Oh good, supremes ruled men can continue to abuse women via legal back alley abortions

[Conservative65]

Texas is going to tell them to screw themselves.

Texas should secede and be done with it. Good riddance.

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

Follow the entire conversation. It wasn't about the court saying what they did but about the claim by OldLady that Texas should secede.

If a woman's privacy and her body is her own, shouldn't she take absolute financial responsibility for the results of that choice?

 

[Lonnstar]

Texas is going to tell them to screw themselves.

Texas should secede and be done with it. Good riddance.

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

She already has that via clinics and hospitals and doctor's offices.

If we are going to fund abortions, then abortion clinics should be accountable just like any other medical practioner's office, and the same degree of oversight should exist.

As they are now, there is no guarantee of safety. Yank the federal funding, and use it to fund services provided by licensed professionals in good standing, who aren't exploiting and abusing women.

 

[Conservative65]

Texas is going to tell them to screw themselves.

Texas should secede and be done with it. Good riddance.

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

As long as she pays for it. Why should those of us told to butt out of the choice you say is a private one with her body be responsible for subsidizing any of that healthcare and treatment SHE wants?

 

[Agit8r]

The Gosnell case: Here’s what you need to know


The FBI and the Pennsylvania Department of Health raided Gosnell's clinic on Feb. 18, 2010. What they found inside was described by those on the raid as "filthy" and disgusting":

There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets.




This all sounds pleasant does it not?

And all that happened because Philadelphia had restrictive abortion laws. When it's legal, its cleaner and safer.

Not even close. Gosnell operated a perfectly legal abortion clinic. At some point he even passed a state inspection.

He was able to do what he did without complaint from his clients because of and only because of Philadelphia's ban on abortion after the 24th week. That's an unquestionable fact.

Whatever the defect was, it's been cured. Kill those black babies!

The defect is with society, making life so difficult for many single mothers.

 

[Picaro]

The Gosnell case: Here’s what you need to know


The FBI and the Pennsylvania Department of Health raided Gosnell's clinic on Feb. 18, 2010. What they found inside was described by those on the raid as "filthy" and disgusting":

There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets.




This all sounds pleasant does it not?

And all that happened because Philadelphia had restrictive abortion laws. When it's legal, its cleaner and safer.

Not even close. Gosnell operated a perfectly legal abortion clinic. At some point he even passed a state inspection.

He was able to do what he did without complaint from his clients because of and only because of Philadelphia's ban on abortion after the 24th week. That's an unquestionable fact.

Whatever the defect was, it's been cured. Kill those black babies!

The defect is with society, making life so difficult for many single mothers.

The defect is with people who choose to engage in activities that result in pregnancy, but are too lazy to use birth control, and then pretend they have a right to murder the result of that choice.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Gosnell case: Here’s what you need to know


The FBI and the Pennsylvania Department of Health raided Gosnell's clinic on Feb. 18, 2010. What they found inside was described by those on the raid as "filthy" and disgusting":

There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets.




This all sounds pleasant does it not?

And all that happened because Philadelphia had restrictive abortion laws. When it's legal, its cleaner and safer.

Not even close. Gosnell operated a perfectly legal abortion clinic. At some point he even passed a state inspection.

He was able to do what he did without complaint from his clients because of and only because of Philadelphia's ban on abortion after the 24th week. That's an unquestionable fact.

Whatever the defect was, it's been cured. Kill those black babies!

The defect is with society, making life so difficult for many single mothers.

Single mothers make their own lives difficult.

 

[aris2chat]

Texas is going to tell them to screw themselves.

Texas should secede and be done with it. Good riddance.

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

She already has that via clinics and hospitals and doctor's offices.

If we are going to fund abortions, then abortion clinics should be accountable just like any other medical practioner's office, and the same degree of oversight should exist.

As they are now, there is no guarantee of safety. Yank the federal funding, and use it to fund services provided by licensed professionals in good standing, who aren't exploiting and abusing women.

you don't fund abortions, not since '76

Most hospitals will not perform abortions unless it for the life of the woman. Doctor's offices usually won't do them either. Many offices are not equip for outpatient procedures.

Clinics can do procedures without the crippling cost of a hospital.

Abortions are out of pocket costs for the woman. A hospital would it would be $5000 or more for the surgery and the techs would bill separately on top of that.

insurance does not cover except if require before other treatment is necessary or to save the woman's life.

Many hospitals will send a woman to a clinic instead for the procedure before chemo or other treatments.

 

[aris2chat]

Texas is going to tell them to screw themselves.

Texas should secede and be done with it. Good riddance.

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

As long as she pays for it. Why should those of us told to butt out of the choice you say is a private one with her body be responsible for subsidizing any of that healthcare and treatment SHE wants?

