AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republicans have passed new abortion restrictions expected to close almost every abortion clinic in the second most populous U.S. state.
The Republican-controlled Senate voted for the bill while hundreds of protesters screamed from the gallery. Reporters and Democrats saw the voting begin after midnight, but Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said it began just before.
Texas' special legislative session ended at midnight, and Democrats spent most of the day using procedural maneuvers to delay a final vote on the bill. Republicans cited rules to eventually force a vote on the legislation.
The bill bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and requires that all procedures take place in a surgical center.
Doctors who perform abortions would also need admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The surgical center requirement would shut down 37 of Texas' 42 abortion clinics.
A bad bill, but there's a bill going before the Irish parliament soon that would sentence any woman having an abortion, including the morning after pill, with 14 years in prison. We only hand out 7-8 for rape and maybe 9-10 for violent gang rape, just for reference.
Luckily the Irish police likely won't enforce such a law.
As a Texan, I am hoping that this will be the shot heard around the state to mobilize to voters to finally kick out of office the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers or whatever else label they want to use to describe themselves this week.
Fallen668 wrote: As a Texan, I am hoping that this will be the shot heard around the state to mobilize to voters to finally kick out of office the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers or whatever else label they want to use to describe themselves this week.
That assumes all but a small minority are pro-abortion.
Fallen668 wrote: As a Texan, I am hoping that this will be the shot heard around the state to mobilize to voters to finally kick out of office the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers or whatever else label they want to use to describe themselves this week.
That assumes all but a small minority are pro-abortion.
Fafnir wrote: Even with the polls you cited, you would actually consider 49% and 47% to be a small minority (and this isn't even including undecided views)?
I think you misread my statement.
"This assumes all but a small minority are pro-abortion." That's what I said. Meaning it assumes it's only a small minority that are anti-abortion, or specifically, anti-this bill. It says nothing at all about it being only a small minority that are in favor of abortion, simply that in order for our dear friend the Texan's wish to come true, it would require an overwhelming majority of the state to be pro-abortion. Polling does not show that to be the case.
Fallen668 wrote: As a Texan, I am hoping that this will be the shot heard around the state to mobilize to voters to finally kick out of office the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers or whatever else label they want to use to describe themselves this week.
As a quick aside, Libertarians would be against this, as they generally don't want government involved in much of anything, and would see it as Government meddling. Directly from their party platform:
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Ahtman beat me to it. Personally I'd love to see all republican'ts out of office, they can queue up in the unemployment line with the demorats. Maybe removing the entire party apparatus for both sides, and forcing every incumbent out of office (throw in a pay cut, reduction of benefits, and term limits for good measure) would see some actual "change" in Washington. Or your state legislative capital of choice. However Fallen if you seriously want to see that happen, starting tomorrow if your local state reps and senator voted for the bill, start a recall campaign against them. That's what a lot of Colorado districts are in the process of doing, currently the senate president is on the chopping block. (This was over the gun control bills the state senate passed recently)
AUSTIN, Tex. — Hours after claiming that they successfully passed some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country, Republican lawmakers reversed course on Wednesday and said a disputed late-night vote on the bill did not follow legislative procedures, rendering the vote moot and giving Democrats a bitterly fought if short-lived victory.
Jennifer Whitney for The Texas Tribune
A sonogram at the Whole Woman’s Health Surgical Center in San Antonio, one of five Texas abortion clinics that would meet tighter abortion restrictions under a Texas bill. Opponents of the legislation said it would force 37 other clinics to close.
The reversal capped a remarkable day in the Texas Legislature here. A petite Fort Worth Democrat in pink sneakers staged a 10-hour-plus filibuster marathon in which she never sat down. Abortion rights activists succeeded in disrupting Republican senators, and the fate of a bill that Gov. Rick Perry had made a priority devolved into a legislative mess so thick that even senators who had voted on the bill could not say for certain whether they had indeed voted on the bill.
The state Senate’s vote came right at a midnight Tuesday deadline, amid widespread confusion the noise of a chanting crowd of the bill’s opponents in an upstairs gallery. Senate Democrats said the vote took place past the deadline at 12:02 a.m. or 12:03 a.m., while Republicans disputed those claims, saying the vote was legitimate.
But at 3 a.m., Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the presiding officer of the Senate and a Republican supporter of the bill, told lawmakers and reporters that although the bill passed on a 19-to-10 vote, the bill could not be signed in the presence of the Senate and was therefore dead, blaming “an unruly mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics” as the primary cause.
“With all the ruckus and noise going on,” Mr. Dewhurst said, he could not complete administrative duties to make the vote official and sign the bill. Senate Democrats and women’s right’s advocates said the real reason the vote could not be made official was a time stamp on official documents that showed the bill passed after midnight. The Legislature’s official Web site first posted that the Senate’s vote occurred on Wednesday, after the midnight deadline, but the date was later changed to Tuesday for unknown reasons.
The reversal served as an embarassing episode for Mr. Dewhurst and Republican senators on a divisive bill that was closely watched around the nation, both by anti-abortion activists and supporters of abortion rights.
“The G.O.P. Senate leadership comes out of this whole process looking somewhat disingenuous, deceptive and disorganized,” said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston.
In the final minutes before the midnight deadline, Republican senators had interrupted a filibuster that began at 11 a.m. But their attempts to push forward with a vote on the bill caused the bill’s opponents in the gallery to erupt into screams and cheers. Attempts to bring about order failed.
It was in those chaotic moments that Republicans initially said the vote was taken and the bill approved. But after hours of closed-door meetings, Mr. Dewhurst signaled defeat in passing the bill, and as word trickled out with the news, hundreds of the bill’s opponents who had camped out in the Capitol rotunda and in the hallways erupted into loud applause.
The bill sought to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospital-style surgical centers and mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Supporters of the bill, including Governor Perry and other top Republicans, said the measures would protect women’s health and hold clinics to safe standards, but women’s right’s advocates said the legislation amounted to an unconstitutional, politically motivated attempt to shut legal abortion clinics. The bill’s opponents said it will likely cause all but five of the 42 abortion clinics in the state to close, because the building renovations and equipment upgrades necessary to meet the surgical-center standards would be too costly.
