Fuck Texas!

[pronstar]

At what point do the rights of the unborn come into the conversation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[snowhammer]

No idea.

No idea on that second question either.

My question to you is...

How do you feel about laws that control your most person decision? Are you ok with being told what to do in that situation? Are you ok with your neighbor being financially rewarded for turning you in for the most personal decision you'll ever have to make?

Pretty sure we all think it's ok to rat out the crack dealer living next door to you. It affects you and your property values.

But do we really want to rat out people who are doing something that has zero affect on you?

Personal decisions are just that. The guberment should Not be involved.

That's my feeling anyway.

As I truly try to see your POV, we agree on not wanting gubment to infringe on our rights, especially those that are intrinsically personal, dare I say God given.

If a crack house or abortion clinic actually increased your property value, would you "let it slide" even though the cultural decline would accompany it? At some point a decision based on money will intersect with a conscience (moral) dilemma.

 

[t&y]

No idea.

No idea on that second question either.

My question to you is...

How do you feel about laws that control your most person decision? Are you ok with being told what to do in that situation? Are you ok with your neighbor being financially rewarded for turning you in for the most personal decision you'll ever have to make?

Pretty sure we all think it's ok to rat out the crack dealer living next door to you. It affects you and your property values.

But do we really want to rat out people who are doing something that has zero affect on you?

Personal decisions are just that. The guberment should Not be involved.

That's my feeling anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong here... As I read it, it is NOT the person getting the abortion, but it IS the Clinic/Doctor performing the procedure that can be sued.

These women who decide to do this can still travel a bit and kill as many unborn children as they like without facing penalty. In fact, some applaud those actions.

This reads far more to me like the Chik-fil-A law suit regarding what options they were giving women in regards to abortion as a matter of medical insurance.

 

[rivermobster]

As I truly try to see your POV, we agree on not wanting gubment to infringe on our rights, especially those that are intrinsically personal, dare I say God given.

If a crack house or abortion clinic actually increased your property value, would you "let it slide" even though the cultural decline would accompany it? At some point a decision based on money will intersect with a conscience (moral) dilemma.

Me personally? Yeah no. Not enough money in the world to accept either of those situations.

 

[rivermobster]

Correct me if I'm wrong here... As I read it, it is NOT the person getting the abortion, but it IS the Clinic/Doctor performing the procedure that can be sued.

These women who decide to do this can still travel a bit and kill as many unborn children as they like without facing penalty. In fact, some applaud those actions.

As I read it, it's about Anyone involved being sued! And, the rat being financially rewarded.

That's some seriously fucked up law making as I understand it.

Been wrong before though. So?

 

[t&y]

As I read it, it's about Anyone involved being sued! And, the rat being financially rewarded.

That's some seriously fucked up law making as I understand it.

Been wrong before though. So?

Who knows.... There is so much BS about this on the internet right now it's hard to find anything but an opinion piece. Went back to look for the article stating there WERE exceptions to rape and incest and can't find it now. It was not from a major media outfit.

But in regards to the actual women this article seems to read they will not be the subject of the law suit.

Texas Abortion Ban: What It Means and What Happens Next : NPR
"These lawsuits are not against the women," says John Seago with Texas Right to Life. "The lawsuits would be against the individuals making money off of the abortion, the abortion industry itself. So this is not spy on your neighbor and see if they're having an abortion."

 

[hallett21]

As I read it, it's about Anyone involved being sued! And, the rat being financially rewarded.

That's some seriously fucked up law making as I understand it.

Been wrong before though. So?

Change abortion for Covid vax requirements and you’d have all the P&G regulars screaming Marxism, Nazi Germany and Stalin.

Imagine if your neighbor got paid 10k to rat your unvaccinated ass out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RodnJen]

The civilian enforcement component is an area of concern. I need to read up on it.

 

[t&y]

Change abortion for Covid vax requirements and you’d have all the P&G regulars screaming Marxism, Nazi Germany and Stalin.

Imagine if your neighbor got paid 10k to rat your unvaccinated ass out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty sad that you think the two are even remotely the same. But hey, it is a free world.

 

[rivermobster]

Change abortion for Covid vax requirements and you’d have all the P&G regulars screaming Marxism, Nazi Germany and Stalin.

Imagine if your neighbor got paid 10k to rat your unvaccinated ass out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is my thinking as well.

