Most states already have restrictions for later-term abortions. If they want to move that back to earlier in the pregnancy, then they need to get rid of ANY waiting periods, requirements for ultrasounds, etc that take time, and let a woman get an abortion as soon as she wants to so she is within the legal/acceptable time period.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
I think I've had about 20 ultrasounds and they only take a few minutes, so I don't think that's much of a factor. I don't think a woman should be forced to look at an ultrasound, but I do think it should be offered to those women who are conflicted about the choice.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Rick wrote: I think I've had about 20 ultrasounds and they only take a few minutes, so I don't think that's much of a factor. I don't think a woman should be forced to look at an ultrasound, but I do think it should be offered to those women who are conflicted about the choice.
[/b]
FAIR statement,but here's the problem...the timeline to schedule date for this AND the availability of teks (med professionals r leaving the industry at an alarming rate)is the issue...when time is of the essence and u r up against running clock....THIS requirement is delay tactic and it has ALREADY been implemented by
KAVANAUGH, when planned parenthood/ACLU went to court to plea a decision....that was a couple of years ago...look it up
Having an abortion is a huge decision. And I think women should take some time to reflect on their choice.
It could haunt them for a very long time.
I know one woman who was forced by her BF a decade ago to have an abortion and she wishes now that she had kept the child.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FH, I'm sorry for your friend, but if she had a BF who was forcing her, I highly doubt any extra time would've changed that outcome.
Govenment-mandated ultrasounds prior to an abortion procedure are deliberately intended to delay and emotionally blackmail a woman into not getting an abortion. If you are against government-mandated health procedures, then you should be against this requirement which is a law in several states.
Not only that, but several more states force women to make multiple trips to the clinic (which penalizes poor women who can't take extra time off work, have to find babysitters they can't afford, or who have to use public transportation), and to wait a certain amount of time between first seeking out an abortion, and actually getting one. Again, if they are going to be forced to decide before 15 weeks, then ALL these manipulative tactics must be stopped and women should be allowed to get them as soon as they request them.
Now, if you truly want to reduce the number of abortions that occur, then start providing birth control more readily and continue to teach sex education in schools.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Rove V. Wade is not the issue in front of the Supreme Court. Dobbs V. Mississippi, the case litigated, concerns the state judgement that after 15 weeks abortion is infanticide, i.e. a human infant is being killed.
Doesn't it seem odd that a State would provide transportation for individuals to partake in state funded activities, even though the individual has no connection with the State?
[quote="ramage" post=389225]Rove V. Wade is not the issue in front of the Supreme Court. Dobbs V. Mississippi, the case litigated, concerns the state judgement that after 15 weeks abortion is infanticide, i.e. a human infant is being killed.
Doesn't it seem odd that a State would provide transportation for individuals to partake in state funded activities, even though the individual has no connection with the State?[/quote]
YES,IT IS A TEST CASE....WITH ANOTHER CASE UPCOMING.. This first case sets a precedence for the second.....(my understanding)
homeagain wrote: TEXAS LOST it's case......ruled Unconstitutional..
I think you're a little wrong on that. It's a split ruling that gives the pro choice groups the ability to litigate in lower courts. The law still stands, for now.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy