Texas Abortion ban comes into effect.

Grrr...

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ 100%
10,043
2,481
Detroit
Texas AG Paxton doesn't think gun laws will do anything, as "We can’t stop bad people from doing bad things. They’re going to violate murder laws, they’re not going to follow gun laws, I’ve never understood that argument.”

But, an abortion ban will do the trick.
I guess we just have way more bad people in this country than others.  THAT'S why so many people get shot. 

 

Jules

Super Anarchist
8,603
3,410
Punta Gorda
Unfortunately the people who need to hear Texas Paul's talk either won't or they'll accuse him of being a left wing fringe loony infiltrator from the Antifa....
The moment he called out the hypocrites, they called him Satan. 

Pro-birth.  Anti-Life.  That's what they are.

 

Not My Real Name

Not Actually Me
43,049
2,824
Uh huh. Now you're a fan of this approach.

I'm still siding with the gun nuts who were first to court to defend abortion rights.
If you recall, my almost immediate reaction to the stupid and unconstitutional court decision on the Texas law was "OK, now do guns that way" to point out to the gun-loving forced-birthers how crazy it was.

It's a fuck-stupid approach, and the law should have been struck down. Making a gun law like it is a reasonable way to get that decision reversed.

I don't know any gun strokers who go out of their way to defend abortion. Most of the gun-strokers I see are also forced-birther whack-a-doos.

The last discussion I recall with you on the topic, you were making an utterly moronic false equivalency between buying a gun and getting an abortion. It was one of the dumbest gun-fetish arguments I'd ever seen, and you could not be budged from the point that there was no difference in the necessity to get a gun any more quickly than getting an abortion. It was deeply stupid.

That may have been when I decided I was done with you, but the recent board upgrade did nuke my ignore list, and here we are.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,118
1,892
Punta Gorda FL
Making a gun law like it is a reasonable way to get that decision reversed.
It's further entrenching and building support for something that should be squashed, not supported.
I don't know any gun strokers who go out of their way to defend abortion.
If you paid closer attention to this thread, possibly reading my posts, you would know that the first group to court in support of abortion rights was... you guessed it... a gun group. You insulate yourself from information that isn't TeamD approved, so it's no wonder you don't know about this, but it did happen.
The last discussion I recall with you on the topic, you were making an utterly moronic false equivalency between buying a gun and getting an abortion. It was one of the dumbest gun-fetish arguments I'd ever seen, and you could not be budged from the point that there was no difference in the necessity to get a gun any more quickly than getting an abortion. It was deeply stupid.
If you have an issue with a previous post of mine, you could always do that thing that I do where I quote the post with a link back for context and then reply. I'm going to guess that I was making the point that the treatment of one right affects others.

So when, for example, grabbers say that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech when it comes to guns, anti-abortion nutz are predictably going to apply that standard to abortion rights. That's why I'm glad the grabbers lost that one. It's not just gun rights, it is all of them.

By the way, which Supreme Court got the question of whether the BoR applies to modern tech right? Massachusetts or SCOTUS?
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,118
1,892
Punta Gorda FL
The New Abortion Prohibition Era

...
Old federal laws, still on the books, about mailing abortion information are about to become extremely relevant. But most of us don't learn important information via the U.S. Postal Service these days; we get it online. Naturally, legislators of both parties are immediately keen to meddle with that flow.

In July, a group of congressional Democrats sent a letter to Google, demanding restrictions on search results for abortion-related terms that refer users to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) took things a step further, introducing a bill calling for the closure of the centers under the rubric of "disinformation." Republicans responded with a measured and principled defense of free speech and free association. Just kidding! They wrote a letter to Google threatening legal action if Google ceded to Democratic demands.

Model legislation being circulated by the anti-abortion group National Right to Life is forthright about its desire to restrict speech: Aiding and abetting an abortion, the group suggests, should "include, but not be limited to: (1) giving instructions over the telephone, the internet, or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortions or means to obtain an illegal abortion; (3) hosting or maintaining a website, or providing internet service, that encourages or facilitates efforts to obtain an illegal abortion; (4) offering or providing illegal 'abortion doula' services; and (5) providing referrals to an illegal abortion provider [numbering in original]."

