The War On Abortion And Women's Rights

[ADoyle90815]

37 minutes ago, Xan said:

The late Mr. Xan used to say "there ought to be a list".  In the case of the forced-birthers, he said that anyone who worked to outlaw abortions ought to be willing to sign to take babies given up by birth parents.  At the very least, they ought to be willing to provide money and time to make provisions for these children.  With rights come responsibilities. For example, if you're deciding that you get to tell some woman that she has to carry her rapist's child, you have to agree to take that child and raise it as your own.  

People who truly believe that every embryo is a person should be glad to raise the child.  But the majority of forced-birthers aren't really pro-life.  If they were, they'd be against capital punishment and for gun control.  These people are just anti-woman.

.....

I think any state that enacts this legislation should also strictly control drugs for impotence.  If women have to leap hurdles to control their own bodies, so should men.  No man should get a Viagra prescription unless his wife or significant other has given their signed approval.

Many of those forced birth people are also against vaccine mandates and masks in schools to protect those already born, but too young to get vaccinated during this pandemic. 

Edited September 4, 2021 by ADoyle90815

[Ali]

5 minutes ago, ADoyle90815 said:

Many of those forced birth people are also against vaccine mandates and masks in schools to protect those already born, but too young to get vaccinated during this pandemic. 

They are also against evil socialist universal health care that could prevent stillbirths and preterm labor for wanted pregnancies.

[Ozlsn]

5 hours ago, Xan said:

think any state that enacts this legislation should also strictly control drugs for impotence.  If women have to leap hurdles to control their own bodies, so should men.  No man should get a Viagra prescription unless his wife or significant other has given their signed approval.

I see no good reason why these drugs should be available to men over 50 unless they have cardiovascular issues of a life threatening nature which are signed off on by cardiologists (minimum two required). As sex is strictly for procreation and men aged over 50 are unlikely to be able to adequately care for any offspring until adulthood it is obviously God's way of ensuring they don't procreate. /s

[Ozlsn]

On 9/4/2021 at 12:14 AM, Cults-r-us said:

I was walking on the beach and met a tourist from Georgia. I said to her, "I read in the newspaper 94% of Georgians are registered to vote, that is great". They said no, they hate Stacy Abrams and they don't want all the people registered to vote "because they are Christians".

I totally misread that initially as the voters were Christian and was very confused. Then I realised that they were referring to themselves as "followers of Christ" and was even more confused... pretty sure Christ was "love your neighbour as you love yourself" rather than "hate the poor and people who don't look like you".

On 9/4/2021 at 1:38 AM, Cartmann99 said:

  Hide contents

 

 

About time, seriously. The tiny piece of Twitter I see is extremely frustrated by the Democrats having a majority and not getting stuff done right now. 

23 hours ago, Cults-r-us said:

I think it's going to be hard to find an OB-GYN in Texas. Can you imagine spending all that time and money becoming a doctor/surgeon and have this nonsense law where any asshole can sue because you abetted someone "considering an abortion"? There's no doctor-patient privilege either. Surely the doctors will bail. Wouldn"t you?

They will, and more women and babies will die or have life changing injuries as a result. 

[GreyhoundFan]

8 hours ago, Xan said:

I think any state that enacts this legislation should also strictly control drugs for impotence.  If women have to leap hurdles to control their own bodies, so should men.  No man should get a Viagra prescription unless his wife or significant other has given their signed approval.

A legislator in GA pushed for this back in 2010.  It would have also classified sex without a condom as an aggravated assault and required a paternity test at eight weeks of pregnancy and required the father to start paying child support immediately.  (This was in response to the GA heartbeat bill.)

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-testicular-bill-of-rights-804180/

 

[smittykins]

19 hours ago, Ali said:

They are also against evil socialist universal health care that could prevent stillbirths and preterm labor for wanted pregnancies.

And often, their preferred form of birth control is “Keep your legs closed.”

