⮞ Texas Abortion Ban Stays In Effect With Help From SCOTUS ⮜

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The decision comes while the Supreme Court deliberates over a Mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks. The court is widely expected to use the case to roll back nearly a half century of abortion rights. The court ruled last week that an abortion restriction in Texas could remain in effect.
No!! The ruling of the Justices was not about the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law. The ruling was to decide whether the providers and the federal government, could proceed with legal actions to challenge the constitutionality of this law. BEFORE it can be enforced against anyone. This sounds to me, that their ruling was an injunction against this law. This sounds to me that the law may still in effect, but it is NOT enforceable until litigation is resolved in the courts. This sounds like a positive start to me.


Of course I could be wrong!
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
And people are entitled to all of the opinions they want. Nothing will ever change that.

What is true and important is that people's opinions shouldn't get to pass laws. And certainly not religious ideology. Science and reason should reign over that.

And science and reason tells us that at the point most foetuses are aborted, they are not "life", they are merely the potential for life.

I'm strongly opposed to late term abortions, except when there is real risk to the mother, but prior to the foetus being viable, it is not a lif unto itself.

Simply because some collection of religious zealots consider it a sin is no excuse for putting girls and women in very real harm's way by restricting or prohibiting access to safe and affordable terminations.

And that is not just my opinion. Science and reason back me.
Mothra, your position is consistent with the majority of Americans, according to credible polls. Most Americans do not want to ban all abortions, but they are opposed to late term abortions and/or after the fetus is viable.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Mothra, your position is consistent with the majority of Americans, according to credible polls. Most Americans do not want to ban all abortions, but they are opposed to late term abortions and/or after the fetus is viable.
So, do you agree that all women should have the RIGHT TO DECIDE TO HAVE AN ABORTION?? Do you think that it is late-term, or that the fetus is viable at 6 weeks or 15 weeks of pregnancy? Remember gestation is around 40 weeks!

These parameters are scientifically valid and irrefutably beyond question. Therefore, the only issue here is, does human life and personage begin at conception? And, should this potential life, have the same legal protections listed in the Constitution? Do you think that the Constitution should prevent an embryo from being aborted?
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
So, do you agree that all women should have the RIGHT TO DECIDE TO HAVE AN ABORTION?? Do you think that it is late-term, or that the fetus is viable at 6 weeks or 15 weeks of pregnancy? Remember gestation is around 40 weeks!

These parameters are scientifically valid and irrefutably beyond question. Therefore, the only issue here is, does human life and personage begin at conception? And, should this potential life, have the same legal protections listed in the Constitution? Do you think that the Constitution should prevent an embryo from being aborted?
I already told you.

32% think abortion should be legal under any circumstances. I disagree with them.
19% think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I disagree with them.
48% think abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. I fall into this general group.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I already told you.

32% think abortion should be legal under any circumstances. I disagree with them.
19% think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I disagree with them.
48% think abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. I fall into this general group.
Seth, that is not what I asked you,

"So, do you agree that all women should have the RIGHT TO DECIDE TO HAVE AN ABORTION??".

This questions is asking you if you agree that women should have the right to decide to have an abortion. Or, should someone else have the right to decide for them??

The second question I asked you,

"Do you think that it is late-term, or that the fetus is viable at 6 weeks or 15 weeks of pregnancy? Remember gestation is around 40 weeks!".

This question is asking you, if you think that 6 and 15 weeks are late-term. Or, do you think that the fetus would be viable then?

So, do you agree that women should have this freedom of choice or not?? Do you agree that the feus is viable at 6 and 15 weeks or not??
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
@Shellandshilo1956 Well, if I fall into the majority 48%, that should answer your first question. I have said that I don't fall into the group that believe that women should have the right to an abortion at will in all circumstances.

And no, a fetus is not viable at 6 or 15 weeks.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
And no, a fetus is not viable at 6 or 15 weeks.
Thank you!

