Reply With Quote
TX Repugs' BIG LIE: admitting privileges and ambulatory surgical standards ARE FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH AND SAFETY!
As always, Repugs got NOTHING but LIES and SLANDER
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0GT2JC20140829
(Reuters) - A U.S. judge struck down parts of a law restricting abortions in Texas, saying in a decision on Friday that a provision requiring clinics to have certain hospital-like settings for surgeries was uncons utional.
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel said the so-called "ambulatory surgical center requirement" was unjust because it placed an undue burden on women by reducing the number of clinics where they could seek abortions and the regulations had no compelling public health interests.
"The court concludes, after examining the act and the context in which it operates, that the ambulatory-surgical center requirement was intended to close existing licensed abortion clinics," Yeakel wrote in the decision.
mas
TX Repugs' BIG LIE: admitting privileges and ambulatory surgical standards ARE FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH AND SAFETY!
As always, Repugs got NOTHING but LIES and SLANDER
Probably quite a few entrepreneurial, back-street abortionists signed up from TX as part of the TX Repugs' "SB2 Health Improvement Program for (poor, black, brown) Women"
More Than 3,000 People Have Signed Up For The First Online Abortion Class
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/10/06/3576605/online-abortion-class/
The Repug WAR ON WOMEN (esp poor blacks, browns, even redneck white wimmens) has REAL consequences
States With Most Abortion Restrictions Have Worst Health Outcomes
States that have the most abortion restrictions also have the worst health outcomes for women and children, according to a new report from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health.
The report examined state-level policies and broad health, social, and economic indicators and outcomes related to the well-being of women and children against state-level restrictions on abortion.
It found that many of the same states that have passed abortion restrictions have also failed to ins ute policies that would promote the health and well-being of women and families.
Moreover, the more abortion restrictions a state has on the books, the less likely it is to have evidence-based policies designed to protect women and children’s health.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...ality+Check%29
Thanks, Repugs! Y'all are such loving, caring CHRISTIANS!
from a NARAL TX newsletter:
"The Texas Center for Defense of Life is threatening us with legal action in response to our undercover crisis pregnancy center investigations. We’ve exposed crisis pregnancy centers for their manipulative and deceitful practices, and they’re scared. They’re trying to keep the truth about crisis pregnancy centers from getting out.
Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are facilities that exist to prevent people from accessing abortion services. They frequently disguise themselves as health care facilities, but offer only limited and medically inaccurate services. Our investigators visited 16 Texas CPCs this year and were told bald-faced lies, including:
- Women with a family history of breast cancer are 400 times more likely to develop breast cancer if they have an abortion. In reality, exhaustive reviews led by the U.S. and British governments have concluded there is no link between abortion and breast cancer - or any other cancer. [1]
- Abortion causes ‘post-abortion stress syndrome,’ a made-up psychological condition which the American Psychological Association (APA) does not recognize. [2]
- Women who have an abortion are four times more likely to die in the following year than women who give birth. In reality, there is no research and no evidence showing that abortion is correlated with random death. This is completely made up!
The Texas Center for Defense of Life wants to defend these ridiculous lies by taking legal action against NARAL Pro-Choice Texas."
http://www.prochoicetexas.org/what-is-choice/cpcs/
As ALWAYS, the right wing/Repug/tea baggers/Christina Taliban do NOTHING but lie and slander.
Lol at what that infograph is trying to imply. Know how I know it that its bull ?..Because I looked up the actual ing poll. Yeah 70% didn't want to reverse Roe v Wade, but look at the other question.
A recent poll by CNN found almost 60% do not support it in most most or all cases. But keep posting your liberal talking points. I will keep tearing them to shreds.Some 31% of respondents in the poll said abortion should always be legal, and 9% believed it should be illegal without any exceptions. Between those two opinions are the 23% who thought it should be legal most of the time, but with some exceptions, and the 35% who felt it should be illegal except in cir stances of rape, incest and to save a woman's life.
ter McGee
yeah, the liberal rag WSJ
Poll: Strong Support For Abortion Rights
ABORTION SHOULD BE:
Generally available
Now:
39%
3/01:
5/00:
3/93:
Available, but with stricter limits than now
Now:
3/01:
5/00:
3/93:
Not permitted
Now:
3/01:
5/00:
3/93:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-str...ortion-rights/
a very solid 70%-for, still.
