otisptoadwater wrote: But you're not bitter are you LJ? It's too bad that Legislators in Texas have applied common sense to this law.
COMMON SENSE.....now let me see....the hospital that KEPT A NONVIABLE FETUS ALIVE in a
woman's BRAIN DEAD BODY....that was alot of common sense....for several months the hospital
put the family/the "corpse" of a woman/ the fetus in "hell" because of a LACK of common sense.
The courts had to intervene because of the STUPIDITY of the hospital and someone's LACK of
common sense....what is it about Texas that brings out the tremendously challenged logic...?
LadyJazzer wrote:
You don't like abortion? ... Don't have one.
But we do expect you to pay for it too.
Why? You haven't paid for it up til now... If it ain't your fetus, it's none of your f*king business.
:Confused: Why do fiscal conservatives not like government paying for abortions? Sometimes it is a lot cheaper for one abortion rather than a lifetime on welfare and SSDI.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Good to see Fred supports women getting raped and being a victim of incest so he can avoid helping out someone who has either one of these done to them. You can tell Fred really support women.
Hyde Amendment is nothing more than a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions with exceptions for incest and rape............
Where do you get that? I support abortion rights. And I would overturn the Hyde Amendment and allow federal funds to pay for abortions. I just was pointing out the hypocrisy of fiscal conservatives.
It is much less costly long term to abort unwanted children in the womb than have to support them for years.
I just would prefer that abortion clinics be held to the same standards as other medical offices instead of horror shows like Gosnell's.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
It will be interesting to see whether or not SCOTUS decides to hear the appeal considering the rational basis standard used by the 5th Circuit. It is the same line of reasoning by which many of the courts uphold the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by the way. Can it possibly be that these justices will overturn this decision and in essence say that a higher level of scrutiny should be applied here given this is the level of scrutiny applied by many courts on an enumerated protected individual right? After all, as the left is fond of saying with regards to 2nd Amendment rights, no right is absolute and all are subject to being regulated. Given that the legislative body is able to demonstrate that the law is aimed at protecting the health and well being of all women seeking an abortion, I don't see how the plaintiffs in this case are going to be able to demonstrate that it is beyond the scope of the powers of the legislative body to enact these regulations.
Unchallenged by the plaintiffs are the provisions of the law which make it unlawful to destroy the human life in the womb after 20 weeks. So are the plaintiffs in this case really hoping to prevail with the argument that the Texas legislature has authority to set a time frame but not the conditions present in the place where the destruction of human life occurs or the qualifications of the person who is performing the deed?
Wrong again bigot - the state does have a compelling interest in protecting both the health and well being of the mother and the human life she carries in her womb. That, by the way, comes from the very same court that fabricated the so called "right" to an abortion in the first place.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
LadyJazzer wrote: Gee, Fred... What part of "If it ain't your fetus, it's none of your f*king business." are you having trouble understanding?
One of the reasons people offered for legalized abortions was to protect the mother. What did we get instead? Chophouses like Gosnell. LJ? Do you think abortion clinics should be safe for the clients?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
But you're not bitter are you LJ? It's too bad that Legislators in Texas have applied common sense to this law.
