Senate GOP blocks Equal Rights Amendment

[wdefromtx 3,611]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

I read it too.  How about quoting the "clear" part.

And her testimony was that she was "denied" an abortion.  It didn't say who denied it.  But if it was her doctor, I can see where finding another doctor to permit it would be problematic.

What doctor would approve of an abortion after it was previously denied by her original doctor?? 

That would be tantamount to asking for the state to arrest you.

 

Pretty clear to me. Also, I know someone that had to have an abortion due to a serious medical complication arising from pregnancy. Don’t know all the details except a cyst ruptured and she started bleeding out very bad.         Sec. 170A.002.  PROHIBITED ABORTION; EXCEPTIONS. (a) A
	person may not knowingly perform, induce, or attempt an abortion.
	(b)  The prohibition under Subsection (a) does not apply if:
	(1)  the person performing, inducing, or attempting the
	abortion is a licensed physician;
	(2)  in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,
	the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or
	attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by,
	caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at
	risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
	major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced

Edited April 29, 2023 by wdefromtx

[homersapien 12,244]

On 4/29/2023 at 1:13 PM, wdefromtx said:

Pretty clear to me.
	(2)  in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,
	the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or
	attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by,
	caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at
	risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a
	major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced

Who exactly is going to make those legal determinations?

Ultimately, it's the state. So, yeah I suppose that's pretty "clear".

I can certainly understand why a doctor might want to deny or delay an abortion under those conditions - regardless of the possible risk of the woman. 

If medical crisis is clearly evident, the risk of the physician is minimial, but the risk to the woman is high.  If the procedure is performed before the (anticipated) crisis occurs, the risk for the physician is high.  The state can disregard his judgment on the potential of a crisis.

So, is giving the state ultimate power to rule on such medical issues - person by person - a conservative value?

 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,611]

45 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Who exactly is going to make those legal determinations?

Ultimately, it's the state. So, yeah I suppose that's pretty "clear".

I can certainly understand why a doctor might want to deny or delay an abortion under those conditions - regardless of the possible risk of the woman. 

If medical crisis is clearly evident, the risk of the physician is minimial, but the risk to the woman is high.  If the procedure is performed before the (anticipated) crisis occurs, the risk for the physician is high.  The state can disregard his judgment on the potential of a crisis.

So, is giving the state ultimately power to rule on such medical issues - person by person - a conservative value?

 

 

The law is clear that it gives the doctor the ability to to exercise medical judgment. 
 

At first I thought you were being obtuse, but It’s fairly evident you are trying to interpret things so that it can fit the narrative that makes it seem like 100’s of women are going to die because of these laws. 
 

The law literally is saying to perform the procedure if a serious risk is posed. That itself means before things turn into a serious crisis. Not only that, if a woman is needing an abortion for medical reasons and goes to a doctor she is probably already in some sort of crisis. 
 

There’s about 15 million women in Texas, if what you claim is true we’d be seeing hundreds or thousands of women dying.
 

If it were up to me I would not have overturned RvW. But this acting like women are going to die everywhere is a lot like how some on the right lumps everything race related into CRT. 

[Mims44 2,004]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

The point I am making is that aborting a fertilized egg is not murder and will not incur the wrath of Jesus (as you clearly implied).

(Never mind the fact that imposing such religious beliefs on others using legislation is clearly unconstitutional.)

Oh, you were going off my post to ICHY.

That's actually the opposite of the way I meant that. Jesus forgives all as I understand it. So no wrath involved. and for ICHY I was talking about his negative post towards me Jesus would forgive  

 

 

But you do bring up a GREAT point Homie. Generalities vs specifics.... I might make a post on it.

[homersapien 12,244]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

The law is clear that it gives the doctor the ability to to exercise medical judgment.

 

No that's not true.  The scenario I described is quite possible.

1) The doctor thinks the risk of a crisis is high if the pregnancy is not aborted, so he recommends and performs an abortion.

2) The result is an abortion and (naturally) no crisis.

3) The state either agrees or second guesses the doctor and charges him for performing an illegal abortion based on the evidence at hand (none).  (Maybe the state bureaucrats  deciding are rabid pro mandatory birth and want to make a statement?  either way, it's huge problem for the doctor)

Such laws cede ultimate responsibility for these medical decision to the state by definition.