Does anyone really think this is ok??

I think cause they tried this little experiment, on the issue of abortion, people are looking the other way and not understanding what is actually going on here!

Hence my comment, fuck Texas! Who wants to live Anywhere that laws like this would be passed!

What's next on these particular law makers agenda, now that they got this one to go through?

Scary shit indeed.

Hey! Look over there! It's a squirrel!

 

[hallett21]

Pretty sad that you think the two are even remotely the same. But hey, it is a free world.

The only similarity the two have is the Government controlling what you can do with your body.

Gun control doesn’t work, vaccine passports won’t work and abortion laws don’t work.

Anyway you look at it, this is an infringement on personal rights.

For the record I’m center to pro life on abortion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rivermobster]

Pretty sad that you think the two are even remotely the same. But hey, it is a free world.

They are not. But the concept is the same In both cases.

Read the Lyft/Uber article I posted. See what you think.

 

[Hoodoo]

Corrected.

Interesting. But a good atheist would argue that morality is not dependent on having a soul.

 

[SNiC Jet]

The civilian enforcement component is an area of concern. I need to read up on it.

You also may want to read up on "de-funding the police" and the repercussions thereof.

 

[t&y]

The only similarity the two have is the Government controlling what you can do with your body.

Do you believe a state has rights to enact laws within the state?

Gun control doesn’t work, vaccine passports won’t work and abortion laws don’t work.

Gun bans do not work. Gun LAWS work when the state allows you to enforce them. I am all for every law abiding citizen owning and carrying guns. I am NOT for criminals, gang members, pedophiles, mentally ill, etc.. people owning or carrying/possessing guns.

Anyway you look at it, this is an infringement on personal rights.

For the record I’m center to pro life on abortion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is far more about the reasonableness of the laws then the actual laws themselves.

Take a gander at the 4th amendment of the constitution for the pesky word related to "reasonable". Been in there the whole time.

I too am about center of the road on abortion. Is 6 weeks really reasonable... I don't know.

Either way, I'm off to go violate... within reason.... people rights today.

C-YA all later.

 

[SNiC Jet]

If a crack house or abortion clinic actually increased your property value, would you "let it slide" even though the cultural decline would accompany it? At some point a decision based on money will intersect with a conscience (moral) dilemma.

Abortion clearly increases the coffers of the DNC....

 

[hallett21]

Do you believe a state has rights to enact laws within the state?



Gun bans do not work. Gun LAWS work when the state allows you to enforce them. I am all for every law abiding citizen owning and carrying guns. I am NOT for criminals, gang members, pedophiles, mentally ill, etc.. people owning or carrying/possessing guns.


It is far more about the reasonableness of the laws then the actual laws themselves.

Take a gander at the 4th amendment of the constitution for the pesky word related to "reasonable". Been in there the whole time.

I too am about center of the road on abortion. Is 6 weeks really reasonable... I don't know.

Either way, I'm off to go violate... within reason.... people rights today.

C-YA all later.

Yes I believe states have the right to enact laws inside their borders. But IMO that constitutional right is only championed when it suites their self interest. It’s “bullshit” if it goes the other way [emoji16].

You have more experience than I do in gun laws. Personally I think they keep law abiding citizens honest and do nothing to stop criminals. I agree that if you were to arrest a criminal who violated the gun law, then at least they can be prosecuted for the crime. But I don’t think that stops a guy from waking up and deciding to rob a bank or murder someone.

Agree with you on the 4th amendment. But 2020-2021 has taken everyone’s sense of “reasonable” and thrown it out the window.

Stay safe out there [emoji1303].




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ssc]

The hysterics and histrionic raving is deafening. Everyone needs to stop reading the bullshit on the errornet and listening to the talking idiots. READ the bill/law. That's how I try to get the info. It is a strange political bill that at most will cause a lot of idiot PI attorney's to try to find "victims" in order to file lawsuits. It will be cheaper for the clinics/docs to pay a few dollars to dismiss. With that said, I am sure there will be an injunction granted quickly or maybe already respecting this law.

A few basic facts: The lawsuit can only be brought in civil court by a private citizen. Hence, pro life folks and organizations will be overburdening the courts by filing against all the abortion docs/clinics. The state is not allowed to be involved and there is no criminal penalty. The woman who had the abortion can not be sued. Sounds like the trial attorneys lobby had a hand in the bill.