Abortions have not been funded at all since '76. Not covered by insurance unless the woman's life in jeopardy.

government/tax money only pays in cases of rape.

 

[Conservative65]

Texas is going to tell them to screw themselves.

Texas should secede and be done with it. Good riddance.

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

She already has that via clinics and hospitals and doctor's offices.

If we are going to fund abortions, then abortion clinics should be accountable just like any other medical practioner's office, and the same degree of oversight should exist.

As they are now, there is no guarantee of safety. Yank the federal funding, and use it to fund services provided by licensed professionals in good standing, who aren't exploiting and abusing women.

you don't fund abortions, not since '76

Most hospitals will not perform abortions unless it for the life of the woman. Doctor's offices usually won't do them either. Many offices are not equip for outpatient procedures.

Clinics can do procedures without the crippling cost of a hospital.

Abortions are out of pocket costs for the woman. A hospital would it would be $5000 or more for the surgery and the techs would bill separately on top of that.

insurance does not cover except if require before other treatment is necessary or to save the woman's life.

Many hospitals will send a woman to a clinic instead for the procedure before chemo or other treatments.

Wrong. There are situations where tax money is used to fund abortions. In many of the policies sold on the Obamacare exchanges, coverage for abortion is included along with contraceptives. That you say "you don't fund abortions" is false and a sign you don't know how insurance works. I don't care what the reason is for, if one person is paying a price of any sort to fund abortion, it's wrong.

If whether or not to have an abortion is the sole choice of the woman, why are there cases where taxes pay a dime. It's still a choice and still her responsibility, not someone else's. PERIOD.

 

[Conservative65]

Texas is going to tell them to screw themselves.

Texas should secede and be done with it. Good riddance.

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

As long as she pays for it. Why should those of us told to butt out of the choice you say is a private one with her body be responsible for subsidizing any of that healthcare and treatment SHE wants?

Abortions have not been funded at all since '76. Not covered by insurance unless the woman's life in jeopardy.

government/tax money only pays in cases of rape.

You say abortions haven't been funded at all since 1976 yet give two examples of where one person can incur the costs of another person's abortion. If you say at all, it means NONE.

Tax money shouldn't be used for any abortion. PERIOD. It's still a choice and her responsibility.

 

[mamooth]

Whenever you see the pro-life butchers getting this upset, you know something good has happened.

The pro-life butchers wanted to make abortion unavailable everywhere, so that the only option was some Dr. Gosnell. Pro-lifers created Dr. Gosnell, and their dream was to have a team of Dr. Gosnells across the nation. And now that bloodsoaked pro-life dream has been smashed by the awful liberals. The ravening pro-life ghouls won't be allowed to murder women, so they haz a sad. Awwww.

 

[aris2chat]

Texas should secede and be done with it. Good riddance.

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

She already has that via clinics and hospitals and doctor's offices.

If we are going to fund abortions, then abortion clinics should be accountable just like any other medical practioner's office, and the same degree of oversight should exist.

As they are now, there is no guarantee of safety. Yank the federal funding, and use it to fund services provided by licensed professionals in good standing, who aren't exploiting and abusing women.

you don't fund abortions, not since '76

Most hospitals will not perform abortions unless it for the life of the woman. Doctor's offices usually won't do them either. Many offices are not equip for outpatient procedures.

Clinics can do procedures without the crippling cost of a hospital.

Abortions are out of pocket costs for the woman. A hospital would it would be $5000 or more for the surgery and the techs would bill separately on top of that.

insurance does not cover except if require before other treatment is necessary or to save the woman's life.

Many hospitals will send a woman to a clinic instead for the procedure before chemo or other treatments.

Wrong. There are situations where tax money is used to fund abortions. In many of the policies sold on the Obamacare exchanges, coverage for abortion is included along with contraceptives. That you say "you don't fund abortions" is false and a sign you don't know how insurance works. I don't care what the reason is for, if one person is paying a price of any sort to fund abortion, it's wrong.

If whether or not to have an abortion is the sole choice of the woman, why are there cases where taxes pay a dime. It's still a choice and still her responsibility, not someone else's. PERIOD.

insurance does not cover abortions.

it is an out of pocket cost for the woman. Some clinics are offering chemical abortion for free but a sonogram is required to verify the weeks so the right cocktail is given, follow up exam required two week later to know if it was complete. Pills are taken over two days at home to induce a miscarriage.

apart from rape, no government fund are used for abortions.

Insurance in some cases will cover late term for life saving reasons. Woman might have to have it done at a clinic

Many drugs and treatments would harm fetus so an abortion is required before treatment can begin.

There are cases like Rh where a fetus is incompatible with a woman.