Well, if I fall into the majority 48%, that should answer your first question. I have said that I don't fall into the group that believe that women should have the right to an abortion at will in all circumstances.
Why are you being so political and deflective in your response? I have no idea how the polling questions were framed. Or, so many other variables that also represents the 48%. So, I'm NOT asking you which group you simply agree with. My question is about the RIGHT OF CHOICE! NOT about whether that right is absolute or should be restricted(it already is).

So let me rephrase the question. I personally think that all women should have the personal right to choose to decide if they want to terminate their own pregnancy. And, no one else! Do you agree or disagree??
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
Thank you!



Why are you being so political and deflective in your response? I have no idea how the polling questions were framed. Or, so many other variables that also represents the 48%. So, I'm NOT asking you which group you simply agree with. My question is about the RIGHT OF CHOICE! NOT about whether that right is absolute or should be restricted(it already is).

So let me rephrase the question. I personally think that all women should have the personal right to choose to decide if they want to terminate their own pregnancy. And, no one else! Do you agree or disagree??
Do you mean early in the pregnancy or at any time during the 9 months?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Do you mean early in the pregnancy or at any time during the 9 months?
No! I mean IF ANY HUMAN-LIKE CREATURE ON THIS PLANET, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO DECIDE ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD TERMINATE THEIR OWN PREGNANCY, SHOULD IT BE THE WOMAN'S CHOICE OR THE STATE'S???

The state may set LIMITS AND CONDITIONS ON CHOICE. But, it can't INFRINGE, DEPRIVE, or REMOVE a woman's right of choice! Do you agree with this? Irrespective of any time restrictions and conditions(other than fetal viability)?
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
No! I mean IF ANY HUMAN-LIKE CREATURE ON THIS PLANET, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO DECIDE ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD TERMINATE THEIR OWN PREGNANCY, SHOULD IT BE THE WOMAN'S CHOICE OR THE STATE'S???

The state may set LIMITS AND CONDITIONS ON CHOICE. But, it can't INFRINGE, DEPRIVE, or REMOVE a woman's right of choice! Do you agree with this? Irrespective of any time restrictions and conditions(other than fetal viability)?
How can you say that the state may set limits and conditions on choice, but it cannot infringe, deprive, or remove a woman’s right of choice?

That sounds contradictory to me. Setting limits and conditions IS an infringement on the right of that choice, isn’t it?

I don’t understand why you’re shouting at me with your capital letters, exclamation points, multiple question marks. I have already stated where I stand on this issue.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
..

Pro-Life Laws Have Had A Clear Impact on State Abortion Rates

Source: Pregnancy Help
Like other laws intended to reduce abortions, Texas’ new “heartbeat law” has had a real and measurable impact.

(NCR) Last Friday, the Supreme Court permitted abortion providers to continue to challenge, but did not block enforcement of a Texas law that bars abortion when the unborn child has a detectable heartbeat, which occurs around six weeks of pregnancy. As a result, the steep drop in state abortions that occurred immediately following the law’s enactment is likely to continue.

A recent study showed that the Texas law has reduced abortion in the state by 50% since it first went into effect in September. And an analysis of other pro-life laws, including those related to abortion funding and informed consent, reveals that these measures have had a demonstrable impact in reducing the number of abortions.

The Texas law, which has the unique enforcement mechanism of lawsuits from private citizens, meant that “2,164 abortions were provided in September 2021” compared to “4,313 in September 2020, a 49.8% decrease,” according to a report from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin.

The report called this the largest documented decrease in abortions in the state, as it was “larger than the 13% decline that occurred following the 2013 implementation of an omnibus abortion bill, House Bill 2 (HB2), which required physicians who provided abortion care to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, among other restrictions, and resulted in the closure of over half of Texas’ abortion facilities” and “is also larger than the 38% decrease in abortions that occurred following Texas’ March 23, 2020 Executive Order, which prohibited most abortions for a period of 30 days at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.” The report also found “early evidence, in the form of long wait times for appointments, that Texans seeking out-of-state abortion care are straining capacity at the small number of facilities in nearby states.”