Republicans, who control both the state Senate and House, will likely have a second chance at the bill. The governor, who called the special session and put the abortion bill on the agenda, may now call a second special session and once again tell lawmakers to consider the bill, known as Senate Bill 5. Political analysts said the bill will likely pass if a second special session is called, not only because of the large number of Republicans supporting it, but because the increased time will limit the delaying tactics that can be tried by Democrats.
Enlarge This Image
The bill sought to make Texas the 12th state to bar most abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization and later — a step that has been blocked in three states so far as unconstitutional. The more pressing concern for clinic managers and advocates for women’s rights was the requirement that all 42 abortion clinics in the state be licensed as ambulatory surgery centers.
Five clinics performing late-term abortions already meet that standard. But for most of the remaining 37, the new restriction would require costly renovations or relocation to meet architectural and equipment requirements. The five clinics are located in large cities – Austin, San Antonio and Dallas each have one, and Houston has two. The burden on those five clinics to provide women’s health services will be extreme, and women in rural areas and small towns far from those cities will be underserved, advocates for abortion rights said.
Two clinics in McAllen and Harlingen in South Texas – the only abortion providers in the area – would close if the bill had passed, they said, forcing women seeking abortions to travel a few miles across the border into Mexico rather than drive four hours to San Antonio, both for surgical procedures and abortion-inducing drugs.
“We know that it would shut down dozens of clinics in the state of Texas, a state of 26 million people, and there will be women who cannot reach a health care provider to get reproductive health care for hundreds of miles,” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and a daughter of Ann W. Richards, the former Texas governor. “This is the thing that’s frightening. Women will do whatever they have to do to take care of themselves.”
The Senate convened shortly after 11 a.m. to take up the version of the bill that the House had already passed. The Fort Worth Democrat, Senator Wendy Davis, began talking at 11:18 a.m. in a filibuster attempt to prevent lawmakers from voting on the bill before the midnight deadline. She spoke for hours in the carpeted chamber. Senate rules set strict requirements on how she could perform a filibuster – she was forbidden from straying off topic or sitting in her chair, for example – and if she was found to have violated the rules three times, her filibuster would effectively come to an end.
Ms. Davis is something of a filibuster star among Texas Democrats. At the end of the legislative term in 2011, she forced Mr. Perry to call a special session after her filibuster ran the clock out on a budget bill that included cuts in public education. But at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 hours after she first stood up, Mr. Dewhurst sustained a violation against her for straying off the topic. It was her third violation. As the senators debated the next steps, Ms. Davis remained standing, because it was uncertain whether the filibuster had officially ended.
Democrats accused Mr. Dewhurst of going back on his earlier statements that he would bring the end of the filibuster to a vote if Ms. Davis had three violations. As the clock neared midnight and the crowd erupted, several Democratic senators said they believed they were voting on a procedural matter when the vote for the abortion bill was taken. “I don’t mind losing fair and square, but this has been a total sham and mockery of the rules,” said State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, a San Antonio Democrat.
Amy Hagstrom Miller, the president of Whole Woman’s Health, which operates abortion and women’s health clinics in Texas and two other states, said the bill would force her to shut down the group’s five clinics in Texas. One of them, in San Antonio, complies with ambulatory surgical center requirements, but Ms. Hagstrom Miller said it had operated at an annual loss of $400,000 since opening two years ago.
Ms. Hagstrom Miller said opening clinics that met the new requirements would be financially untenable. “I believe in providing really compassionate, medically acceptable care, but why would I do it in Texas? I will surely look elsewhere,” she said.
Another of the group’s clinics is the one in McAllen, close to the Mexican border. It was quiet outside the McAllen clinic on Tuesday afternoon, but the area is heavily Catholic, and there is strong opposition to abortion. Signs protesting the clinic are posted on the building next door.
Already a large number of women cross the border to obtain abortion-inducing drugs in Mexico, Ms. Hagstrom Miller said, and she expects the number to rise if the clinic closes.
“We’ve already seen women taking matters into their own hands,” she said, because of an existing state requirement of a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which forces women to go to the clinic twice. Many women seeking abortions, she said, are already mothers and do not have the time or money to travel long distances for the procedure.
“I’ve seen women who asked their partners to punch them in the stomach repeatedly,” Ms. Hagstrom Miller said, adding that she believed the law and widespread closings of clinics would force more women to attempt “self-induced abortions.”
Fallen668 wrote: As a Texan, I am hoping that this will be the shot heard around the state to mobilize to voters to finally kick out of office the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers or whatever else label they want to use to describe themselves this week.
As a quick aside, Libertarians would be against this, as they generally don't want government involved in much of anything, and would see it as Government meddling. Directly from their party platform:
True libertarians would be against it, but during my time in central PA, I met a swathe of folks using that title who were just ultra conservative religiously right wing. It's possibly, from my short time on this continent, the most hijacked term in America.
Alfndrate wrote: MGS, you besmirch my honor good sir I'm libertarian and I'm against this bill whole heartedly.
How could I besmirch your honor? I said true libertarians would be against the bill? It infringes on a woman's right to self determine her medical and biological choices.
Libertarians in favor of further restricting a woman's freedoms to choose the course of potential pregnancy should review their Libertarian status...
Alfndrate wrote: MGS, you besmirch my honor good sir I'm libertarian and I'm against this bill whole heartedly.
How could I besmirch your honor? I said true libertarians would be against the bill? It infringes on a woman's right to self determine her medical and biological choices.
Libertarians in favor of further restricting a woman's freedoms to choose the course of potential pregnancy should review their Libertarian status...
Because I'm fairly certain I'm not a "true Libertarian" What does that mean? less government meddling, more freedoms? I could be Libertarian in name alone, but this bill is stupid, and I'm glad that it failed.
Edit: Was expecting, "how could I besmirch your honor when you have none"
Because I'm fairly certain I'm not a "true Libertarian" What does that mean? less government meddling, more freedoms? I could be Libertarian in name alone, but this bill is stupid, and I'm glad that it failed.
