Should abortion meet basic safety and sanitary stanards

[little2add]

Abortion entails known medical risks.   Shouldn't abortion clinics should have to meet basic sanitary requirements and safety standards.

the first major abortion case in nearly a decade. On Monday, the court ruled 5-3 to reverse Texas’ law requiring abortion clinics meet commonsense safety standards regularly followed by facilities that perform invasive outpatient surgeries and requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

 it's a sad day for women and their health

[Nihil Obstat]

Well it would be nice if it were safe for the baby too.

[Archaeology cat]

36 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Well it would be nice if it were safe for the baby too.

Obviously. But abortion is often touted as a good for women, so revealing that it isn't always safe for the woman, and ensuring it is, can be a first step

[CatherineM]

Abortion is about money, not women. 

[Anomaly]

The law was overturned because it was statistically shown that the law did not in fact provide additional health benefits to the mother.  As such, it could then be determined as an undue burden.

Abortion will never be overturned until "personage" is given to the unborn AND people are held responsible for their actions (the male and female) along with willingness to hold people financially responsible while also taking away parental rights.   

People don't earn the right to raise kids just because they can donate DNA or carry it in their womb for nine months.   Protecting the right of children (born and unborn) to exist as equal to adults, needs to happen as the foundation to some sanity. 

[little2add]

abortion can not be justified statistically

[Anomaly]

59 minutes ago, little2add said:

abortion can not be justified statistically

Agreed.   But abortion can't be defeated with tangentially related laws based on untruths .  Grant personhood before birth, hold DNA donors financially liable, and be quicker to take children away from people unwilling to care for them. Things would change drastically in five years. Too many men and women get away with not paying support and too many kids spend years in foster homes while too many couples travel overseas to adopt.  There is too little downside in killing or abusing or nrglecting children, in and out of the womb.  I have multiple family members who have gone overseas to adopt children because of the difficulty, expense, and interminable exposure to nut job DNA donor "parents" who demand rights they aren't capable of respecting.   It's crazy.  The 

[Archaeology cat]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Agreed.   But abortion can't be defeated with tangentially related laws based on untruths .  Grant personhood before birth, hold DNA donors financially liable, and be quicker to take children away from people unwilling to care for them. Things would change drastically in five years. Too many men and women get away with not paying support and too many kids spend years in foster homes while too many couples travel overseas to adopt.  There is too little downside in killing or abusing or nrglecting children, in and out of the womb.  I have multiple family members who have gone overseas to adopt children because of the difficulty, expense, and interminable exposure to nut job DNA donor "parents" who demand rights they aren't capable of respecting.   It's crazy.  The 

yes. 

[little2add]

Terminating a fetus shouldn't be in the same catagory as getting a haircut either.  The state of Texas attempt to curb the procedure    

Both the mother and unborn baby are human and deserve to be treated as such

On June 28, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Anomaly said:

The law was overturned because it was statistically shown that the law did not in fact provide additional health benefits to the mother. 

The birth rate is at an all time low, the idea that money or the lack of, is justification for terminating a otherwise healthy human child is invalid 

The state of Texas should be applauded instead of scorned 

[cooterhein]

On 6/27/2016 at 8:08 PM, little2add said:

Abortion entails known medical risks.   Shouldn't abortion clinics should have to meet basic sanitary requirements and safety standards.

the first major abortion case in nearly a decade. On Monday, the court ruled 5-3 to reverse Texas’ law requiring abortion clinics meet commonsense safety standards regularly followed by facilities that perform invasive outpatient surgeries and requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

 it's a sad day for women and their health

It was by no means commonsense safety standards, it was politically motivated gamesmanship that had absolutely no bearing on safety or public health. The goal was to shut down abortion clinics while being in a situation where the law couldn't be changed.

Now, the law should be changed, and abortion is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the tactics being used here were underhanded.

It's an okay day for women and their health.

[little2add]

 Monday’s Supreme Court decision overturning part of a pro-life Texas law that has saved thousands of babies from abortion and is not a okay day for women and their health.