Abortion restrictions and informed consent

Michael New, associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and visiting professor at The Catholic University of America who has a Ph.D. in Political Science and a Master’s Degree in Statistics from Stanford University, told the Register that pro-life laws like the one in Texas “do have a real impact” because “they impact people’s behavior.” He pointed to the increase in women in Texas who “are availing themselves of the assistance from the pregnancy help organizations in that state,” saying these women are “a lot more likely to carry on unintended pregnancies to term because the law is in place.”..........
Well, The Texas' 'Heartbeat' Abortion Law is still in force......already saving the fragile lives of hundreds upon hundreds of the unborn, the most vulnerable humans......day in day out.....day after day after day after day.......maybe not all will survive until birth, but far, far more will have a chance than the day before this unique law was enacted.......


God Bless AMERICA............God Bless TEXAS.....

..
 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
A few poor women of color will have to bring their pregnancy full term. That is all that will happen—the lives of these women made harder by being forced to bear unwanted children. But you are now BOSS aren’t you, all you pathetic “men” scared of women having control over their own bodies.
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
A few poor women of color will have to bring their pregnancy full term. That is all that will happen—the lives of these women made harder by being forced to bear unwanted children. But you are now BOSS aren’t you, all you pathetic “men” scared of women having control over their own bodies.
Just a point about "men" ...

45% of women in America think that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. 19% (almost one out of five) think it should illegal under any circumstances.

Men only vary by 5% on the question of abortion being legal only under certain circumstances (50%), and they are the same on the question of whether it should be illegal under any circumstances (19%).


From these polls, we can draw the conclusion that this debate is not a "men vs women" debate.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
Sure, but it is a small group of men who steered the Control of Uppity Women Bill through the Texas legislature.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
How can you say that the state may set limits and conditions on choice, but it cannot infringe, deprive, or remove a woman’s right of choice?
Because we are talking about two different things. People have the right of free speech. But it is not an absolute right. There are conditions and restrictions relating to the abuse of free speech, right? Do these conditions and restrictions infringe, deprive, or remove the right of free speech? Is there a contradiction here? Of course not. So, is setting limits and conditions relating to the viability of the fetus, also infringing, depriving, or removing the right of women to have an abortion? Of course not.

I didn't ask you if you agree with the opinions of a certain group of people. My question has nothing to do with abortion conditions or restrictions. IT IS ABOUT WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF CHOICE ONLY!! I ask you a specific question, that you are still deflecting. And, I have no idea why. Maybe you don't want to answer, because if you answer YES, you know what my next question will be. And, if you answer no, then you are saying that women have zero rights to choose to have an abortion. Or, to have any control over their own body. In either case, I won't ask again.

Regarding how the polled questions were framed. This question was aske to men and women.

"Do you think that abortions should be legal under all circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal under all circumstances?".

Do you think that if they actually listed all of the circumstances(rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, maternal threat to life, etc.) in the first question, instead of simply saying "ALL", that it would make a difference? There are no absolutes in reality! So why ask it? Why didn't they just ask, if abortion should be legal, period?? I wonder what the new outcome would be!

The second question to men and women.

"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be prochoice or pro-life?".

Now this question gives you only two options to choose from. Either you are a pro-killer(pro-abortion) of babies, or you believe in not killing babies(pro-life). Gee, I wonder what choice I would consider myself. A fallacy(the excluded middle). What if they asked the people if they are pro-life, or pro-abortion, if the fetus became life-threatening to the mother?

Polls can give you any answer you want. As long as you ask the right questions. Sorry for all the inflections. They are meant only for emphasis. They are not meant to be personal.
 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
..

Well, IMHO, within the next 6 months we will know how the United States Supreme Court will handle this extremely contentious issue......Is Roe v. Wade & Casey bad Constitutional interpretation, or not.......Does the 14th Amendment protect the unborn or not.....Will adherence with the 10th Amendment resolve Constitutionality of Roe & Casey, & return this issue to the States & the People....etc, etc, etc.

We can speculate all we want, but in the end, those 9 Justices of the United States Supreme Court will be the ultimate deciders of fact, & regardless of where we stand on the issues, their decision(s) will be not be subject to appeal. Only the American People, through amending the United States Constitution, can affect the outcome if they disagree with the Courts finding(s)..........PERIOD.

..
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
Because we are talking about two different things. People have the right of free speech. But it is not an absolute right. There are conditions and restrictions relating to the abuse of free speech, right? Do these conditions and restrictions infringe, deprive, or remove the right of free speech? Is there a contradiction here? Of course not. So, is setting limits and conditions relating to the viability of the fetus, also infringing, depriving, or removing the right of women to have an abortion? Of course not.

I didn't ask you if you agree with the opinions of a certain group of people. My question has nothing to do with abortion conditions or restrictions. IT IS ABOUT WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF CHOICE ONLY!! I ask you a specific question, that you are still deflecting. And, I have no idea why. Maybe you don't want to answer, because if you answer YES, you know what my next question will be. And, if you answer no, then you are saying that women have zero rights to choose to have an abortion. Or, to have any control over their own body. In either case, I won't ask again.

Regarding how the polled questions were framed. This question was aske to men and women.

"Do you think that abortions should be legal under all circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal under all circumstances?".

Do you think that if they actually listed all of the circumstances(rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, maternal threat to life, etc.) in the first question, instead of simply saying "ALL", that it would make a difference? There are no absolutes in reality! So why ask it? Why didn't they just ask, if abortion should be legal, period?? I wonder what the new outcome would be!

The second question to men and women.

"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be prochoice or pro-life?".

Now this question gives you only two options to choose from. Either you are a pro-killer(pro-abortion) of babies, or you believe in not killing babies(pro-life). Gee, I wonder what choice I would consider myself. A fallacy(the excluded middle). What if they asked the people if they are pro-life, or pro-abortion, if the fetus became life-threatening to the mother?

Polls can give you any answer you want. As long as you ask the right questions. Sorry for all the inflections. They are meant only for emphasis. They are not meant to be personal.
So when asking “who has the right”, you’re asking a technical question. The obvious answer is that women were given this right, although it exists with varying limitations in different states. Some have limitations, and some have none.

We both know that.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
land of the free........ ? more rights and liberties could be stripped away by a gaggle of crusty old religious cunts (scotus), elected not by the people.... but shoehorned there by a bunch of other straight white bible thumping ..... mostly men and party yes men that have no idea about the real world. tell them to stand on a tall building and have them tell us that the horizon is not curved......

land of the free?..... well..... as long as you are not old, female, black, a muslim, an immigrant, poor, homeless, gay, uninsured...... ah shit how long you got?

hahaha lol the US might want to ditch that little ditty of a national anthem "fake news"
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
So when asking “who has the right”, you’re asking a technical question. The obvious answer is that women were given this right, although it exists with varying limitations in different states. Some have limitations, and some have none.

We both know that.
No, it is not a technical question. It is a simple question. The right of all women to have a safe and legal abortion is EXPLICIT in the Constitution. The conditional restrictions set by the states, are only IMPLICIT to this right, as with all other Constitutional rights.

So, do you believe that women should have the right to an safe and legal abortion, WITHOUT ANY ADDED UNDO BURDENS?? When I say "undo burdens", I am not talking about any conditional restrictions imposed on this right, that relates to anytime after fetal viability(23 weeks), or to a life-threatening emergency. Okay?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
hahaha lol the US might want to ditch that little ditty of a national anthem
The only national anthem that rivaled ALL national anthems in the world was "Waltzing Matilda". Every country would know instantly what country this anthem belonged to. Not this hybrid sleeper(that few know the words), between "God Save the Queen", and the gospel "Let Freedom Ring". I guess they changed it, because it rivaled the American national anthem. Other than America, how many other national anthems could you put a country to? Definitely, ditch this new crappy, pompous, boring, and uninspiring Australian anthem. It is not who we are!!
 
Top