Abortion will join sex work and election disinformation as a justification for restricting online speech, both personal and commercial.

Free speech isn't the only arena where many people will pay for abortion prohibitions with their liberties and privacy. To criminalize abortion is to make criminals of pregnant women and their doctors, as well as their mothers, their boyfriends, their Uber drivers, their pharmacists, their doulas, or anyone else who plays a part. Many opponents of abortion seek to downplay the harsh logic of prohibition and its consequences for those it is meant to help. But the incarcerated drug user and the child in a border camp beg to differ. Soon this cast will have another character: the bleeding woman forced to lie to her emergency room doctor.

As with other prohibitions, poor people and minorities will suffer most.
...

I didn't know about those old federal laws, but now that I do, I'm inclined to do a little research and learn what's illegal so I can then do it.

Is anyone in some other state interested in receiving an interstate transfer of abortion information from an old sea lion? I'll need a co-conspirator. If we get in real trouble, I know of some Kochy nutjobs who might help for free.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,118
1,892
Punta Gorda FL
No, State Legislators Can't Ban Interstate Abortion Travel

...
There is also case law dealing specifically with extraterritorial application of state abortion restrictions. In the 2007 case Planned Parenthood of Kansas v. Nixon, for example, the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed a state law that created a civil cause of action against any person who helped a minor obtain an abortion without parental consent either inside the state or in another state.

"Of course, it is beyond Missouri's authority to regulate conduct that occurs wholly outside of Missouri," the court observed. The law at issue, it said, "cannot constitutionally be read to apply to such wholly out-of-state conduct. Missouri simply does not have the authority to make lawful out-of-state conduct actionable here, for its laws do not have extraterritorial effect."
That's a good one for the list of things that go without saying, but that judges actually had to say.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,118
1,892
Punta Gorda FL
A Texas Woman Claims That She Nearly Died of Sepsis After Being Denied an Abortion

...
"I knew I was going to lose my baby. And I knew it could be days—or weeks—of living with paralyzing agony before we could move forward," Zurawski wrote. Her limited options left her in an extremely difficult position. Zurawski lives in Austin, making the nearest abortion clinic, in New Mexico, an eight-hour drive away. To make matters scarier, infection can strike rapidly. "[Traveling] was off the table as soon as we knew that she could get sick quickly or she could go into delivery quickly," Zurawski's husband, Josh, told The Meteor in a separate interview.


Three days after her diagnosis, Zurawski developed sepsis, a life-threatening infection that allowed doctors to justify the early delivery of her now-stillborn daughter. "I thought, OK, let's get this horrific thing over where I have to deliver my daughter 22 weeks early, and then I'll go home, and we can start the healing process," Zurawski told The Meteor. "I don't think I understood at that point that I was septic, but I knew that it was more sick than I was supposed to be." Zurawski was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after delivery.
...
Often, supporters of anti-abortion legislation claim that anti-abortion laws like Texas'— with exceptions allowing abortion to save a woman's life—would allow abortions in cases like Zurawski's. "While some laws contain definitions and exceptions that more explicitly speak to certain situations, each law reviewed does not prevent mothers from receiving the medical care necessary," wrote Mary Harned and Ingrid Skop of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life group. "A plain reading of any of these statutes easily refutes the false and dangerous misinformation being spread by pro-abortion activists."

However, women have repeatedly claimed they were denied nonemergency, yet "lifesaving" abortions. For example, The 19th reports that, despite Ohio having an exception allowing abortions after six weeks to save the mother's life, affidavits from abortion providers in the state claimed that at least two women were denied abortions despite cancer diagnoses—a condition the Lozier Institute directly notes should "fall under exemptions for the 'life of the mother.'"

Most anti-abortion legislation is vague. And a vaguely written law with steep consequences for violators (life in prison in some cases), leaves both hospitals and doctors unwilling to risk prosecution—even if it means allowing a woman's preventable death. Zurawski describes a harrowing ordeal—the loss of her child. But what turned her ordeal into a life-threatening event was an unclear state law and the nervous hospitals and doctors such laws create.

Zurawski's doomed daughter had to go and her doctors should have been left alone to do what they had to do.
 

Latest posts




Top