assisting Women in Texas needing an abortion and helping travel to California, where they can get one.

 

[beagle9]

Abortion needs to remain the decision the woman has to make. No one no person no entity government Court can decide that for her. Who'd want to make that decision. But sometimes it's necessary to make the hard decisions. I work with a forty-three-year-old woman she's married and has four children she recently found out she was pregnant to her disbelief. The CVS testing at 12 weeks proved the fetus she was carrying was positive for Down's Syndrome. Her and her husband and their doctor all agreed abortion was best in this case. It wasn't just the Downs there were other complications but I'm not going to get into all that. I agreed with her decision.

In this s case you say, but your problem is that you want abortion across the board, and that's where you lose the argument.

 

[beagle9]

Thank God we have a supreme court that will stop the killing of living unborn babies....

That's right, living beings inside of a womb that are in critical stages of development. A miracle for sure. How human beings became so disrespectful of such a process and creation is unbelievable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly.
See: Aaron v Cooper (1958).

The TX abortion law is constitutional.
^^^
You agree with this statement

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights," Garland said at a news conference."

Why then hasn't Garland sued the states of CA and NJ and NY and MD and HI for their legislative schemes specifically designed to prevent the vindication of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Stann]

In this s case you say, but your problem is that you want abortion across the board, and that's where you lose the argument.

Well the Texas cases totally idiotic, any limitations on abortions have to be rational and realistic.

 

[Stann]

"The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights," Garland said at a news conference."

Why then hasn't Garland sued the states of CA and NJ and NY and MD and HI for their legislative schemes specifically designed to prevent the vindication of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

Obviously the legislation did not impede gun ownership, simply qualified it and regulate it like it needs to be.

 

[Stann]

The TX abortion law is constitutional.
^^^
You agree with this statement

Absolutely not. It's a feel-good effort on the part of the pro-life sector, there is no a competent or legal legislation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obviously the legislation did not impede gun ownership, simply qualified it and regulate it like it needs to be.

Just as obviously, you can still have an abortion in TX; this law only adds common sense restrictions, like there needs to be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Absolutely not. It's a feel-good effort on the part of the pro-life sector, there is no a competent or legal legislation.

You'll have to argue the point with Clayton.

 

[Stann]

Just as obviously, you can still have an abortion in TX; this law only adds common sense restrictions, like there needs to be.

That's incorrect, most women don't even know if they're pregnant or not by 6 weeks, a fetus is not a viable entity until after 24 weeks and then is still iffy before that point likelihood of survival is less than 50%. The law does not take into account rape or incest, nor does it take into consideration the many third term trimester abortions that married women have to have in order to save their lives or because the child is born we have multiple problems and most likely die anyway. these aren't decisions that should be made by the state these are decisions that have to be made by the mother the father if there if there is a husband involved and her doctor. No one else should be impeding the process. They aren't helping the issue they're hurting it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's incorrect.

No. Its is -absolutely- correct -- it is still legal to get an abortion in TX.
If, as long as you can still own a gun, your right to keep and bear arms is not impeded, then as long as you can get an abortion, your right to an aborrtion is not impeded.

Fact is if a quarter of the restrictions laid upon the right to keep and bear arm were similarly laid on the right to an abortion, the pro-abortion crown would die of apoplectic shock.

Thus, Garland's statement is nothing but partisan hoqwash, to be consumed and repeated by useful idiots.

 

[Stann]

No. Its is -absolutely- correct -- it is still legal to get an abortion in TX.
If, as long as you can still own a gun, your right to keep and bear arms is not impeded, then as long as you can get an abortion, your right to an aborrtion is not impeded.

Fact is if a quarter of the restrictions laid upon the right to keep and bear arm were similarly laid on the right to an abortion, the pro-abortion crown would die of apoplectic shock.

Thus, Garland's statement is nothing but partisan hoqwash, to be consumed and repeated by useful idiots.

No, the law is not legal. It does not allow for exceptions. Reproductive cycle in humans has complications built in throughout the entire pregnancy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, the law is not legal. It does not allow for exceptions.

Aside form being wrong your statement does nothing to diminish- or even address - what i said.
"There is an exception for medical emergencies."

Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions intended to make the law harder to challenge are poised to be tested in the courts.

www.texastribune.org

Abortion is legal in TX; you can still legally get an abortion in TX.
According to the standard set by the anti-gun loons, as long as you can still get one, your rights have not been impeded.

If Garland actually believed what he said, he would have already sued the states of CA and NJ and NY and MD and HI for their legislative schemes specifically designed to prevent the vindication of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms; if you actually belive what he said, you would insist that he does so.

 

[Stann]

Aside form being wrong your statement does nothing to diminish- or even address - what i said.
"There is an exception for medical emergencies."

Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions intended to make the law harder to challenge are poised to be tested in the courts.

www.texastribune.org

Abortion is legal in TX; you can still legally get an abortion in TX.
According to the standard set by the anti-gun loons, as long as you can still get one, your rights have not been impeded.

If Garland actually believed what he said, he would have already sued the states of CA and NJ and NY and MD and HI for their legislative schemes specifically designed to prevent the vindication of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms; if you actually belive what he said, you would insist that he does so.

This is an example of the most twisted legislation I've ever heard of. you could do something like this in a communist state like Russia or North Korea that you can't do it in the United States of America. All our people have rights. Not just the favored few.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is an example of the most twisted legislation I've ever heard of....

You failure to meaningfully respond to the points I made says all that need be said.
Neither you, nor Garland, believe a word he said.

 

[Stann]

You failure to meaningfully respond to the points I made says all that need be said.
Neither you, nor Garland, believe a word he said.

Your points are useless, meaningless. It would have to be based on reasonable, rational legislation. This legislation was designed to create a feel-good moment for the pro-life crowd. It's based on emotions not facts. Sorry you are so disillusioned you can't understand that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your points are useless, meaningless.

Translation:
You know you have no capacity to make a sound counterpoint.
Disagree?
Then proceed.