Pro choice folks will be filing challenges and will probably get an preliminary injunction staying the bill. There will be constitutional challenges etc.

There are provisions that are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, vague and extremely ambiguous. There are various exclusions and exceptions. I could see great lawsuits with attorney's running up bills in the $100,000's plus. I can see it from both sides and it is a great law for litigation attorneys. Of course, they included a provision for the prevailing party to be awarded attorney fees. I have litigated that particular issue many times.

So basically the law says no abortions upon a heartbeat, but the devil is in the details as to when and other factors that occurs. So, the BS of no abortions at 6 weeks in not accurate, nor is the rape or medical issues etc.

If someone sues and wins, the court can enter an injunction and or fine the person a minimum of $10,000 and attorney fees. There are defined affirmative defenses. With all the ambiguous language and terms and exceptions, I, as an attorney, see this as a wet dream. The clinics/docs etc have plenty of money to defend and I can get rich doing it. Depo's that last weeks, roggs, hiring experts on both sides etc. Same if I was a plaintiff attorney as the pro-life would fund the litigation.

Lastly, the law says that it can be rescinded based upon the SCT ruling. Presently, there are one or two cases on the docket dealing with these issues. Hence, I assume this law will be stayed pending the SCT rulings.

Do not take the above as my supporting nor opposing the law. It is just my thoughts after reading the law. Lastly, the SCT did not uphold this law, they refused to grant the preliminary injunction that was presented to them due to the request not meeting the legal standard. I would think that the party bringing the inj will change it a bit and refile in a lower federal and or state court if not already done.

Cheers, Steve

 

[500bbc]

I have a friend who's daughter was raped by three black guys walking to her car after school.

He was never the same. Neither was his daughter. It was awful to have to watch.

So you advocate death penalty for rape then. We agree.
I know two women who carry that thwarted the exact EXACT same scenario by brandishing their weapons. I'm sure you also support the attempted perps execution on site if they didn't run as well.

 

[rivermobster]

The hysterics and histrionic raving is deafening. Everyone needs to stop reading the bullshit on the errornet and listening to the talking idiots. READ the bill/law. That's how I try to get the info. It is a strange political bill that at most will cause a lot of idiot PI attorney's to try to find "victims" in order to file lawsuits. It will be cheaper for the clinics/docs to pay a few dollars to dismiss. With that said, I am sure there will be an injunction granted quickly or maybe already respecting this law.

A few basic facts: The lawsuit can only be brought in civil court by a private citizen. Hence, pro life folks and organizations will be overburdening the courts by filing against all the abortion docs/clinics. The state is not allowed to be involved and there is no criminal penalty. The woman who had the abortion can not be sued. Sounds like the trial attorneys lobby had a hand in the bill.

Pro choice folks will be filing challenges and will probably get an preliminary injunction staying the bill. There will be constitutional challenges etc.

There are provisions that are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, vague and extremely ambiguous. There are various exclusions and exceptions. I could see great lawsuits with attorney's running up bills in the $100,000's plus. I can see it from both sides and it is a great law for litigation attorneys. Of course, they included a provision for the prevailing party to be awarded attorney fees. I have litigated that particular issue many times.

So basically the law says no abortions upon a heartbeat, but the devil is in the details as to when and other factors that occurs. So, the BS of no abortions at 6 weeks in not accurate, nor is the rape or medical issues etc.

If someone sues and wins, the court can enter an injunction and or fine the person a minimum of $10,000 and attorney fees. There are defined affirmative defenses. With all the ambiguous language and terms and exceptions, I, as an attorney, see this as a wet dream. The clinics/docs etc have plenty of money to defend and I can get rich doing it. Depo's that last weeks, roggs, hiring experts on both sides etc. Same if I was a plaintiff attorney as the pro-life would fund the litigation.

Lastly, the law says that it can be rescinded based upon the SCT ruling. Presently, there are one or two cases on the docket dealing with these issues. Hence, I assume this law will be stayed pending the SCT rulings.

Do not take the above as my supporting nor opposing the law. It is just my thoughts after reading the law. Lastly, the SCT did not uphold this law, they refused to grant the preliminary injunction that was presented to them due to the request not meeting the legal standard. I would think that the party bringing the inj will change it a bit and refile in a lower federal and or state court if not already done.

