no more abortions!

[ceyko]

Why do you get to decide what....

This is one statement that is sort of annoying in regards to these debates. He does not get to decide, he gets to have an opinion and vote just like the rest of us.

I do wish *I* could decide all things, *I* would be very happy. (Until my bad decisions haunted me.)

Greg Abbott is a fucking moron, just for the record.

[Maddhattter]

i was just wondering. based on most of your posts here you seem to be well educated. or you could be dumb as a stump too and we just share the same views on a couple of things.

god bless.

My vote is always the latter. I know far less than I don't know but I'm working on that.

[ELVIS]

I'm 31(I'll be 32 in a couple of days) and I work in IT. I'm also married and the wife and I are financially self sufficient (not living with parents, we're buying the house we're in, etc). Why?

i was just wondering. based on most of your posts here you seem to be well educated. or you could be dumb as a stump too and we just share the same views on a couple of things.

god bless.

[Maddhattter]

madhatter, if i may, what is your age and what do you do for a living?

god bless.

I'm 31(I'll be 32 in a couple of days) and I work in IT. I'm also married and the wife and I are financially self sufficient (not living with parents, we're buying the house we're in, etc). Why?

[ELVIS]

madhatter, if i may, what is your age and what do you do for a living?

god bless.

[GhostTX]

The problem is, you are stuck on the for or against the issue, and you've missed the forest for the trees.

I'm not for abortion. Never said I was. I'm against government involvement. If the state and many voters decided that nothing good happens between 2 am and 5 am, and made it a mandatory blackout period with no travel or out door activities during that time without exigent circumstances, you would be against that, right?

I'm on the notion that abortion is outright a form of murder. The other stuff you mention, I would be against.

Unless you're against government involvement (laws) with murder?

[Maddhattter]

If it's for medical purposes, then I have no issue. If it's to perform an elective surgery that will, 100% of the time, result in the stopping of a heartbeat? Then you're on your own paying for it.

Why do you get to decide what biological services a woman is required to provide and what at what point in time, arbitrary as yours is, that she should be able to receive no assistance?

Honestly, as far as federal funding goes, I don't disagree with only providing federal assistance in cases of medical need and the allowances made by the Hyde clause. Beyond that (private funding of any kind), I no longer have any say how anyone else’s money is spent, nor do I have the right to remove a person’s bodily integrity. Does that have the unfortunate side effect of someone else loosing their life due to this choice? Sure. It can have that effect in any situation involving bodily integrity.

On a side note that’s more on topic: I’d imagine that if Abbott was so sure that this bill would survive the lawsuits being brought against it, he’d be more than happy to allow the statutes to be postponed a few months in order to validate his position rather than scramble to get an emergency session to get it pushed through.

[Forever_frost]

Well, if you're out to abolish all insurance and charity for medical purposes, then you've got bigger problems than this bill.

If it's for medical purposes, then I have no issue. If it's to perform an elective surgery that will, 100% of the time, result in the stopping of a heartbeat? Then you're on your own paying for it.

[Broncojohnny]

Considering the people who've declared themselves conservatives created this bill, you should probably take that up with them.

You are missing the point. I'm speaking to the fact that at the end of the day this is just regulation of abortion. Heavy handed as it may be.

[Maddhattter]

I don't have any problems, as I couldn't care less if women can get abortions or not. I do care about liberty though

Cool. We've not no issues then.

Why is it that liberals are all about government regulation and intrusion into rights until that intrusion is against one of their pet causes? Seems hypocritical to the ideology of the great progressive leap forward. The shitstained masses have voted repeatedly for this big government philosophy, now I say they got what they voted for.

Considering the people who've declared themselves conservatives created this bill, you should probably take that up with them.

[Broncojohnny]

Well, if you're out to abolish all insurance and charity for medical purposes, then you've got bigger problems than this bill.

I don't have any problems, as I couldn't care less if women can get abortions or not. I do care about liberty though. Why is it that liberals are all about government regulation and intrusion into rights until that intrusion is against one of their pet causes? Seems hypocritical to the ideology of the great progressive leap forward. The shitstained masses have voted repeatedly for this big government philosophy, now I say they got what they voted for.

[Maddhattter]

Sounds good to me.

Well, if you're out to abolish all insurance and charity for medical purposes, then you've got bigger problems than this bill.

[Broncojohnny]

Then they should for every other medical procedure. After all the point of this bill was to make abortion clinics get treated like every other clinic, right?

Sounds good to me.

[Forever_frost]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-reinstates-most-texas-abortion-restrictions

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that most of Texas' tough new abortion restrictions can take effect immediately — a decision that means as least 12 clinics won't be able to perform the procedure starting as soon as Friday.

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital can take effect while a lawsuit challenging the restrictions moves forward. The panel issued the ruling three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel said the provision serves no medical purpose.

In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the provision "may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions." However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having "the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate" a law that serves a valid purpose, "one not designed to strike at the right itself."

The panel left in place a portion of Yeakel's order that prevents the state from enforcing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration protocol for abortion-inducing drugs in cases where the woman is between 50 and 63 days into her pregnancy. Doctors testifying before the court had said such women would be harmed if the protocol were enforced.

After Yeakel halted the restrictions, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had made an emergency appeal to the conservative 5th Circuit, arguing that the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges is a constitutional use of the Legislature's authority.

"This unanimous decision is a vindication of the careful deliberation by the Texas Legislature to craft a law to protect the health and safety of Texas women," Abbott, a Republican who is running for governor, said in a written statement.

Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers had argued that the regulations did not protect women and would shut down a third of the abortion clinics in Texas.

In a statement Thursday, Planned Parenthood said the appeals court decision means "abortion will no longer be available in vast stretches of Texas."

"This fight is far from over," Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in the statement. "This restriction clearly violates Texas women's constitutional rights by drastically reducing access to safe and legal abortion statewide

The court's order is temporary until it can hold a complete hearing, likely in January.

The restrictions are among the toughest in the nation and gained notoriety when Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster against them in June. Davis has since launched her own gubernatorial campaign and could face Abbott in the November 2014 election. Republican Gov. Rick Perry has said he will not seek another term.

The law that the Legislature passed this summer also bans abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy and beginning in October 2014 requires doctors to perform all abortions in surgical facilities.

Officials for one chain of abortion clinics testified in the trial that Yeakel oversaw that they've tried to obtain admitting privileges for their doctors at 32 hospitals, but so far only 15 accepted applications and none have announced a decision. Many hospitals with religious affiliations will not allow abortion doctors to work there, while others fear protests if they provide privileges. Many have requirements that doctors live within a certain radius of the facility, or perform a minimum number of surgeries a year that must be performed in a hospital.