This is exactly why these laws are going to likely reduce physicians willing to practice in that state.

Edited April 29, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,244]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

1) The law is clear that it gives the doctor the ability to to exercise medical judgment. 

2) At first I thought you were being obtuse, but It’s fairly evident you are trying to interpret things so that it can fit the narrative that makes it seem like 100’s of women are going to die because of these laws. 

3) The law literally is saying to perform the procedure if a serious risk is posed. That itself means before things turn into a serious crisis. Not only that, if a woman is needing an abortion for medical reasons and goes to a doctor she is probably already in some sort of crisis.

1) You are naive.

2) BS     If you cannot be serious then let's just end the discussion.

3) I repeat, you're naive.  But you left out an option for the doctor - wait until the crisis clearly manifests itself - which is clearly not in the woman's best interest. 

Edited April 29, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,244]

21 hours ago, Mims44 said:

Oh, you were going off my post to ICHY.

That's actually the opposite of the way I meant that. Jesus forgives all as I understand it. So no wrath involved. and for ICHY I was talking about his negative post towards me Jesus would forgive  

 

 

But you do bring up a GREAT point Homie. Generalities vs specifics.... I might make a post on it.

So why are you so concerned about other people's sins?

Forget making abortions illegal, just be sure to tell the woman who has one to ask Jesus for forgiveness before she dies. 

Everyone's happy!

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by homersapien

[Mims44 2,004]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So why are you so concerned about other people's sins?

Forget making abortions illegal, just be sure to tell the woman who have one to ask Jesus for forgiveness before she dies. 

Everyone's happy!

 

The way I understand Christianity, that is exactly how it works. 

I've always had a problem with that part of the ideology... but that's getting kinda off topic.

Gonna make that other thread now, gonna put it in the normal political forum. Hope to see you there, always like to hear your thoughts (when you aren't being a butt  )

[wdefromtx 3,611]

48 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) You are naive.

2) BS     If you cannot be serious then let's just end the discussion.

3) I repeat, you're naive.  But you left out an option for the doctor - wait until the crisis clearly manifests itself - which is clearly not in the woman's best interest. 

Can you cite in the law where it says for the doctor to wait for the crisis to manifest itself? 

Reading the lawsuit it is full hyperbole and such. Stating that it’s not safe for women to be pregnant in Texas. 

In fact one of the defendants states that she knew her doctor didn’t believe in abortions to begin with. Shocking that he didn’t want to do it. 

I’ve said all along it’s up to the doctor to make the determination, you will have some that won’t do it. That’s on them and they probably weren’t going to them before the law. 

The lawsuit talks about the wording of the law. While the wording seems reasonable to me if they clarify it would that make you happy? 

[homersapien 12,244]

18 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Can you cite in the law where it says for the doctor to wait for the crisis to manifest itself? 

 

Seriously?  That doesn't make sense. 

I was describing a natural, logical response of human behavior by a doctor confronted with the personal risk from the law in question.  I explained this well enough for any reasonable person to understand it. 

I am not going to repeat it.  Go back and study it some more.

And I am not saying it would be a universal response, just a highly potential one. In fact, it sounds like that's what may have happened to Amanda Zurawski.

[homersapien 12,244]

18 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I’ve said all along it’s up to the doctor to make the determination, you will have some that won’t do it. That’s on them and they probably weren’t going to them before the law.

And where does that leave the woman?  Or does she matter at all?

[wdefromtx 3,611]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Seriously?  That doesn't make sense. 

I was describing a natural, logical response of human behavior by a doctor confronted with the personal risk from the law in question.  I explained this well enough for any reasonable person to understand it. 

I am not going to repeat it.  Go back and study it some more.

And I am not saying it would be a universal response, just a highly potential one. In fact, it sounds like that's what may have happened to Amanda Zurawski.

Then going back to my question about the lawsuit. If it causes the state to clarify the wording would that suffice for you? It comes down to wording right? 

[homersapien 12,244]

11 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Then going back to my question about the lawsuit. If it causes the state to clarify the wording would that suffice for you? It comes down to wording right? 

I was satisfied with Roe. 

IMO, the legislation in question is way too specific and prescriptive.

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,611]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I was satisfied with Roe. 