Cheers, Steve

Thanks for the clarification.

It's so strange to me that whole thing even made it to reality.

Do you think this is actually about abortion? (I think they picked the abortion issues so everyone would loose their minds over that issue alone)

Or a test to see if this type of litigation will stick?

I see it as a test. So they can apply it to anything they want if it sticks.

Maybe loud boats are next? Guns? SxS's and quads? Shooting ranges?

 

[rivermobster]

So you advocate death penalty for rape then. We agree.
I know two women who carry that thwarted the exact same EXCAT same scenario by brandishing their weapons. I'm sure you also support the attempted perps execution on site if they didn't run as well.

Can you show me where I said any of that?

None of this concerns the subject at hand.

 

[500bbc]

Can you show me where I said any of that?

None of this concerns the subject at hand.

You support killing innocent babies, why not rapists?
Your argument included "what about in case of rape".

 

[rivermobster]

You support killing innocent babies, why not rapists?

Can you show me where I said that as well while you're at it?

 

[530RL]

Thanks for the clarification.

It's so strange to me that whole thing even made it to reality.

Do you think this is actually about abortion? (I think they picked the abortion issues so everyone would loose their minds over that issue alone)

Or a test to see if this type of litigation will stick?

I see it as a test. So they can apply it to anything they want if it sticks.

Maybe loud boats are next? Guns? SxS's and quads? Shooting ranges?

Or suing someone for Speeding.

 

[500bbc]

Can you show me where I said that as well while you're at it?

copterzach said:
In also


I totally support it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So how about if your wife or daughter gets raped? Your ok with them being forced to carry a rapist baby?

Or how about if you're a married couple, and pregnant when you don't want to be? Can't afford it? You're ok with an outsider determining your decision?

Once again...

It's a personal decision. No one should be forced to be pregnant. Just like they shouldn't be forced to be vaxed.

 

[rivermobster]

So how about if your wife or daughter gets raped? Your ok with them being forced to carry a rapist baby?

Or how about if you're a married couple, and pregnant when you don't want to be? Can't afford it? You're ok with an outsider determining your decision?

Once again...

It's a personal decision. No one should be forced to be pregnant. Just like they shouldn't be forced to be vaxed.

Sorry. Still don't see it.

But, feel free to read post 74 for my official stance on abortion.

Mind you...

That it has zero to do with the actual topic of this thread. Although I did allude to the Actual topic at the end of that post.

 

[Sandlord]

The rape or incest argument is lame.
The victim still has about 6 weeks to terminate the pregnancy,
as long as they knew they were raped or had sex with a relative.

 

[ssc]

Thanks for the clarification.

It's so strange to me that whole thing even made it to reality.

Do you think this is actually about abortion? (I think they picked the abortion issues so everyone would loose their minds over that issue alone)

Or a test to see if this type of litigation will stick?

I see it as a test. So they can apply it to anything they want if it sticks.

Maybe loud boats are next? Guns? SxS's and quads? Shooting ranges?

I have read the law a few times and it is, in my mind a clusterfuck. I believe it will be found to be unconstitutional on many levels. It is partly a States right issue and testing the waters in that regard. Other states have laws affecting abortion. So, it is not strange to see a state law on that issue. However, the law of any state must not infringe on the constitution. I believe that Roe will be upheld notwithstanding the SCT make up. Roe was upheld in the 90's with Planned parenthood. The SCT takes precedence very seriously. (Just my opinion)

What is interesting to me is how this law is to be implemented and enforced. The state can't get involved. So, how do you prove your civil suit? Find someone who had an abortion and have them claim they were forced to have an abortion by a doc who knew the fetus had a heartbeat etc??? Lets say a pro-life group files a lawsuit against an abortion clinic. How do they prove their case? Hippo laws would prevent the plaintiffs from getting the medical records. You don't need a "victim." Perhaps the unborn child is the victim. Perhaps having a pro-life go undercover with hidden recording devices and getting someone to admit a violation???

The law is so poorly written, that the people who could be sued for doing anything is so bizarre and vague and ambiguous that it will never, in my opinion , stand up to constitutional scrutiny. A person could be sued because they gave a dollar to a female because she needed bus fare. Unbeknownst to the good citizen, she was taking the bus to the abortion clinic to attempt to get an abortion of the unborn child who had a heartbeat, even if she didn't go through with it. Then she testifies she told you what she was doing and then you violated the law. That is how bad the law is written. I can just see the BS scheming.