I meant a true libertarian instead of a hardline conservative christian who talks a lot about personal freedoms then immediately presses for/supports/endorses candidates who further a theocratic agenda, such as we're seeing with this legislation. The word Libertarian became very popular in the tea party and the republican party over the last 5 or so years, but, as I mentioned, I see it being subverted to suit a certain slant of political and religious agenda.
Less government meddling and freedoms would include religiously mandated restrictions on half the population's reproductive organs and their right to self determine what happens with them.
Because I'm fairly certain I'm not a "true Libertarian" What does that mean? less government meddling, more freedoms? I could be Libertarian in name alone, but this bill is stupid, and I'm glad that it failed.
I meant a true libertarian instead of a hardline conservative christian who talks a lot about personal freedoms then immediately presses for/supports/endorses candidates who further a theocratic agenda, such as we're seeing with this legislation. The word Libertarian became very popular in the tea party and the republican party over the last 5 or so years, but, as I mentioned, I see it being subverted to suit a certain slant of political and religious agenda.
Less government meddling and freedoms would include religiously mandated restrictions on half the population's reproductive organs and their right to self determine what happens with them.
Oh those nutters? Yeah I'm not with those nutters In the Dakka's Political Persuasion thread, I'm apparently more left than I thought
Fallen668 wrote:As a Texan, I am hoping that this will be the shot heard around the state to mobilize to voters to finally kick out of office the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers or whatever else label they want to use to describe themselves this week.
Ah. Nina'd by multiple people on the libertarian tar-brush. Nice to see that didn't slip past Dakka unnoticed.
I think what's confused some people has been the Tea Party movement. Truly began as a libertarian movement, almost immediately hijacked and twisted by the religious right/birther/prepper nutters.
OP: This bill seems like a purely political move meant to pander to a loud constituency. I don't see how this bill doesn't end up challenged and overturned.
Also for the record, the liberal feminist movement has just as much ignorance, spite, and vitriol as anything the right has to offer.
Fallen668 wrote: As a Texan, I am hoping that this will be the shot heard around the state to mobilize to voters to finally kick out of office the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers or whatever else label they want to use to describe themselves this week.
As a quick aside, Libertarians would be against this, as they generally don't want government involved in much of anything, and would see it as Government meddling. Directly from their party platform:
True libertarians would be against it, but during my time in central PA, I met a swathe of folks using that title who were just ultra conservative religiously right wing. It's possibly, from my short time on this continent, the most hijacked term in America.
Indeed. In my personal, anecdotal experience, the majority of libertarians I have known are in fact conservatives who have no problems using the government to promote their social and moral agenda - essentially, right-wing republicans who fled the brand after George W. Bush crapped it up so badly it became toxic. I do know a few actual libertarians but the ratio is way, way off.
whembly wrote: meh... we're complaining about banning it after 20 weeks? o.O
Isn't that right inline with most European countries? (20-24 weeks?)
No, we're complaining about a cynical piece of legislation designed to close down around 40 clinics in Texas, thus easing in a total ban.
Total ban? That's not what it's going on here...
It's closing down the clinics and moving those 20 weeks or less abortions to actual surgery centers. You know, those centers that are regulated for safety.
I am certainly complaining about the religious right trying to force their beliefs on the rest of tax paying America.
That's a fair argument...
What you're witnessing is state federalism. This doesn't impact where you live.
whembly wrote: meh... we're complaining about banning it after 20 weeks? o.O
Isn't that right inline with most European countries? (20-24 weeks?)
No, we're complaining about a cynical piece of legislation designed to close down around 40 clinics in Texas, thus easing in a total ban.
Total ban? That's not what it's going on here...
It's closing down the clinics and moving those 20 weeks or less abortions to actual surgery centers. You know, those centers that are regulated for safety.
What is the rate of problems associated with the current clinics?
I heard a report this mornign that a filibuster left the bill unpassed, and that the Texas house ended their session. Then, here I read it was passed after midnight.
Easy E wrote: I heard a report this mornign that a filibuster left the bill unpassed, and that the Texas house ended their session. Then, here I read it was passed after midnight.
Fafnir wrote: It's not the 20 week ban that people are upset about, it's the proposed closing of almost every abortion facility in Texas that is the problem.
No... it's forcing them to the same standards that current outpatient surgery facilities must follow.
Right. There is no documentation showing that any such increased requirements are in any way needed for these facilities. It's a restriction designed purely to shut down the vast majority of centers, which will not financially be able to meet the requirements. A de-facto shutdown order on most of the clinics in the state, disguised as a regulatory change.
The governor of Texas has called a special legislative session in an attempt to pass an anti-abortion law blocked when a Democratic senator undertook a marathon delaying speech.
Republican Rick Perry ordered lawmakers to return on 1 July.
Senator Wendy Davis spoke for more than 10 hours on Tuesday, blocking Republicans from banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Republicans ran out of time when the legislative session ended at midnight.
The bill, opposed by many Democrats, who hold a minority in the legislature, would also require all pregnancy terminations to take place in specially-equipped surgical centres, effectively closing most of the state's abortion clinics.
Decorum 'breakdown'
"Through their duly elected representatives, the citizens of our state have made crystal clear their priorities for our great state," Mr Perry said in a statement on Wednesday.
"We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do."
Mr Perry said the special session would take up three pieces of legislation, including the abortion bill.
During her extended delaying speech on Tuesday, which is known in US political parlance as a filibuster, Sen Davis read testimony and messages from women and others opposing the legislation as she remained standing without any breaks.
Sen Davis was picked to lead the filibuster because she had her first child as a teenager and went on to graduate from Harvard Law School.
"I was a poor, uninsured woman, whose only care was provided through that facility. It was my medical home," said Sen Davis, 50.
Texas Lt Governor David Dewhurst, who is Senate president, eventually suspended the filibuster after ruling that she had gone off topic. Democrats appealed, sparking a debate over parliamentary rules.
State restrictions
As the clock ticked to midnight, Republicans rushed to hold a vote on the bill, amid jeers from pro-abortion rights protesters in the public gallery
But amid the disruption, Lt Gov Dewhurst said he had been unable to sign the bill within the deadline following a 19-10 vote. He blamed an "unruly mob" in the gallery.
Supporters of the bill say the measures will improve safety standards. It requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Only five of Texas' 42 abortion clinics would remain in operation if the law passes, and opponents say this will force women to travel hundreds of miles or resort to dangerous methods to obtain the procedure.
The US Supreme Court legalised abortion nationwide in 1973, but about a dozen conservative states have enacted laws in recent years that seek to limit the procedure.
In March, North Dakota banned abortions once a foetal heartbeat is detected - as early as six weeks - in the most restrictive law of its kind in the US.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republicans have passed new abortion restrictions expected to close almost every abortion clinic in the second most populous U.S. state.
The Republican-controlled Senate voted for the bill while hundreds of protesters screamed from the gallery. Reporters and Democrats saw the voting begin after midnight, but Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said it began just before.
Texas' special legislative session ended at midnight, and Democrats spent most of the day using procedural maneuvers to delay a final vote on the bill. Republicans cited rules to eventually force a vote on the legislation.
The bill bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and requires that all procedures take place in a surgical center.
Doctors who perform abortions would also need admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The surgical center requirement would shut down 37 of Texas' 42 abortion clinics.
Fallen668 wrote: As a Texan, I am hoping that this will be the shot heard around the state to mobilize to voters to finally kick out of office the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers or whatever else label they want to use to describe themselves this week.
As a quick aside, Libertarians would be against this, as they generally don't want government involved in much of anything, and would see it as Government meddling. Directly from their party platform:
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Mannahnin wrote: Right. There is no documentation showing that any such increased requirements are in any way needed for these facilities. It's a restriction designed purely to shut down the vast majority of centers, which will not financially be able to meet the requirements. A de-facto shutdown order on most of the clinics in the state, disguised as a regulatory change.
Where's the evidence that these clinic would shut down?
When "Republicans" use delaying tactics, that's a horrible affront to freedom. But when "Democrats" do it, its a victory.
When "conservatives" complain that introducing more restrictive laws are designed to snuff out a right over time, they're called paranoid. But when "liberals" say it, they're justified.
Does anyone not see the irony here? We all want the government to mind its own business and leave us alone.
I'm glad the abortion rights activists won a victory here, even if I'm not too big on the idea of abortion. I just wish they would realize that these tactics that they used for a "victory of womens rights" is almost identical to the tactics other groups have been damned for using when they succeeded as well. Watching Americans literally at each others' throats over idiotic labels (notice the quotes yet?) is getting ridiculous. Its long past funny and is just getting sad at this point. This incident (and some of the comments in this thread) highlight just how incredibly stupid the party divide has become in the USA. Both sides demonize the other over the most trivial of issues, and if you dare to disagree (a "conservative" who is ok with gay marriage, a "liberal" who wants more strict immigration laws) you're considered a traitor. The media spins it however they feel will get them views, and next thing you know, something that should be "common sense" is blown massively out of proportion.
Its a miracle our government even functions right now. What with both sides at each others throats, and the slightest notion of a compromise causes a lynch mob to form against those who "betrayed" their party.
EDIT: For the record, I can't stand either the Democrat and the Republican parties. Both parties are almost completely corrupt at this point. I'm trying to make the point that both sides are as crazy as the other, yet refuse to believe it.
When "Republicans" use delaying tactics, that's a horrible affront to freedom. But when "Democrats" do it, its a victory.
When "conservatives" complain that introducing more restrictive laws are designed to snuff out a right over time, they're called paranoid. But when "liberals" say it, they're justified.
False equivalencies are dangerous. But it's certainly true that some folks are hypocritical, and that campaign organizations are good at spinning events and demonizing opponents. It's as important to apply critical evaluation to the claims made by the folks (ostensibly) on "your side" as to the folks on the other side of the aisle.
Mannahnin wrote: Right. There is no documentation showing that any such increased requirements are in any way needed for these facilities. It's a restriction designed purely to shut down the vast majority of centers, which will not financially be able to meet the requirements. A de-facto shutdown order on most of the clinics in the state, disguised as a regulatory change.
Where's the evidence that these clinic would shut down?
I'm not seeing it.
Then you didn't read the quotes from the people who run them.
The bill sought to make Texas the 12th state to bar most abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization and later — a step that has been blocked in three states so far as unconstitutional. The more pressing concern for clinic managers and advocates for women’s rights was the requirement that all 42 abortion clinics in the state be licensed as ambulatory surgery centers.
Five clinics performing late-term abortions already meet that standard. But for most of the remaining 37, the new restriction would require costly renovations or relocation to meet architectural and equipment requirements. The five clinics are located in large cities – Austin, San Antonio and Dallas each have one, and Houston has two. The burden on those five clinics to provide women’s health services will be extreme, and women in rural areas and small towns far from those cities will be underserved, advocates for abortion rights said.
Two clinics in McAllen and Harlingen in South Texas – the only abortion providers in the area – would close if the bill had passed, they said, forcing women seeking abortions to travel a few miles across the border into Mexico rather than drive four hours to San Antonio, both for surgical procedures and abortion-inducing drugs.
“We know that it would shut down dozens of clinics in the state of Texas, a state of 26 million people, and there will be women who cannot reach a health care provider to get reproductive health care for hundreds of miles,” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and a daughter of Ann W. Richards, the former Texas governor.
In related news, Wendy Davis seems to be kind of a badass.
In related news, Wendy Davis seems to be kind of a badass.
I thought the cause was lost when she was taken down by the trumped up shady moves from the house president.
I should not have doubted, 10 hours talking without peeing, pooping, eating, sitting, leaning...
Badass indeed!
She's going to need a porta-potty next week. They're determined to pass this bill.
It's interesting the amount of instant coverage this ordeal is generating, but it took a mammoth public outcry to get the media to pay attention to the Gosnell Trial (If squeamish, don't read that link).