Still seems that legislators are not representative of the people for whom they govern, albeit by a smaller margin than bd's infograph indicates.
eh, i used to be vehemently anti-abortion when i was younger and was on a moral high ground. i've cooled off that stance quite a bit.
i still do get bothered by cases where the father doesn't want the abortion but the mother does, or vice-versa
Quick Stats
• Half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these end in abortion.[1]
• About half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy, [2] and nearly 3 in 10 will have an abortion, by age 45.[3]
• The overall U.S. unintended pregnancy rate increased slightly between 1994 and 2008, but unintended pregnancy increased 55% among poor women, while decreasing 24% among higher-income women.[1,6]
• Overall, the abortion rate decreased 8% between 2000 and 2008, but abortion increased 18% among poor women, while decreasing 28% among higher-income women.[3]
• Some 1.06 million abortions were performed in 2011, down from 1.21 million abortions in 2008, a decline of 13%.[4]
• The number of U.S. abortion providers declined 4% between 2008 (1,793) and 2011 (1,720). The number of clinics providing abortion services declined 1%, from 851 to 839. Eighty-nine percent of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion clinic in 2011; 38% of women live in those counties.[4]
• Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.[5]
• A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions:[3]
- 58% are in their 20s;
- 61% have one or more children;
- 56% are unmarried and not cohabiting;
- 69% are economically disadvantaged; and
- 73% report a religious affiliation.
https://www.guttmacher.org/media/pre...sandfacts.html
You know that outlawing abortion would fix our social security issue.
ter McGee
There's no SS problem, not even a SS euphemistic "issue". There IS the corrupt, criminal, predatory finance sector wanting to privatize SS so it can loot SS with $100Bs in fees.
1M abortions/year are UNWANTED babies. Outlawing abortion wouldn't make those kids wanted, and would saddle mostly poor women with unwanted kids, and backstreet abortions.
Abortion is best reduced by long-term, free or nearly free contraception by IUD or implants.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-09-2014 at 01:18 PM.
Texas CPCs Use Deceptive Tactics and Intentionally Mislead
An undercover investigation by NARAL Pro-Choice Texas found thatcrisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the state disseminate misinformation, use deceptive tactics, and interfere with clients’ access to reproductive health care.
The findings mirror undercover investigations by other NARAL affiliates in other states.
Undercover audio recordings do ent CPC volunteers using language intended to shame visitors for being sexually active outside of marriage, providing medically inaccurate information about abortion, and using other tactics intended to prevent pregnant people from accessing reproductive health care
A law passed in 2011 requires pregnant people seeking an abortion to have a sonogram at least 24 hours before terminating the pregnancy.
However, CPCs usually do not meet this requirement because the same law stipulates that sonograms must be performed by a physician or a sonographer certified by a national registry.
Undercover investigators reported that CPC volunteers often insisted a sonogram be performed even before confirming if investigators were pregnant, while none of the investigators were pregnant at the time of the investigation. The investigation also found that some CPCs have broken or poorly operating ultrasound machines.
Four undercover investigators received ultrasounds during their investigations and two were told by the volunteer performing the ultrasound that they were “pretty sure” they saw the “baby,” despite the fact that neither of those investigators were actually pregnant.
Another tactic reported by undercover investigators is using manipulative practices to extend their visitors’ pregnancies to the point where terminating a pregnancy is difficult, if not impossible, in Texas.
Extensive dissemination of scientifically inaccurate information was reported by undercover investigators. Common misinformation provided by CPC volunteers included claims that abortion is a dangerous procedure, that abortion causes breast cancer, and that abortion causes emotional and psychological trauma.
