Reply With Quote
sickening - just disgusting.
Meanwhile...
"The pregnant cow that narrowly escaped slaughter last month by kicking open a door, jumping off a two-level cattle trailer on Route 80 in Paterson, then giving birth days later at a sanctuary, is getting attention from lawmakers.
Brianna's Law has been introduced by Assemblyman Benjie Wimberly, D-Passaic. It would make transporting pregnant livestock for slaughter and killing pregnant livestock fourth-degree crimes."
http://nj1015.com/pregnant-cow-escap...oposed-nj-law/
sickening - just disgusting.
Here's the kind of retrograde, extremely activist judges McConnell is ramming through the Senate
The Fifth Circuit Will Bend Over Backward to Restrict Abortion Rights
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal’s rulings in June Medical Services v. Gee,
a lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s admitting privileges law,
the mess the Fifth Circuit has made of the case is as clear an example of judicial activism—in its true sense
a two-judge majority of a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel
contorted logic, reason, and the rules governing appellate procedure
to uphold Louisiana’s law requiring abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at hospitals located within 30 miles of their clinic.
And last week, the Fifth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc to allow the full court to weigh in
—meaning the law will remain in effect unless the case goes back up to the Supreme Court.
Act 620, the law at issue in June Medical Services v. Gee, is
basically identical to the admitting privileges provision in Texas’ HB 2,
which the Supreme Court struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. erstedt as an undue burden on the right to an abortion
Still, despite the striking similarities between June Medical Services and Whole Woman’s Health, the Fifth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s ruling and upheld the Louisiana law.
The Fifth Circuit decided that there was no evidence that clinics would close as a result of the law.
(In fact, there were mountains of evidence that the district court considered.).
The court also decided that if the law went into effect, two clinics with one provider each would remain open, as if this in and of itself is not a clear undue burden.
It also determined that any clinic closures would be the doctors’ fault,
because they didn’t try hard enough to obtain admitting privileges.
https://rewire.news/ablc/2019/01/24/the-fifth-circuit-will-bend-over-backward-to-restrict-abortion-rights/
So Boo, do you support third trimester abortions up to the due date?
Either they deemed this as unimportant or they are protecting a certain political party. You choose.
Looks like a poorly written bill and a really poor job of explaining it.
The obvious intent seems to be to loosen restrictions on terminating a non-viable birth. I don't know if you guys actually believe Democrats want to kill healthy babies after they're born or if you're just pushing that narrative because it suits you. Either way, it's a dumb look. But it's an effective one when delivered to the right audience.
You are absolutely wrong about the language of the bill. It has nothing to do with the viability of the baby. I am not claiming that it is a common occurrence to abort viable babies at 9 months but making it perfectly legal just seems so wrong on a moral basis.
i'm in agreement with the supreme court's layout in planned parenthood v casey, and with new york's recent statute codifying it.
i dont think the government should have much, if any, say concerning pre-viability abortions. i think after viability, you'd have to make an affirmative showing of legitimate health concerns for the mother, and the closer you get to the birth due date, the more significant that showing has to be.
if a state wants to further loosen those guidelines, that's their prerogative, and i wouldn't agree with it, personally. i dont agree with what but penal codes are up to the states. a state can choose to decriminalize murder if they wanted to. doesn't mean i'd agree with it. i dont support the scenario the virginia government laid out either.
I said the language was bad. My argument is intent. Based on all of the comments from proponents, viability was their intended focus.
Unless, of course, you believe that's bull and they actually want to kill healthy babies and the doctors involved would agree to do so.
It needs to be rewritten.
Problem is defining "if it affects the mothers health". This includes mental health and there is no guideline for what is appropriate and legal.
A 8-1/2 month mother whose boyfriend dumps her at the last minute could claim "depression" and legally dump the baby just to spite the boyfriend.
pretty sure they dont just go by the word of the mother.
and the health issue would have to be tied to the pregnancy/birth, not some personal issue
Her body, her choice. If the baby dies, the baby dies.
Wrong again.
the virginia governor in that clip thats going around, specifically says they need the consent of physicians before going forward with the procedure. the current rule in virginia is that you need 3 physicians to sign off on it. the new bill would reduce it to 1
Again, do you really think a scenario like this reflects the intent of the bill though?
Well, you'll have to post the entire bill and point out the passage guaranteeing the baby killing.
HB 2491 Abortion; eliminate certain requirements.
Introduced by: Kathy K.L. Tran | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles
SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
Abortion; eliminate certain requirements. Eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital (thought we were trying to prevent back alley abortions). The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman's informed written consent to the performance of an abortion (sounds like nothing's wrong with the baby); however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman's informed written consent be first obtained. The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman's "mental or physical" (quotes from the full text) health would be substantial and irremediable. The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp...191+sum+HB2491
they're removing the "substantial and irremediable" guideline, which, yeah, is something i'd probably disagree with imo, on a personal level
but would probably need to think on it quite a bit to determine if that opinion rises to where i think it should legally be imposed on others...
Last edited by spurraider21; 01-31-2019 at 09:35 PM.
And I'd be just fine with that. The less bas s the better... those type of babies raised in single parent situations usually grow up to be drug addicted criminals, burglarizers, robbers, rapists, even murderers. The girl babies... 18 years (or less) from dom.
Repugs and so-called Christians want to restrict abortions for the poor, know that white people who can afford it, will travel to where abortion is legal.
Where do you get all this copy/paste ?
By this logic we should just sterilize dumb people.
Really late abortions like that are just ing stupid..not Bernie to Trump ing stupid but stupid nonetheless
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