IMO, the legislation in question is way too specific and prescriptive.

 

Did you even read it then? This goes 180 degrees to what the lawsuit claims. They say it’s too vague and needs more specific language. 


Basically you’ve just latched on to the hysteria. 

 

[homersapien 12,244]

15 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Did you even read it then? This goes 180 degrees to what the lawsuit claims. They say it’s too vague and needs more specific language. 


Basically you’ve just latched on to the hysteria. 

 

What "hysteria" are you referring to?

[wdefromtx 3,611]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

What "hysteria" are you referring to?

That women are in so much danger now because states have enacted abortion laws. 
 

You posted an article referring to a lawsuit that claims pregnant women in Texas are no longer safe. 
 

[homersapien 12,244]

26 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

That women are in so much danger now because states have enacted abortion laws. 
 

You posted an article referring to a lawsuit that claims pregnant women in Texas are no longer safe. 
 

First, Women - and doctors - are obviously in more health/legal danger (respectively) because of these laws. 

That's my opinion.  If you disagree fine, I am not going to waste my time arguing the point with you.  There are plenty of pro-choice advocates - including many women - who can do that better than me.  (As the referenced lawsuit demonstrates.)

Speaking of which , I doubt that the lawsuit specifically says what you said.  There are obviously many women in Texas who have normal, uncomplicated pregnancies that are perfectly safe, law or not.  Perhaps it's you're misinterpretation of the arguments being made that constitutes your perceived "hysteria"?

(Ironically, the word "hysteria" reflects misogynistic thinking in it's origins.)

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,611]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First, Women - and doctors - are obviously in more health/legal danger (respectively) because of these laws. 

That's my opinion.  If you disagree fine, I am not going to waste my time arguing the point with you.  There are plenty of pro-choice advocates - including many women - who can do that better than me.  (As the referenced lawsuit demonstrates.)

Speaking of which , I doubt that the lawsuit specifically says what you said.  There are obviously many women in Texas who have normal, uncomplicated pregnancies that are perfectly safe, law or not.  Perhaps it's you're misinterpretation of the arguments being made that constitutes your perceived "hysteria"?

(Ironically, the word "hysteria" reflects misogynistic thinking in it's origins.)

 

Here’s the problem with your argument, it’s not about the health of the woman or the legal well being of the doctor to you. I know this because you won’t come out and say you’d be ok with the law if they clarified the text to prevent such issues from happening. You should just argue with your stance that there should be no law at all. 
 

Maybe claim isn’t the right word about the lawsuit. But it tries to paint a picture that things in Texas are so dire that women are in some much danger. With examples of how they don’t feel safe in Texas. And how medical professionals are now telling their patients that if they want to become pregnant, they should leave Texas.

I think they should have added something in for rape/incest, but abortion is allowed for all cases up to 6 weeks. After that it’s emergency only. 
 

Also, typical leftist having to try to insinuate someone is against women for disagreeing with you. 

 

[homersapien 12,244]

21 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Also, typical leftist having to try to insinuate someone is against women for disagreeing with you. 

 

That was not my intent. 

I don't think you are "against women". I just appreciated the irony of you describing women as "hysterical" about laws that they have legitimate reason to oppose. And like it or not, the term does imply a lack of respect for their concerns.  That's not "leftist", that's etymology.

Couldn't resist commenting on it.

As for simplifying this particular law, how about doing away with all of the qualified medical conditions and simply state it's up to the recommendation of her physician, period.  It's none of the state's business in the first place.

Edited April 30, 2023 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,611]

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That was not my intent. 

I don't think you are "against women". I just appreciated the irony of you describing women as "hysterical" about laws that they have legitimate reason to oppose. And like it or not, the term does imply a lack of respect for their concerns.  That's not "leftist", that's etymology.

Couldn't resist commenting on it.

As for simplifying this particular law, how about doing away with all of the qualified medical conditions and simply state it's up to the recommendation of her physician, period.  It's none of the state's business in the first place.

As long as the doctor gets to make his/her own medical judgment without fear of legal issues I am good with whatever. 
 

Although, the law practically already does that and the lawsuit brought forth is because they think it’s too vague. 

[homersapien 12,244]

Here's the result of such laws:

https://www.pbs.org/video/afterroe-1682976218/

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by homersapien