[Cartmann99]

 

[Cartmann99]

 

[WiseGirl]

 

[Ozlsn]

Was thinking about this. So if I've understood this correctly anyone can file a suit against anyone assisting in any way in the procurement of a termination, and the defendant must defend all suits or be hit with the $10K, and cannot be awarded costs. So if I wanted to be a very nuisance litigant I would immediately file suits against every airline flying in/out of Texas, naming every flight which had a female passenger aged, oh, let's say 13 to 55, on it as assisting. Also file against every politican who voted for this crap every time they travel anywhere that could possibly be for that purpose (Cancun anyone?) and against whichever carrier they travelled on. Dallas-Fort Worth doesn't have to stay a hub.

[GreyhoundFan]

I couldn't agree more.

[Cartmann99]

 

Spoiler

 

[closetcagebaby]

2 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Arresting all rapists? Looking forward to hearing about Trump’s arrest next time he sets foot in Texas!

[Ozlsn]

52 minutes ago, closetcagebaby said:

Arresting all rapists? Looking forward to hearing about Trump’s arrest next time he sets foot in Texas!

Maybe he plans to enforce curfews on all men? 

[Audrey2]

Really? And what do you do about the rapist who their first rape causes a pregnancy? You might get rid of that rapist before they rape again but there's still one pregnant woman because of them.

[GreyhoundFan]

Excellent commentary by Joy:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

TX continues the insanity and there is an event at the Supreme Court tomorrow:

I don't know how they can ban mailing the pills as the USPS is not run by TX.

[fraurosena]

48 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I don't know how they can ban mailing the pills as the USPS is not run by TX.

They'll probably put a bounty on anyone suspected of mailing abortion pills, or something like that. And make it a criminal offence to receive them, or have them in one's possession. 

[Destiny]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

TX continues the insanity and there is an event at the Supreme Court tomorrow:

I don't know how they can ban mailing the pills as the USPS is not run by TX.

They can't ban abortion either, and yet...

[GreyhoundFan]

Finally: "Justice Department sues Texas to block six-week abortion ban"

Quote

President Biden’s Justice Department sued the state of Texas on Thursday to try to block the nation’s most restrictive abortion law, which bans the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy and allows private citizens to take legal action against anyone who helps a woman terminate her pregnancy.

At a news conference to announce the lawsuit filed in federal court in Austin, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the ban “is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.”

The Justice Department’s lawsuit says the Texas law is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

Garland’s decision to intervene comes after a divided Supreme Court last week refused to stop enforcement of the law, which prohibits most abortions in Texas at a stage when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant.

The only exceptions are when a woman’s health or life are at stake.

President Biden and Democrats in Congress have sharply criticized the law and the Supreme Court’s decision not to block a ban that they say clearly violates a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. The law took effect Sept. 1.

A dozen other states have passed legislation banning abortion after about six weeks into pregnancy. But federal judges have stopped those measures from taking effect, finding the laws inconsistent with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to choose abortion before viability, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.

The Texas law was designed to withstand a similar preemptive legal challenge. It intentionally bars enforcement by state government officials, whom abortion providers would typically target in a lawsuit.

Instead, the law empowers private citizens to file civil lawsuits against anyone who helps a woman get an abortion after the six-week window. Those private citizens can receive a $10,000 award if their lawsuits are successful. Individuals can target abortion providers, clinic workers or those who help a woman pay for the procedure or drive her to a clinic.

In its 5-to-4 decision last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said abortion providers and civil rights groups had “raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law.” But the majority allowed the ban to take effect while the legal battle plays out, saying the abortion providers and advocates who had challenged the law could not show they were suing the right people.

Their lawsuit had targeted state court judges and court clerks, who would have to accept lawsuits alleging violations of the ban in order for those suits to go forward. The Supreme Court majority said it was premature for the court to step in because it is “unclear whether the named defendants can or will seek to enforce the Texas law.”

All of the dissenting justices wrote separately, with the court’s three liberal justices characterizing the Texas law as an end-run around the Constitution and court precedent.