Irregularities in the operation of CPCs were also reported by the undercover investigators. These included not being open during posted business hours and even being closed during a scheduled appointment time.
The undercover investigators also found that CPCs receiving state funding through the Texas Pregnancy Care Network promoted Christianity in some way, despite the fact that the agency policy states that CPCs receiving funds must “agree not to promote the teaching or philosophy of any religion while providing services to the client.”
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...ality+Check%29
Repugs', Christian Tablian TX is so ed, and structurally un able.
U.S. Taxpayers Save $7 For Every Dollar The Government Spends On Family Planning
Publicly funded family planning programs help save taxpayers billions of dollars each year by averting costly medical expenses, according to a new analysis from the Guttmacher Ins ute. It’s the latest data point in an overwhelming body of evidence illustrating thesocietal benefits of expanding access to affordable birth control.
It’s not hard to understand why that’s the case. Low-income women are at the highest riskof unintended pregnancy, largely because they don’t always have access to medical resources like contraception. But, when publicly funded programs like le X help those women get affordable birth control, it can make a big difference. Guttmacher researchers estimate that the care provided at publicly funded family planning clinics helped prevent 2.2 million unplanned pregnancies in 2010.
With so many fewer pregnancies among this population, appropriating funding for family planning works out to be very good deal for the government. It eliminates a significant amount of potential Medicaid spending, since states don’t have to pay as much for abortions, for miscarriages, or for maternity and infant care. “This investment resulted in net government savings of $13.6 billion in 2010, or $7.09 for every public dollar spent,” the researchers conclude.
And investing in women’s health can influence more than pregnancies. le X clinics also provide screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, something that helps prevent patients from transmitting those infections to their future sexual partners. Guttmacher estimates that helped reduce chlamydia, gonorrhea, and HIV infections by 99,100 cases, 16,240 cases, and 410 cases respectively. Plus, providing resources for low-income women to get tested for cervical cancer helped identify 3,600 cases early enough to prevent more than 2,000 deaths.
“This analysis quantifies, for the first time, many of the myriad benefits of publicly funded family planning services beyond enabling women to prevent unintended pregnancies,” the lead author of the new report, Jennifer Frost, said in a statement. According to Frost, the research provides “the most comprehensive portrait to date of the value of taxpayers’ investment in these services.”
Despite the well-do ented benefits of family planning programs, states continue to slash funding in this area as women’s health issues have become a politicized issue. le X has been cut by more than $23 million over the past two fiscal years, and back in 2011, Republicans in the House of Representatives voted along party lines to defund the program altogether.
Plus, recent attempts to attack Planned Parenthood clinics have left some low-income women — particularly in Texas, where the family planning infrastructure has been devastated — without any access to these services at all. Indeed, according to previous research conducted by Guttmacher, publicly funded clinics can’t keep up with the demand.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...payer-savings/
Spam
Texas Used Junk Science to Restrict Abortion
Expert witnesses were forced to change their testimony on the stand when confronted with emails showing they had lied.
In fact, lawyers are not permitted to use experts to “say anything,” because they have a duty of candor to the court. But in recent abortion cases across the country, that is indeed what state attorneys are doing when they hire Vincent Rue, the pioneering junk scientist behind “post-abortion syndrome.”
Expert witnesses were forced to change their testimony on the stand when confronted with emails showing they had lied.
Rue, discredited by courts decades ago, has since made a career as a behind-the-scenes litigation consultant. I first met Rue when he tried to hold himself out as an “expert in the areas of problem pregnancy decision-making, marital family relationships, and psychological effects following an abortion” in the trial court phase of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. I was co-counsel in the case and argued on behalf of the abortion clinics before the Supreme Court. After a full trial, District Court Judge Daniel Huyett found that Rue’s testimony, “which is based primarily, if not solely, upon his limited clinical experience, is not credible. His testimony is devoid of ... analytical force and scientific rigor. ... Moreover, his admitted personal opposition to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, suggests a possible personal bias.” When examining a study that Rue had co-authored led the Psychological Aftermath of Abortion, Huyett specifically found:
After submission for peer review by scientists with the Center for Disease Control, the National Center for Health Statistics and other scientific ins utions, his study was found to have “no value” and to be “based upon a priori beliefs rather than an objective review of the evidence.” The Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association, after review of all of the scientific literature, has determined that there are no scientific studies which support the existence of a “post abortion syndrome” as suggested by Dr. Rue (citations omitted).In an unusual turn of events at the Texas trial now under appeal, the state was caught red-handed: Four of the state’s five expert witnesses were forced to change their testimony on the stand when confronted with emails showing they had lied about who had written their reports.
Just how extensive and improper Rue’s contributions had been wasn’t known until a 2:30 a.m. do ent dump during the trial. That’s when the state’s lawyers finally turned over to the clinics’ attorneys emails they had withheld, despite a court order requiring them to turn over all the witnesses’ communications with Rue. The emails show that Rue sent drafts of rebuttals to expert reports to the purported rebuttal authors before the authors had ever seen the reports they were meant to be rebutting. Deborah Kitz, a witness testifying as an expert in the management of medical facilities, claimed under oath that no one else had contributed to the writing of her rebuttal. But she wrote to Rue, “I see ‘my’ report that you returned to me yesterday references my review of a report from a Dr. Layne-Farrar. I’ve never seen that report.” Similarly, Mayra Thompson, an OB-GYN, failed to review the sources she purported to rebut. Thompson admitted that she was unfamiliar with eight of the nine studies relied upon by the expert she claimed to critique, and she could not identify a single published study to support the opinions expressed in her own report.
There’s more. Sociologist Peter Uhlenberg, the author of a book claiming that scientific material must be tested against the Bible and “some findings must be rejected as contrary to a Christian understanding of reality,” denied ever discussing his opinions with Rue. Yet emails show him asking Rue what he should do about contradictory evidence. Rue helpfully suggested leaving the most recent data out of Uhlenberg’s report.
James Anderson, another state witness, also was confronted on the stand with his correspondence with Rue and was forced to admit that he had not read a number of the sources he cited in his expert report. This was not the first time Anderson was willing to let Rue put words in his mouth. In a recent Alabama case, District Court Judge Myron Thompson explained he had not credited Anderson’s testimony due to “concerns about his judgment or honesty” and in a supplemental opinion found “inexplicable” that Anderson had submitted a report to the court as his own that had been drafted entirely by Rue without even verifying its accuracy or learning whether Rue had any qualifications.
Thankfully, Judge Lee Yeakel, who presided over the Texas trial, was “dismayed by the considerable efforts the State took to obscure Rue’s level of involvement with the experts’ contributions,” and we hope that the 5th Circuit and other appellate courts will closely examine the evidence on appeal.
Opponents of legal abortion have misled legislatures, the public, and the courts about the safety of abortion and the intent of these laws as they attempt to regulate an extremely safe procedure out of existence. We may live in an age of anti-science, in which scientific consensus on issues like climate change or the safety of vaccinations does little to move the public. But courts are tasked with evaluating evidence and credibility. They must not shirk that responsibility by simply saying experts disagree when “someone in the world” disagrees with the consensus among experts. It should not take witnesses actually being caught lying on the stand for courts to recognize the overwhelming evidence that these restrictions serve no medical purpose. Pretending these laws are intended to do anything other than make it more difficult for women to get legal abortions makes a farce out of judicial review.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ncent_rue.html
Amazing, and hilarious, !
Do y'all Repugs EVER tell the truth?
ing Texas, what a retrograde, backwater bull state.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-23-2015 at 04:00 PM.
Yup, I really wish he wouldn't dredge up old threads of mine to do it in either. He knows it too because I have asked him not to. We all know about his social grace.
GFY, and you can TB, too
I have asked you and asked you nicely. Make your own threads. I feel like I am being associated with you as you misfile articles unrelated to the OP and post just ed up ty source after ed up ty source.GFY, and you can TB
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