She's going to need a porta-potty next week. They're determined to pass this bill.
It's interesting the amount of instant coverage this ordeal is generating, but it took a mammoth public outcry to get the media to pay attention to the Gosnell Trial (If squeamish, don't read that link).
Porta-potty would break the rules. She needs to put a squat toilet in the chamber.
And the Gosnell Trial got lots of media attention when he was charged, when it first started, and whenever there was nice horrible pictures to post from testimony. The only way it "didn't get a lot of attention" was that it didn't occupy front pages 24/7 like some people wanted.
Wow. Personally I'm pro-choice, so this just hurts my perception of this state even more. This state is quite archaic with a lot of its policies and philosophies, isn't it?
PrehistoricUFO wrote: Wow. Personally I'm pro-choice, so this just hurts my perception of this state even more. This state is quite archaic with a lot of its policies and philosophies, isn't it?
Every state/country does things that others would would find archaic/stupid.
Fafnir wrote: It's not the 20 week ban that people are upset about, it's the proposed closing of almost every abortion facility in Texas that is the problem.
No... it's forcing them to the same standards that current outpatient surgery facilities must follow.
If the clinic would follow that, they'd be fine.
Yes but why do they need to?
Abortion clinics have been operating for decades. Is there a record of medical problems?
When "Republicans" use delaying tactics, that's a horrible affront to freedom. But when "Democrats" do it, its a victory.
When "conservatives" complain that introducing more restrictive laws are designed to snuff out a right over time, they're called paranoid. But when "liberals" say it, they're justified.
Does anyone not see the irony here? We all want the government to mind its own business and leave us alone.
Thats about right. To be truly neutral, switch the party names above and you get the full effect. In essence both parties want to tell me what to do and will do what they can legally to do so.
Neither party particularly cares about freedom or individual liberties. The Bill of Rights is an inconvenience when they are in power.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know this is all showy theatrics with the Plan B available to everyone now.
Interesting hypothetical: Could a man be charged with murder if he slipped a Plan B into a gal's drink?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrehistoricUFO wrote: Wow. Personally I'm pro-choice, so this just hurts my perception of this state even more. This state is quite archaic with a lot of its policies and philosophies, isn't it?
Yes I know. Its best you not come here. We're just a bunch of neaderthals with our space exploration and deep sea exploration.
Fafnir wrote: It's not the 20 week ban that people are upset about, it's the proposed closing of almost every abortion facility in Texas that is the problem.
No... it's forcing them to the same standards that current outpatient surgery facilities must follow.
If the clinic would follow that, they'd be fine.
Yes but why do they need to?
Abortion clinics have been operating for decades. Is there a record of medical problems?
Abortion clinics have been operating for decades. Is there a record of medical problems?
cough Gosnell trial cough
Don't be daft, what does a guy who willingly murders people have to do with the legal and lawful operation of a clinic? Thats like saying that all gun stores should be regulated differently because a gun store owner murders somebody.
I wonder if the Democrats will flee to Oklahoma again for the special session?
PrehistoricUFO wrote: Wow. Personally I'm pro-choice, so this just hurts my perception of this state even more. This state is quite archaic with a lot of its policies and philosophies, isn't it?
Yes I know. Its best you not come here. We're just a bunch of neaderthals with our space exploration and deep sea exploration.
Fafnir wrote: It's not the 20 week ban that people are upset about, it's the proposed closing of almost every abortion facility in Texas that is the problem.
No... it's forcing them to the same standards that current outpatient surgery facilities must follow.
If the clinic would follow that, they'd be fine.
Yes but why do they need to?
Abortion clinics have been operating for decades. Is there a record of medical problems?
cough Gosnell trial cough
I know you oppose abortion. When you support a prohibition on the grounds of a reason for which you have no factual basis, it cheapens you, your cause and the whole concept of debate and the democratic process.
I love how we he is pretending he would not have been a psychotic mass murderer if only his abortion clinic would have been regulated like a surgical clinic...
I know you oppose abortion. When you support a prohibition on the grounds of a reason for which you have no factual basis, it cheapens you, your cause and the whole concept of debate and the democratic process.
You "know" wrong. I am against late term abortion as most sane people are. Other then that, as long as I don't have to pay for it, do what you want. Heck they can have two for one specials for all I care. Again PLan B should take care of this.
I just don't want government telling me what to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I love how we he is pretending he would not have been a psychotic mass murderer if only his abortion clinic would have been regulated like a surgical clinic...
he was not a psychotic mass murderer. He was just a poor business person who cut costs at any opportunity.
d-usa wrote: I love how we he is pretending he would not have been a psychotic mass murderer if only his abortion clinic would have been regulated like a surgical clinic...
he was not a psychotic mass murderer. He was just a poor business person who cut costs at any opportunity.
Oh look, a baby that came out alive. If only I could cut costs, I wonder if I can just stick a pair of scisors in its neck and cut the spinal cord. Oh look, I saved money!
This is the dumbest argument I have ever seen you make on here.
d-usa wrote: I love how we he is pretending he would not have been a psychotic mass murderer if only his abortion clinic would have been regulated like a surgical clinic...
he was not a psychotic mass murderer. He was just a poor business person who cut costs at any opportunity.
Oh look, a baby that came out alive. If only I could cut costs, I wonder if I can just stick a pair of scisors in its neck and cut the spinal cord. Oh look, I saved money!
This is the dumbest argument I have ever seen you make on here.
Hold the horses. Thats bad -agreed.
But thats what abortion is boyo. If you can't handle it, maybe you should rethink your own fething position!!!
d-usa wrote: I love how we he is pretending he would not have been a psychotic mass murderer if only his abortion clinic would have been regulated like a surgical clinic...
he was not a psychotic mass murderer. He was just a poor business person who cut costs at any opportunity.
Oh look, a baby that came out alive. If only I could cut costs, I wonder if I can just stick a pair of scisors in its neck and cut the spinal cord. Oh look, I saved money!
This is the dumbest argument I have ever seen you make on here.
Hold the horses. Thats bad -agreed.
Good.
But thats what abortion is boyo. If you can't handle it, maybe you should rethink your own fething position!!!
You mean to tell me that abortion = third trimester delivery of viable fetuses that are still alive and then have their spinal court severed? Abortion = a procedure specifically banned by federal law?
I thought that abortion covers a whole many other procedures than the illegal partial birth abortion.
But maybe the answer to people breaking laws is just to make more laws.
Frazzled wrote: What do you think abortion is? Its killing babies/fetuses/blobs of cells.
Its legal. People who are supporting it are supporting that. Live up to it.
So just not going to answer that are you then.
According to your statements you believe that abortion is the delivery of an alive and viable third trimester fetus and then severing the spinal cord with scissors, a procedure that is specifically banned by federal law.
the article says abortions past 20 weeks, not all abortions, outside of rape/special circumstances, you shouldn't be having an abortion past 8 weeks, let alone 20... the baby is very much a person by that point, and any responsible human being can tell that they are pregnant within two months, let alone 4.5 months.
That it would actually close down so many clinics, just means that its pretty dangerous right now, you really SHOULD be close to a hospital, and the performing doctor really should have the ability to admit you into a hospital.
that abortions are taking place outside of surgical centers with close hospital access is actually pretty scary, especially if they are past 12 weeks.
Abortions are just fine if done RESPONSIBLY and QUICKLY, in a safe environment.
If you cant figure out you are pregnant before 20 weeks, that is completely inexcusable/irresponsible.
OFC I will be labeled an anti abortion christian wing nut, mainly due to lazy-ness on the lie-berals part and not actually reading my post.
Frazzled wrote: What do you think abortion is? Its killing babies/fetuses/blobs of cells.
Its legal. People who are supporting it are supporting that. Live up to it.
So just not going to answer that are you then.
According to your statements you believe that abortion is the delivery of an alive and viable third trimester fetus and then severing the spinal cord with scissors, a procedure that is specifically banned by federal law.
How is it not? Whats the difference? Killing is killing. Accept it and move on.
You really don't understand how an article (satire or otherwise) about Texas attitudes about abortion are relevant in a thread about Texas abortion legal shenanigans?
So here is a wonderful post that is 100% emotion, and 0% facts.
easysauce wrote: the article says abortions past 20 weeks, not all abortions, outside of rape/special circumstances, you shouldn't be having an abortion past 8 weeks, let alone 20... the baby is very much a person by that point, and any responsible human being can tell that they are pregnant within two months, let alone 4.5 months.
There is no proof that a baby is very much a person, has a consciousness, or the ability to be alive outside of the body at 20 weeks.
That it would actually close down so many clinics, just means that its pretty dangerous right now, you really SHOULD be close to a hospital, and the performing doctor really should have the ability to admit you into a hospital.
Here we have zero proof that it is actually dangerous. Texas surely has the vital statistics to show how many women were gravely injured and/or died from these dangerous procedures. But there aren't any cases that they can point to. So we get a generic "it's dangerous people!"
that abortions are taking place outside of surgical centers with close hospital access is actually pretty scary, especially if they are past 12 weeks.
"I have zero evidence to back any of this up. But if it feels scary to me, then surely it must be scary.
Abortions are just fine if done RESPONSIBLY and QUICKLY, in a safe environment.
"Abortions are just fine if done within an arbitrary time frame and in an arbitrary environment that we determine based on what feels scary without providing any data"
If you cant figure out you are pregnant before 20 weeks, that is completely inexcusable/irresponsible.
"I am going to ignore the fact that there are many reasons why people choose not to have an abortion until closer to 20 weeks and pretend that they are just irresponsible to figure out that they are pregnant. Never mind that women on birth control might not have a period and wouldn't know that they missed a period until they are a few months into the pregnancy. Or that they might not have the money and/or transportation to get to a surgical center earlier in a pregnancy (especially if you shut down most of them). Or that they have to work up the courage to even tell their family that they are pregnant. "
OFC I will be labeled an anti abortion christian wing nut, mainly due to lazy-ness on the lie-berals part and not actually reading my post.
"Of course I will just make up some excuses when somebody counters my argument because I didn't actually provide any actual facts other than 'this feels scary'".
Frazzled wrote: What do you think abortion is? Its killing babies/fetuses/blobs of cells.
Its legal. People who are supporting it are supporting that. Live up to it.
So just not going to answer that are you then.
According to your statements you believe that abortion is the delivery of an alive and viable third trimester fetus and then severing the spinal cord with scissors, a procedure that is specifically banned by federal law.
How is it not? Whats the difference? Killing is killing. Accept it and move on.
So you are saying that there is zero difference between an abortion at 8 weeks, and the delivery of a 31 week old fetus that is alive and viable and then killing it? None at all?
You really don't understand how an article (satire or otherwise) about Texas attitudes about abortion are relevant in a thread about Texas abortion legal shenanigans?
Or the delicious irony of "live is sacred, let's kill someone!"
Frazzled wrote: What do you think abortion is? Its killing babies/fetuses/blobs of cells.
Its legal. People who are supporting it are supporting that. Live up to it.
So just not going to answer that are you then.
According to your statements you believe that abortion is the delivery of an alive and viable third trimester fetus and then severing the spinal cord with scissors, a procedure that is specifically banned by federal law.
How is it not? Whats the difference? Killing is killing. Accept it and move on.
Except it isn't, as we make differentiations on what is ok to kill and not ok to kill all the time. Only a few small groups, such as Jainists make a hard line approach to life. In this case the question of whether a zygote should be considered the same as a full on human is the question, and one there is no easy answer to. If there were we still wouldn't be having this discussion.
easysauce wrote: If you cant figure out you are pregnant before 20 weeks, that is completely inexcusable/irresponsible.
My mother didn't know she was pregnant with my sister until her water broke. She was a heavier woman in her younger days, and as such her cycle was irregular/nonexistent. She participated in a weight loss contest with several of the ladies she worked with. The goal was who lost the most (in a healthy manner) and the prize was like 500 bucks (a lot for 1986). So my mom lost the weight, won the contest, and things started to function again as she got back into her old ways (and started to put some of that weight back on). Well what my mom didn't realize is that the weight was not the normal weight she had, but the weight of pregnancy. Had no clue she was pregnant until her water broke.
Edit: Granted she would not have gotten an abortion had she known, as my parents were trying to have kids at that time.
Frazzled wrote: What do you think abortion is? Its killing babies/fetuses/blobs of cells.
Its legal. People who are supporting it are supporting that. Live up to it.
So just not going to answer that are you then.
According to your statements you believe that abortion is the delivery of an alive and viable third trimester fetus and then severing the spinal cord with scissors, a procedure that is specifically banned by federal law.
How is it not? Whats the difference? Killing is killing. Accept it and move on.
Except it isn't, as we make differentiations on what is ok to kill and not ok to kill all the time. Only a few small groups, such as Jainists make a hard line approach to life. In this case the question of whether a zygote should be considered the same as a full on human is the question, and one there is no easy answer to. If there were we still wouldn't be having this discussion.
The Catholic Church is not small. Most evangelists in the US-same to same. Mormon Church as well.
Again, lets call it what it is. I'm ok with that and I am also ok with it being legal until viability. I don't think the average person who wants to keep it legal thinks its happy fun time or different or are personally for it. They just don't want the government to intrude.
Thats not hardcore. Planned Parenthood equivocating on 3rd trimester and "post birth" abortion are.
And yet there are still pro-choice Catholics. And, oddly, the Catholic Church isn't a scientific body either so there opinion on science doesn't matter much to the veracity of of scientific studies.
Frazzled wrote: Most evangelists in the US-same to same. Mormon Church as well.
As above, unless Texas is now suddenly the Theocratic Principality of Texas the continued use of religion to try and turn a complex question into a simple answer isn't all that compelling. It also doesn't help that lots of people in those groups vote against welfare and are pro-Death Penalty. Just saying 'well religion' doesn't solve anything.
Our Reps didn't place their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible, they put their hand on the Bible ande swore to uphold the Constitution. Or in Texas's case uphold the beer napkin Sam Huston made notes on.
To be clear I am not saying that we should completely ignore religion or listen to what people of faith have to say or think, but neither can we, as a society, be held hostage to it either.
And yet there are still pro-choice Catholics. And, oddly, the Catholic Church isn't a scientific body either so there opinion on science doesn't matter much to the veracity of of scientific studies.
Frazzled wrote: Most evangelists in the US-same to same. Mormon Church as well.
As above, unless Texas is now suddenly the Theocratic Principality of Texas the continued use of religion to try and turn a complex question into a simple answer isn't all that compelling. It also doesn't help that lots of people in those groups vote against welfare and are pro-Death Penalty. Just saying 'well religion' doesn't solve anything.
Our Reps didn't place their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible, they put their hand on the Bible ande swore to uphold the Constitution. Or in Texas's case uphold the beer napkin Sam Huston made notes on.
To be clear I am not saying that we should completely ignore religion or listen to what people of faith have to say or think, but neither can we, as a society, be held hostage to it either.
You said only a few small groups like the Jainists. The Catholic Church is the largest denomination of the Christian Faith. Its anything but a small group.
Frazzled wrote: You said only a few small groups like the Jainists. The Catholic Church is the largest denomination of the Christian Faith. Its anything but a small group.
I don't know why you keep saying that, no one has said that Catholicism is a small group, but I also know they are not as numerous in the US as protestants (57% non-Catholic vs 24% Catholic), and since we are talking about the US and not global religious numbers I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. Or...are you saying the Texas government takes orders from the Bishop of Rome?!
Frazzled wrote: You said only a few small groups like the Jainists. The Catholic Church is the largest denomination of the Christian Faith. Its anything but a small group.
I don't know why you keep saying that, no one has said that Catholicism is a small group, but I also know they are not as numerous in the US as protestants, and since we are talking about the US and not global religious numbers I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. Or...are you saying the Texas government takes orders from the Bishop of Rome?!
I keep saying that because you said its only small groups. Please find me a large Christian group in the US that supports abortion. I'm not qualified to comment on Islam, but judging from its other stances I'd bet good many its not supportive either.
Frazzled wrote: I keep saying that because you said its only small groups.
You misunderstood, even the Catholic Church does not take is not as extreme in its view on life as the hard line minorites, like Jainists. These are groups that won't eat fruit that doesn't fall from a tree, will not kill insects, will avoid walking on grass, ect ect. The Catholic Church has been involved in wars and allows meat eating, and harvesting plants, so they are still pretty far from the outliers in that they still make differentiations on what is and isn't ok to kill.
Ahtman wrote: I don't know why you keep saying that,
Ahtman wrote: Only a few small groups, such as Jainists make a hard line approach to life.
That's why he keeps saying it. You said that only a few small groups, such as Jainists, make a hard line approach to life. Frazzled is pointing out that the Catholic Church makes a hard line approach to life and is not a small group.
I don't know why it's all that relevant, but there you go.
Seaward wrote: Catholic Church makes a hard line approach to life
Not in comparison to Jainists they don't. I think we are conflating hard line on life with a hard line on abortion, as it were. I was referring to hard line as making no distinction between life forms on the planet, which the Catholic Church most certainly does, whereas the Jainists do not. I realize now I worded it a bit confusingly, and apologize for the confusion.
You really don't understand how an article (satire or otherwise) about Texas attitudes about abortion are relevant in a thread about Texas abortion legal shenanigans?
So... there's no difference between a murderer sentenced to die than a chick wanting to abort. Gotcha.
You really don't understand how an article (satire or otherwise) about Texas attitudes about abortion are relevant in a thread about Texas abortion legal shenanigans?
So... there's no difference between a murderer sentenced to die than a chick wanting to abort. Gotcha.
The murderer sentenced to die is a fully functional and sentient human being, while the "chick" is just getting rid of some unwanted cells in her own body?
It always amuses me how, despite speaking to polar opposite audiences, having polar opposite politicians on their side, and generally being on polar opposite ends of the spectrum, the anti-abortion and anti-gun movements run essentially the exact same playbook.
Seaward wrote: It always amuses me how, despite speaking to polar opposite audiences, having polar opposite politicians on their side, and generally being on polar opposite ends of the spectrum, the anti-abortion and anti-gun movements run essentially the exact same playbook.
Well, those "unwanted cells" to one person is a "human being" to another. No matter how "right" one side believes themselves to be, they need to realize neither side is going to back down at this point.
Disclaimer: I'm only against late term abortion or "frivolous" ones (the woman has it just because she doesn't want kids). Everything else that I know about I've been ok with, as well as abortions performed for medical reasons. I just don't think that a fetus should get "removed" because you refused to wear protection when you were out partying.
But ultimately my opinion is irrelevant here. I'm not a woman and I never will be, so I don't see it being fair for me to have a say in the matter. Its like having someone who knows nothing about internet make laws that censor it, or someone who knows nothing about cars trying to force a limit to engine sizes. Ultimately its none of my damn business.
Seaward wrote:It always amuses me how, despite speaking to polar opposite audiences, having polar opposite politicians on their side, and generally being on polar opposite ends of the spectrum, the anti-abortion and anti-gun movements run essentially the exact same playbook.
Seaward wrote: It always amuses me how, despite speaking to polar opposite audiences, having polar opposite politicians on their side, and generally being on polar opposite ends of the spectrum, the anti-abortion and anti-gun movements run essentially the exact same playbook.
Seaward wrote: It always amuses me how, despite speaking to polar opposite audiences, having polar opposite politicians on their side, and generally being on polar opposite ends of the spectrum, the anti-abortion and anti-gun movements run essentially the exact same playbook.
Never really thought about it. You do really have something there.
Yet again, insinuating I generalized, this time about ALL Americans. By the way, you use some of our tech in your precious space program. You guys are also not the only ones on this planet with space-faring technology. Stop being so arrogant.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: Yet again, insinuating I generalized, this time about ALL Americans. By the way, you use some of our tech in your precious space program.
Just stop now.
Just relax - I think the Texas heat and extreme old age get to Frazz sometimes
I think using Kermit Gosnell as an example of what's wrong with abortion isn't any different than using Jeffrey Dahmer as an example of what's wrong with the US Army.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: Yet again, insinuating I generalized, this time about ALL Americans. By the way, you use some of our tech in your precious space program. You guys are also not the only ones on this planet with space-faring technology. Stop being so arrogant.
Just stop now.
No you said Texas. I'm Texan.
You're right, we're not the only guys, but we're more than you are
Everyone who's country has had a man on the moon raise you hand...
Ouze wrote: I think using Kermit Gosnell as an example of what's wrong with abortion isn't any different than using Jeffrey Dahmer as an example of what's wrong with the US Army.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: Wow. Personally I'm pro-choice, so this just hurts my perception of this state even more. This state is quite archaic with a lot of its policies and philosophies, isn't it?
Yes I know. Its best you not come here. We're just a bunch of neaderthals with our space exploration and deep sea exploration.
Well, he does have a point. Being pro-gun and pro-life are both characteristics of conservatives (or perceived characteristics up here). Being conservative is just another way of saying that you prefered how things were made when your parents were around.
In your case, Frazzled, that's pretty much in the neanderthal ballpark.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: Yet again, insinuating I generalized, this time about ALL Americans. By the way, you use some of our tech in your precious space program. You guys are also not the only ones on this planet with space-faring technology. Stop being so arrogant.
Just stop now.
No you said Texas. I'm Texan. You're right, we're not the only guys, but we're more than you are
Everyone who's country has had a man on the moon raise you hand...
Oh pleeeease. More than we are? Why are you bashing ALL of Canada as a response to me being upset with a single state? You're just mad and not thinking clearly. See I can do that too:
Everyone who belongs to a state that murders people legally, put your hand up.
Everyone who belongs to a state that thinks they can control free-will put their hand up.
Everyone who belongs to a state that is severely obese and on the verge of tipping the planet with its weight alone, put your hand up.
Everyone who belongs to a state that is known to be deeply racist still, put your hand up.
You'd be raising your hand to all of those. Pretty moronic, isn't it?
PrehistoricUFO wrote: Oh pleeeease. More than we are? Why are you bashing ALL of Canada as a response to me being upset with a single state? You're just mad and not thinking clearly. See I can do that too:
Everyone who belongs to a state that murders people legally, put your hand up.
Everyone who belongs to a state that thinks they can control free-will put their hand up.
Everyone who belongs to a state that is severely obese and on the verge of tipping the planet with its weight alone, put your hand up.
Everyone who belongs to a state that is known to be deeply racist still, put your hand up.
You'd be raising your hand to all of those. Pretty moronic, isn't it?
PrehistoricUFO wrote: Wow. Personally I'm pro-choice, so this just hurts my perception of this state even more. This state is quite archaic with a lot of its policies and philosophies, isn't it?
Yes I know. Its best you not come here. We're just a bunch of neaderthals with our space exploration and deep sea exploration.
Well, he does have a point. Being pro-gun and pro-life are both characteristics of conservatives (or perceived characteristics up here). Being conservative is just another way of saying that you prefered how things were made when your parents were around.
In your case, Frazzled, that's pretty much in the neanderthal ballpark.
This is a true statement.
Now in everyone's defense I think taking the time to push this bill is 1) stupid; and 2) politics. Perry wants to look good for the drooling contingent of the Republican base for his next Governor BlowDry 2016 campaign.
Alfndrate wrote: Actually the back and forth from UFO and Frazz have been deleted, but the advice is still sound.
So when is this stupid "Overtime" that Rick Perry has called in regards to this bill?
edit: wth... it was gone, now it's back and the taco truck talk is gone.
1. Its a second special session. It should start shortly I think. I get confused.
2. Taco truck talk is gone? Well with roach coaches after a few hours nothing stays down...
I'm libertarian and I'm against this bill whole heartedly.
What does that mean? less government meddling, more freedoms? I could be Libertarian in name alone, but this bill is stupid, and I'm glad that it failed.