2 hours ago, cooterhein said:

the law should be changed, and abortion is wrong

i agree

Edited June 30, 2016 by little2add

[little2add]

22 hours ago, cooterhein said:

It was by no means commonsense safety standards, it was politically motivated gamesmanship that had absolutely no bearing on safety or public health.

see no evil

    The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law requiring basic, commonsense safety regulations for abortions clinics. It was a law passed in the wake of the Gosnell horrors, a law the people of Texas wanted. They spoke through their elected representatives, and they said they want to protect American women. They spoke, and the Supreme Court overruled them. In one of the biggest abortion decisions in history, the Supreme Court said that laws designed to keep women safe are invalid. But as pro-lifers, we cannot and must not give up fighting for unborn child. This fight is not over until every human being is afforded the most basic human right, the right to life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0SHaX01F8A

 

[Socrates]

On 6/28/2016 at 8:48 AM, Anomaly said:

The law was overturned because it was statistically shown that the law did not in fact provide additional health benefits to the mother.  As such, it could then be determined as an undue burden.

Abortion will never be overturned until "personage" is given to the unborn AND people are held responsible for their actions (the male and female) along with willingness to hold people financially responsible while also taking away parental rights.   

People don't earn the right to raise kids just because they can donate DNA or carry it in their womb for nine months.   Protecting the right of children (born and unborn) to exist as equal to adults, needs to happen as the foundation to some sanity. 

If anyone claims this latest travesty of a Supreme Court ruling was based on anything other than pro-abortion politics, they're either extremely naive, or else lying.

Apparently, since Roe v. Wade, baby-killing has been enshrined by the courts as highest "right" in the land, completely unassailable.  This ruling certainly has no basis in the Constitution, which nowhere mentions abortion, much less enshrines it as an absolute right.

And, while I'm not aware of the statistics in question, since when are states' rights determined by statistics?  Laying aside for a second the whole issue of abortion being murder, both state and federal governments have countless safety and sanitary regulations and restrictions on all kinds of perfectly legal activities and enterprises, yet the federal courts almost never see a need to get involved or strike them down like this.  In many places, taco (so tasty) shops and tattoo parlors are subject to more regulation than abortion mills.  At the very least, the Texas laws would prevent horrors like the Gosnell clinic, mentioned earlier. This is nothing but federal judicial overreach to enforce the social leftist agenda of unrestricted abortion.  If the courts actually followed the Constitution, the federal government would have no power over state abortion laws (see the much-neglected 10th Amendment).

It's particularly ironic that now the leftist bleeding hearts are demanding all sorts of new restrictions and regulations on the right to keep and bear arms (specifically guaranteed in the Constitution), while celebrating that the SCOTUS insist that there be no restrictions on the "right" to kill unborn babies (nowhere mentioned in the Constitution).  Anyone who cannot see the irony in this is utterly blind.

You are right to point out the need for legal personhood for the unborn, but this ruling, like Roe v. Wade before it, is indefensible garbage.

[Socrates]

 

On 6/29/2016 at 5:36 PM, cooterhein said:

It was by no means commonsense safety standards, it was politically motivated gamesmanship that had absolutely no bearing on safety or public health. The goal was to shut down abortion clinics while being in a situation where the law couldn't be changed.

Now, the law should be changed, and abortion is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the tactics being used here were underhanded.

It's an okay day for women and their health.

Since our almighty federal courts have made it clear that they will uphold the killing of unborn children as an absolute "right," Texas legislators sought to limit abortions by holding abortion mills to the same standards as actual hospitals.

There is nothing at all wrong with the goal of limiting the killing of unborn babies, nor is there anything wrong with raising standards on abortion mills to do so.  Neither the ends nor the means is immoral.

 

But rather than get angry at the politically-motivated Supreme Court enshrining baby-killing as an absolute right and striking down all restrictions on this murder, let's instead turn our ire on those eeeevillll, dirty, sneaky, rotten Texas legislators who dare try restrict it with such "underhanded" means.

And, no, killing babies is not healthy.  This is sick, absolutely, sick.

[cooterhein]

To be clear, this is one of those ends justifying means types of things. The ends are just fine, in the interest of decreasing abortions. Decreasing abortions is good. It really is. However that's just half of it, the ends half. The means by which it was achieved in Texas is what was being examined, and the means by which something is achieved aren't necessarily faultless just on account of the overall goal.