Lastly, the law doesn't even set forth where one is to pay the fine. The State?? Plaintiff??? Yourself??? Crazy!!! I won't get into the Standing issue or the laws discussion on that issue. I just see political theater, with abortion and States Rights issues, which will cause them (abortion industry)to CYA themselves in many more ways. If I was their attorney, I would be implementing policies to protect themselves in additional ways. If I was hired by pro-life groups, we would be researching who to sue and developing strategies on how to prevail.

Cheers, Steve

 

[rivermobster]

I have read the law a few times and it is, in my mind a clusterfuck. I believe it will be found to be unconstitutional on many levels. It is partly a States right issue and testing the waters in that regard. Other states have laws affecting abortion. So, it is not strange to see a state law on that issue. However, the law of any state must not infringe on the constitution. I believe that Roe will be upheld notwithstanding the SCT make up. Roe was upheld in the 90's with Planned parenthood. The SCT takes precedence very seriously. (Just my opinion)

What is interesting to me is how this law is to be implemented and enforced. The state can't get involved. So, how do you prove your civil suit? Find someone who had an abortion and have them claim they were forced to have an abortion by a doc who knew the fetus had a heartbeat etc??? Lets say a pro-life group files a lawsuit against an abortion clinic. How do they prove their case? Hippo laws would prevent the plaintiffs from getting the medical records. You don't need a "victim." Perhaps the unborn child is the victim. Perhaps having a pro-life go undercover with hidden recording devices and getting someone to admit a violation???

The law is so poorly written, that the people who could be sued for doing anything is so bizarre and vague and ambiguous that it will never, in my opinion , stand up to constitutional scrutiny. A person could be sued because they gave a dollar to a female because she needed bus fare. Unbeknownst to the good citizen, she was taking the bus to the abortion clinic to attempt to get an abortion of the unborn child who had a heartbeat, even if she didn't go through with it. Then she testifies she told you what she was doing and then you violated the law. That is how bad the law is written. I can just see the BS scheming.

Lastly, the law doesn't even set forth where one is to pay the fine. The State?? Plaintiff??? Yourself??? Crazy!!! I won't get into the Standing issue or the laws discussion on that issue. I just see political theater, with abortion and States Rights issues, which will cause them (abortion industry)to CYA themselves in many more ways. If I was their attorney, I would be implementing policies to protect themselves in additional ways. If I was hired by pro-life groups, we would be researching who to sue and developing strategies on how to prevail.

Cheers, Steve

Thanks again for your insight.

 

[Gelcoater]

If they were raped they would know, get a pregnancy test and figure it out, get it taken care of or go out of state. Report the rape immediately, they will likely give you the morning after pill to address the problem.

Condoms, birth control or even the morning after pill are all easier and cheaper than an abortion for the married couple.

you make it sound so cut and dry.

My daughter is 25, Downs Syndrom.
And without the verbal capacity to relay that info should someone have their way with her.
She is not someone that could care for a child. It’s entirely probable trying to carry a baby to term would be dentrimental to her own health.
What about her?

 

[mjc]

I have read the law a few times and it is, in my mind a clusterfuck. I believe it will be found to be unconstitutional on many levels. It is partly a States right issue and testing the waters in that regard. Other states have laws affecting abortion. So, it is not strange to see a state law on that issue. However, the law of any state must not infringe on the constitution. I believe that Roe will be upheld notwithstanding the SCT make up. Roe was upheld in the 90's with Planned parenthood. The SCT takes precedence very seriously. (Just my opinion)

What is interesting to me is how this law is to be implemented and enforced. The state can't get involved. So, how do you prove your civil suit? Find someone who had an abortion and have them claim they were forced to have an abortion by a doc who knew the fetus had a heartbeat etc??? Lets say a pro-life group files a lawsuit against an abortion clinic. How do they prove their case? Hippo laws would prevent the plaintiffs from getting the medical records. You don't need a "victim." Perhaps the unborn child is the victim. Perhaps having a pro-life go undercover with hidden recording devices and getting someone to admit a violation???

The law is so poorly written, that the people who could be sued for doing anything is so bizarre and vague and ambiguous that it will never, in my opinion , stand up to constitutional scrutiny. A person could be sued because they gave a dollar to a female because she needed bus fare. Unbeknownst to the good citizen, she was taking the bus to the abortion clinic to attempt to get an abortion of the unborn child who had a heartbeat, even if she didn't go through with it. Then she testifies she told you what she was doing and then you violated the law. That is how bad the law is written. I can just see the BS scheming.

Lastly, the law doesn't even set forth where one is to pay the fine. The State?? Plaintiff??? Yourself??? Crazy!!! I won't get into the Standing issue or the laws discussion on that issue. I just see political theater, with abortion and States Rights issues, which will cause them (abortion industry)to CYA themselves in many more ways. If I was their attorney, I would be implementing policies to protect themselves in additional ways. If I was hired by pro-life groups, we would be researching who to sue and developing strategies on how to prevail.

Cheers, Steve

The only thing can see is it is a way to but the providers out of business.

 

[ssc]

The only thing can see is it is a way to but the providers out of business.

Possibly, but they make too much money and are here to stay. If I was their attorney, the first thing I would be checking and/or verifying would be if their malpractice and or liability insurance would cover these claims. If so, they are good to go.

Cheers, Steve

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

you make it sound so cut and dry.

My daughter is 25, Downs Syndrom.
And without the verbal capacity to relay that info should someone have their way with her.
She is not someone that could care for a child. It’s entirely probable trying to carry a baby to term would be dentrimental to her own health.
What about her?

It is very cut and dry. If that situation happens you’d have to take her out of state to have a later term abortion or don’t live in Texas. It is the law, it is what it is. If you want to live in a “red” state you are going to have to deal with some shit you might not like, same as a blue state. Don’t blame the messenger, I didn’t pass the regulations.

If we legislated by exception there would be an infinite amount of laws, or no laws at all.

In this instance I’d rather have the Texas set of laws where they prosecute and jail rapists instead of CA where they just let the rapists out of jail or just don’t prosecute them at all.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

The only thing can see is it is a way to but the providers out of business.

That is all the law is, pure and simple.

 

[FROGMAN524]

So how about if your wife or daughter gets raped? Your ok with them being forced to carry a rapist baby?

Or how about if you're a married couple, and pregnant when you don't want to be? Can't afford it? You're ok with an outsider determining your decision?

Once again...

It's a personal decision. No one should be forced to be pregnant. Just like they shouldn't be forced to be vaxed.

If someone kills you, that’s their personal decision. I get it now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FROGMAN524]

I’ll also note that no one in support of abortion has been aborted and that this should drive some of the liberals turning Texas blue out and keep some coming there from California and New York away.

It’s a win win win in my book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rivermobster]

If someone kills you, that’s their personal decision. I get it now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, like most, you don't understand what this thread is about.

Probably my fault for not presenting it right.

 

[dnewps]

No, like most, you don't understand what this thread is about.

Probably my fault for not presenting it right.

Frankly...you don’t understand the law or why it was written the way that it was. There is legal maneuvering to stand before the supreme court. That is our system.

Freedom, in the eyes of our founders, is not the right to do whatever turns you on. That’s a 1960’s hippy concept. Freedom is for a moral and educated people to do what is right.

an unborn child is an American. With a right to life.

besides...what kind of sane and decent country kills the most innocent?

 

[rivermobster]

Frankly...you don’t understand the law or why it was written the way that it was. There is legal maneuvering to stand before the supreme court. That is our system.

Freedom, in the eyes of our founders, is not the right to do whatever turns you on. That’s a 1960’s hippy concept. Freedom is for a moral and educated people to do what is right.

an unborn child is an American. With a right to life.

besides...what kind of sane and decent country kills the most innocent?

Again...

The topic is NOT abortion! Lol

Frankly, you are correct. I don't know shit about how laws are made and passed.

But ssc does, and I appreciate his insight.

 

[HST4ME]

Threads like this are a disappointing reminder of how far the moral compass of the this country has slipped.

 

[hallett21]

Frankly...you don’t understand the law or why it was written the way that it was. There is legal maneuvering to stand before the supreme court. That is our system.

Freedom, in the eyes of our founders, is not the right to do whatever turns you on. That’s a 1960’s hippy concept. Freedom is for a moral and educated people to do what is right.