“Because of this Court’s ruling, Texas law prohibits abortions for the vast majority of women who seek them — in clear, and indeed undisputed, conflict with” past court decisions, wrote Justice Elena Kagan.

Garland said in a statement Monday that his agency would do all it could to guarantee access to abortion in the nation’s second-largest state; legal scholars and advocates have suggested that a lawsuit alleging women’s civil rights are being violated under the new law is one avenue the Biden administration could take.

Even before the Justice Department’s announcement, supporters of the law put out a statement criticizing the Biden administration for the planned lawsuit, calling it a “desperate attempt” to block the measure.

Biden “is a puppet of the radical abortion agenda, and his DOJ will quickly find that they do not have jurisdiction to stop the Texas Heartbeat Act,” said Elizabeth Graham, vice president of Texas Right to Life.

The law is already having an impact. Abortion clinics in Texas say they are abiding by the six-week ban and sending women who are further along in their pregnancies across state lines to seek the procedure.

Texas Right to Life, which backed the law, was collecting anonymous tips on its website about potential violations of the law, but so far no lawsuits have been filed against abortion providers in state court.

Separately, several advocacy organizations that help women access abortions have won temporary restraining orders in local courts that bar Texas Right to Life and others from using the law to sue them.

Those court orders are limited to the people involved and do not stop other individuals or organizations from filing lawsuits against anyone involved in an illegal abortion.

 

[Cartmann99]

 

[NotQuiteMotY]

20 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Finally: "Justice Department sues Texas to block six-week abortion ban"

 

Took freakin' long enough. The more they drag their feet, the more people die as a direct result.

[Cartmann99]

Chicago takes out Dallas Morning News ad to bait businesses after new Texas abortion, voting laws

Quote

Chicago is taking aim at Texas’ new social policies with a full-page ad in Sunday’s Dallas Morning News, urging companies uncomfortable with the state’s recently enacted abortion and voting laws to head to the windy city.

World Business Chicago, the city’s public-private economic development arm, purchased the print ad, which opens with “Dear Texas” before jumping into reasons companies should consider moving north. It cites the Midwest city’s startup ecosystem, attraction of tech and engineering graduates and a top-ranked logistics and transportation sector as strengths.

Then it hones in on what it perceives as Texas’ new weakness.

“In Chicago, we believe in every person’s right to vote, protecting reproductive rights and science to fight COVID-19,″ the ad states.

“We believe that the values of the city you are doing business in matters more than ever before,” World Business Chicago CEO Michael Fassnacht told Bloomberg News Friday.

The Lone Star State made headlines after enacting the strictest anti-abortion legislation in the country and an elections overhaul that adds voting restrictions.

Gov. Greg Abbott defended the controversial legislation in an appearance on CNBC, saying it will attract even more business growth in Texas. The state is currently out-competing rivals in the race for California company relocations.

Texas-based companies have been relatively silent regarding the abortion law, known as the Heartbeat Act, which essentially bans abortions after six weeks. Dallas-based Match Group and Austin-based Bumble, both dating app companies, are among the few to publicly denounce it.

Despite the lack of corporate upheaval, Chicago’s public attempt at nabbing frustrated Texas businesses could signal worries held by some experts that the new policies could prove detrimental to the state’s growing economy.

“Laws that are less inclusive, whether they make voting more difficult, limit opportunities based on gender or gender identity, restrict access to health care for indigent persons or unreasonably limit flexibility in family planning pose substantial risk to the Texas economy over an extended period,” said Texas economist Ray Perryman.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont also publicly touted business opportunities in his state Friday.

“We don’t have oil and natural gas, but we have one of the most productive, best trained, most innovative workforces in the world,” he said, without naming Texas outright.

Though the full implications of the new laws are yet to be seen, Texas does one-up Connecticut and Illinois with welcoming tax policies. The state doesn’t have personal or corporate income taxes, qualities that businesses often favor.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Remainder under spoiler:

Spoiler

 

[Jana814]

I feel so bad for this woman. This was a much wanted pregnancy.