Now we have seen infant affected by Zika which causes brain abnormalities, where the infant would suffer and live only a short time. in a few more mild cases the child would have to go through brain surgery every few months but the child would never be normal but might function into their teens with special aid. Abortion is a kindness.

Without knowing the circumstances and all options, only the woman can make such a choice. no one should make abortion out of reach or criminal/sinful It is a private choice.

 

[aris2chat]

>>ObamaCare provision requires individuals to pay separately for abortion coverage to ensure abortions are not funded by taxpayers<<

 

[Katzndogz]

>>ObamaCare provision requires individuals to pay separately for abortion coverage to ensure abortions are not funded by taxpayers<<

That's not true. That's what Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor are all about.

Abortion is a choice. It's an elective like a boob job or a face lift.

 

[aris2chat]

Texas should secede and be done with it. Good riddance.

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

As long as she pays for it. Why should those of us told to butt out of the choice you say is a private one with her body be responsible for subsidizing any of that healthcare and treatment SHE wants?

Abortions have not been funded at all since '76. Not covered by insurance unless the woman's life in jeopardy.

government/tax money only pays in cases of rape.

You say abortions haven't been funded at all since 1976 yet give two examples of where one person can incur the costs of another person's abortion. If you say at all, it means NONE.

Tax money shouldn't be used for any abortion. PERIOD. It's still a choice and her responsibility.

Hyde amendment bars government fund from being used for abortion.

Rape is the exception.

Obamacare make abortion a separate cost of the woman, no government funds

Insurance might cover if life saving necessity. Individual insurance policy would have to be checked.

Tax payer money does not pay for abortions

Pills to induce a miscarriage in a few places are offer for free, but many of them operate on charity donations, not tax dollars. Pharmaceutical companies might also be contributing. For vets the same drugs cost few dollars or less. One of the drugs is a few cents. For people the drugs might cost $20-80 over the counter or $100+ by Rx.

States and stores vary widely

number of weeks different amounts and drugs. Some counter action to meds, allergies and conditions would have to be discussed. For most women the drugs are safe and very effective.

I don't think physical abortions should be a first choice, but each woman has to decide and discuss it with the doctor or nurse practitioner.

Even the "day after pill" has now been approved for the first 7 weeks.

Each woman and case is unique.

 

[aris2chat]

>>ObamaCare provision requires individuals to pay separately for abortion coverage to ensure abortions are not funded by taxpayers<<

That's not true. That's what Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor are all about.

Abortion is a choice. It's an elective like a boob job or a face lift.

No it was not. those cases were about insurances covered birth control (pills IUDs, diaphragms, implants, etc.), not abortions

What they did not consider was birth control pills are also giver for acne or those with mental dysfunction or limitations are given birth control because they are not capable of responsibility of child care. I don't object in principle but I do thing it is over used rather than actually being aware of the capabilities and wants of the individuals. Some can and do choose to have children. There is a risk of passing there limitations to the children. If both are limited, the risk is much higher.

It should not be necessary but some institutions that care for coma and invalid patients will use implants to stall periods. There have also been some cases where a patient will become pregnant due to abuse.

 

[aris2chat]

>>ObamaCare provision requires individuals to pay separately for abortion coverage to ensure abortions are not funded by taxpayers<<

That's not true. That's what Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor are all about.

Abortion is a choice. It's an elective like a boob job or a face lift.

• Nuns Lose Case Against Birth Control Mandate
  www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/14/little-sisters-of-the-poor_n...
  Jul 14, 2015 · ... including the Little Sisters, to opt out of covering birth control if it is ... companies like Hobby ... Little Sisters of the Poor ...

• Supreme Court splits the difference on birth control case ...
  www.msnbc.com › Melissa Harris-Perry › Equality › Health
  ... run by Little Sisters of the Poor ... Supreme Court splits the difference on birth control ... “a permission slip for abortion pills” – the Little Sisters ...

Supreme Court Hobby Lobby Contraception Ruling: What …
time.com/2941323/supreme-court-contraception-ruling-hobby-lobby
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is not only a blow to the Affordable Care Act but also, ... hence the Hobby Lobby’s objection to it and not birth control pills.



do your homework before you speak

 

[Conservative65]

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

As long as she pays for it. Why should those of us told to butt out of the choice you say is a private one with her body be responsible for subsidizing any of that healthcare and treatment SHE wants?

Abortions have not been funded at all since '76. Not covered by insurance unless the woman's life in jeopardy.

government/tax money only pays in cases of rape.

You say abortions haven't been funded at all since 1976 yet give two examples of where one person can incur the costs of another person's abortion. If you say at all, it means NONE.

Tax money shouldn't be used for any abortion. PERIOD. It's still a choice and her responsibility.

Hyde amendment bars government fund from being used for abortion.

Rape is the exception.