I could spin that against guns in a heartbeat. And I’m pro 2A.

It’s a slippery slope when you truly believe in individual rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dnewps]

I could spin that against guns in a heartbeat. And I’m pro 2A.

It’s a slippery slope when you truly believe in individual rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No you can’t, not if the population were educated.

 

[dnewps]

As we discuss the moral dilemma of abortion and rape.....

in the real world...most abortion is just shitty people birth control. Everyday...just killing kids.

what kind of decent country allows this?

 

[RodnJen]

Does anyone see a conflict of interest allowing citizens with no connection to the act suing these establishments?
Not to mention the case harvesting that can occur from opportunistic attorneys?

“The key difference is the enforcement mechanism. The Texas law relies on citizens suing abortion providers over alleged violations. Other states sought to enforce their statutes through government actions like criminal charges against physicians who provide abortions.”

EXPLAINER: What to know about the new Texas abortion law

The Supreme Court allowing a new Texas law that bans most abortions has Republicans eager to pass identical measures across the country.

apnews.com

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Does anyone see a conflict of interest allowing citizens with no connection to the act suing these establishments?
Not to mention the case harvesting that can occur from opportunistic attorneys?

“The key difference is the enforcement mechanism. The Texas law relies on citizens suing abortion providers over alleged violations. Other states sought to enforce their statutes through government actions like criminal charges against physicians who provide abortions.”

EXPLAINER: What to know about the new Texas abortion law

The Supreme Court allowing a new Texas law that bans most abortions has Republicans eager to pass identical measures across the country.

apnews.com

It is about as dumb as unrelated 3rd parties suing gun manufacturers for what other people choose to do with their products.

This is about putting the abortion providers out of business just as the left wants to put gun makers out of business.

 

[Sportin' Wood]

I am for states rights. I think our grand experiment works best if local government has a hand in the process. At the state level you have choices if you don't believe in a law. Get involved politically, or move to a state that better suits your belief system. I have no issue with bible belt states injecting religion into their politics, if that is what that society wants. I am not into that, but I respect those that do. We tend to assemble into tribes of like minded individuals it seems, so why not let them govern?

The abortion issue is complex and very personal. People's experiences can change their belief, for some this can be painful and they are passionate one way or the other. I tend to keep that in mind when the topic comes up. I have flip flopped on abortion many times in my life. I find some of the stats to be somewhat shocking. The whole black lives matter movement should take a look inward at how many babies are killed vs cops taking black lives, but perhaps that is another debate?

I have not read the law, but agree that reading it would be much better than getting info from the news. Sometimes laws are written so that they can be challenged and potentially overturned. The politicians are savvy on ways to make money and ginning up support going into the political season. Take gun control laws; the middle of the bell curve goes on a buying frenzy when they think guns are going to go away. The manufactures increase sales and make more money. When no gun control laws are on the horizon they nearly starve. The politicians fill their re-election coffers with the 2A advocates money every time we have a new threat. Ammo availability scares me a whole lot more than lack of guns.

I can't say what it's like in today's environment in DC, I was last there about ten years ago. What I can say is that I saw D's & R's sitting at the same tables in the cafeteria and bars looking pretty friendly, only later to see them in front of cameras talking crap about the same people they ate lunch with. It's a game, so keep the game as local as possible so you can play if you like.

I'm still waiting for Texas to test the water on succession. Then Texas gets really interesting.

 

[pronstar]

I'm still waiting for Texas to test the water on succession. Then Texas gets really interesting.

https://tnm.me/ [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ultra...Good]

I could spin that against guns in a heartbeat. And I’m pro 2A.

It’s a slippery slope when you truly believe in individual rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No you can’t, not if the population were educated.

I am kind of interested in seeing how this could be spun too.

Just to note; when somebody has to tell you that they are pro 2A, it usually means.............................

 

[t&y]

It is about as dumb as unrelated 3rd parties suing gun manufacturers for what other people choose to do with their products.

This is about putting the abortion providers out of business just as the left wants to put gun makers out of business.

Yup. People do this all the time with Handi-Cap access in buildings or business all the time.

 

[pronstar]

I am kind of interested in seeing how this could be spun too.

Just to note; when somebody has to tell you that they are pro 2A, it usually means.............................

Typically it goes something like this:
“I’m pro 2A, but…”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro