Texas vs US Appeals court. war against women

america is so backward in quite a few things, this being one of them. if it were men who got pregnant, you'd get a bunch of 'free abortion vouchers' whenever you got your first mortgage.

yeah, if men were the ones that got pregnant, and they were still the same as we are nowadays, i wonder what things would've been different over the years?
 
squeezewax said:
america is so backward in quite a few things, this being one of them. if it were men who got pregnant, you'd get a bunch of 'free abortion vouchers' whenever you got your first mortgage.

yeah, if men were the ones that got pregnant, and they were still the same as we are nowadays, i wonder what things would've been different over the years?
Click to expand...

Men are too busy dying on dangerous jobs. But apparently death is not seen as oppressive compared to a woman not being allowed to have an abortion.
 
Good. Glad to support Governor Greg Abbott.

Even living in Austin, I've seen tremendous support for Abbott especially on this issue.
 
Just think of all those men who'll be stuck with child support payments. That'll teach those misogynists!!
 
Have to wonder about the mentality of people who shut down all the abortion clinics and then bitch about welfare children.

Bunch of slobbering dipshits. And that's just looking at it logically, never mind the constitutional and women's rights abuses.
 
Is the State forcibly closing these facilities, or just refusing to publicly fund their operation with State money?
 
An abortion regulation that has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability, is unconstitutional per the SCOTUS in Casey.

When I think of what would constitute an 'undue burden', forcing women to travel 150 miles each way to obtain an abortion fits the bill fairly nicely. It's the blatant disregard for settled law that is so disturbing. This comes from the same camp of people who blame Obama for supposedly having no respect for the Constitution.
 
Am I the only one who thinks that people who oppose women's rights to abortions should not be allowed to have children of their own? And that they should be exclusively adopting all of the unwanted children?
 
What about the war on unborn babies. That's what we should be sad about. When you see your own child born, you know what I'm talking about.
 
Like A Bas said:
Have to wonder about the mentality of people who shut down all the abortion clinics and then bitch about welfare children.

Bunch of slobbering dipshits. And that's just looking at it logically, never mind the constitutional and women's rights abuses.
Click to expand...

It is truly illogical. The worst thing you could do to a child is to push them onto parents that do not want them.

I would love to see women raise hell about this as well as expanding women's rights even more. For example, prostitution.
 
If you have sex and your woman gets pregnant, you have a responsibility for that child. If you just throw the kid away, you've got blood on your hands and you'll have answer for that someday. There are repercussions when you have an abortion.
 
Yeah.. I don't think we should be going in the OPPOSITE direction of population control. The Earth is going to become too populated. Period. Women fought for their right to b skanks, and they won. Let them have it, but don't let another bad result come of it with a bunch of teenage skanks having a bunch of kids who will end up to be jackass low class adults.
 
ripskater said:
If you have sex and your woman gets pregnant, you have a responsibility for that child. If you just throw the kid away, you've got blood on your hands and you'll have answer for that someday. There are repercussions when you have an abortion.
Click to expand...

I will take responsibility for it.... once it becomes a child. When will I have to answer for this, and what repercussions are you talking about.
 
Chesten_Hesten said:
Is the State forcibly closing these facilities, or just refusing to publicly fund their operation with State money?
Click to expand...
They're changing requirements with the explicit purpose of shutting down clinics. It is done while talking about protecting women's heath but it has nothing to do with that, it is strictly an anti-abortion clinic move. That's demonstrable in that they're not imposing similar restrictions on clinics that perform procedures with similar risks.
 
Dochter said:
They're changing requirements with the explicit purpose of shutting down clinics. It is done while talking about protecting women's heath but it has nothing to do with that, it is strictly an anti-abortion clinic move. That's demonstrable in that they're not imposing similar restrictions on clinics that perform procedures with similar risks.
Click to expand...

Political tactics then?
 
Chesten_Hesten said:
Political tactics then?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's purely political.

They're adding requirements for the facilities under the guise of patient safety even though the new criteria is completely unnecessary.

"It's important that women get the best medical care when having an abortion, therefore, under my new law, the only doctors who can practice abortions are those who graduated #1 in their class at an Ivy League medical school and have 50+ years of experience performing these procedures."
 
TheBox said:
Yes, it's purely political.

They're adding requirements for the facilities under the guise of patient safety even though the new criteria is completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Splendid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,049
Messages
55,463,651
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top