Obamacare make abortion a separate cost of the woman, no government funds

Insurance might cover if life saving necessity. Individual insurance policy would have to be checked.

Tax payer money does not pay for abortions

Pills to induce a miscarriage in a few places are offer for free, but many of them operate on charity donations, not tax dollars. Pharmaceutical companies might also be contributing. For vets the same drugs cost few dollars or less. One of the drugs is a few cents. For people the drugs might cost $20-80 over the counter or $100+ by Rx.

States and stores vary widely

number of weeks different amounts and drugs. Some counter action to meds, allergies and conditions would have to be discussed. For most women the drugs are safe and very effective.

I don't think physical abortions should be a first choice, but each woman has to decide and discuss it with the doctor or nurse practitioner.

Even the "day after pill" has now been approved for the first 7 weeks.

Each woman and case is unique.

You keep saying federal money doesn't pay for abortions then give examples of where it does. It can't be both and if it's a choice, the costs goes to the woman in ALL situations without exceptions.

When it comes to insurance, the costs filter across the group in the policy and if abortion or things related to birth control are covered by a policy, one person can pay higher premiums for those things being added.

 

[Conservative65]

Texas, along with 10 others, tried that once because the federal government was doing then what it's doing now and acting beyond it's authority.

Texas took this case to the supreme court after is was dismiss by a lower court, so no the court was not acting beyond their authority.

A woman's privacy and her body is her own. She has a reasonable right to accessible health care for services she want and treatment she chooses.

She already has that via clinics and hospitals and doctor's offices.

If we are going to fund abortions, then abortion clinics should be accountable just like any other medical practioner's office, and the same degree of oversight should exist.

As they are now, there is no guarantee of safety. Yank the federal funding, and use it to fund services provided by licensed professionals in good standing, who aren't exploiting and abusing women.

you don't fund abortions, not since '76

Most hospitals will not perform abortions unless it for the life of the woman. Doctor's offices usually won't do them either. Many offices are not equip for outpatient procedures.

Clinics can do procedures without the crippling cost of a hospital.

Abortions are out of pocket costs for the woman. A hospital would it would be $5000 or more for the surgery and the techs would bill separately on top of that.

insurance does not cover except if require before other treatment is necessary or to save the woman's life.

Many hospitals will send a woman to a clinic instead for the procedure before chemo or other treatments.

Wrong. There are situations where tax money is used to fund abortions. In many of the policies sold on the Obamacare exchanges, coverage for abortion is included along with contraceptives. That you say "you don't fund abortions" is false and a sign you don't know how insurance works. I don't care what the reason is for, if one person is paying a price of any sort to fund abortion, it's wrong.

If whether or not to have an abortion is the sole choice of the woman, why are there cases where taxes pay a dime. It's still a choice and still her responsibility, not someone else's. PERIOD.

insurance does not cover abortions.

it is an out of pocket cost for the woman. Some clinics are offering chemical abortion for free but a sonogram is required to verify the weeks so the right cocktail is given, follow up exam required two week later to know if it was complete. Pills are taken over two days at home to induce a miscarriage.

apart from rape, no government fund are used for abortions.

Insurance in some cases will cover late term for life saving reasons. Woman might have to have it done at a clinic

Many drugs and treatments would harm fetus so an abortion is required before treatment can begin.

There are cases like Rh where a fetus is incompatible with a woman.

Now we have seen infant affected by Zika which causes brain abnormalities, where the infant would suffer and live only a short time. in a few more mild cases the child would have to go through brain surgery every few months but the child would never be normal but might function into their teens with special aid. Abortion is a kindness.

Without knowing the circumstances and all options, only the woman can make such a choice. no one should make abortion out of reach or criminal/sinful It is a private choice.

This says otherwise. While it's restricted state by state, there are coverages, which affect the costs of other on the policy, for something that is the sole choice of the woman. If it's her choice, no costs whatsoever should go to someone else for any reason.

 

[tigerred59]

All across this country, we have red white and puke white mf's wanting their country black, I mean back.....all hollering for the gov. to get out of their way, their lives, etc....hate hate hate the gov.....BUT WILL NOT HESITATE TO RALLY BEHIND UNCLE SAM WHEN IT COMES TO TELLING A WOMAN WHAT SHE CAN AND CAN NOT DO WITH HER OWN FUCKIN BODY!!

HYPOCRITES TO THE FUCKIN CORE....THESE SAME GIVE A **** LICE BALLS, SHIT ALL OVER THE POOR, COULD GIVE A RATS **** ABOUT MINORITY BABIES AND THE FIRST TO SNATCH A CRUM OUT OF TODDLERS MOUTH, IF IT WAS BOUGHT WITH FOOD STAMPS...YOU PEOPLE ARE PATHETIC!!