Texas abortion ban to take effect Wednesday; pro-aborts seeking last-minute block

Let's just go with the tried and true..

It was god's will for that baby to be born like that and die such a early and painful death.

It was also god's will that that baby over there be aborted.

Whatever happens, the good, the bad, it is his divine will.

a reply to: dawnstar

That divine will seems to be either grossly negligent or completely arbitrary, like a coin toss to determine who lives and who dies.

a reply to: dandandat2

They could certainly try it. Historically though, it doesn't really work.

GOP voters will certainly become galvanized. But not until the Dems actually go forward with their plans.

a reply to: dandandat2

It was the zealous nature with which you hold your opinion as being more righteous than other people that I draw the comparison.

I'm zealous when it comes to defending the rights of women to act autonomously and to make their own, educated and well considered choices based on their own "truth". And I'm zealously against anyone who would rob women of their autonomy and ability to choose, if and when they choose to embrace motherhood. I'm not zealous toward any chosen outcome.

originally posted by: jrod
An all female group of judges need to decide this.

If you do not have a uterus, you should have no power to enact laws on those who do.

And only the Military should get to decide if society goes to war?

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Can I ask you why? I just wonder because you used the word zealous.

Most men I met doing this were up to their ears in feminism, that's why I ask. It feels kind of awkward to read, like a Damsel in Distress needing help.

Not saying you are but just saying that's an impression some of us get from such over zealous fighters. Similar to white democrats announcing black voters are too dumb to get ID.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Serdgiam

If I'm incorrect, please cite where in the bill this exemption exists. Because I'm not seeing it.

Perhaps, but they're still subject to the 6 week ban.

Hmm... Would exemptions would be relevant before the six week mark. Have they placed restriction on abortions before six weeks with this bill?

Why would a victim of sexual assault be exempted from having the sonogram results explained (presumably of a detectable fetal heartbeat) in this bill?

Which, to be clear, "six weeks" is not in the bill at all. That is merely an extrapolated generalization based on the average emergence of a detectable fetal heartbeat.

Perhaps I just dont understand *shrugs*

Ctrl + F is super handy for this stuff (terms: rape, incest, sexual assault).

ETA: I think there are actual conversation to be had, but we need to have a baseline understanding of what is being done here, eh?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: dandandat2

They could certainly try it. Historically though, it doesn't really work.

GOP voters will certainly become galvanized. But not until the Dems actually go forward with their plans.

Historically it doesn't realy work and yet here we are complaining about an abortion law enacted by the right who where put into power by their constituents?

Forgive me you do seem like a reasonable person; but it does sound like in this case you are allowing your own displeasure in this law, and the anti-abortion movement in general to obscure how much support there is for these laws.

Yes the vocal minority who sit in front of abortion clinics and yell at the pore women walking in are small in number. But the number of people who find abortion distasteful are quite large in number. They aren't going to sit back and wait for the left to pack the cort in order to get upset over the idea; all they need to hear is a credible left politician say they plan to if they are elected.

Hell; we have probably already passed that point already given the current devide the nation finds itself in.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dandandat2

It was the zealous nature with which you hold your opinion as being more righteous than other people that I draw the comparison.

I'm zealous when it comes to defending the rights of women to act autonomously and to make their own, educated and well considered choices based on their own "truth". And I'm zealously against anyone who would rob women of their autonomy and ability to choose, if and when they choose to embrace motherhood. I'm not zealous toward any chosen outcome.

At the risk of going around in circles I will quote myself from earlier.

"Its interesting how you phrase your own personal opinions in such absolute terms. It remindeds me of uncompromising religiously motivated people."

You can rationalize your righteousness as much as you would like; but you still sound like the uncompromising religiously motivated people you are arguing against.

I get it you have an opinion; your passionate about your opinion.... but so is every body else.

We can continue to scream at each other about how our own small options are better than everone else's. But where does that get us?

a reply to: dandandat2
Just wondering...
Why are yous so upset over the possibility of the dems packing the court when the republicans have already gone to such great lengths to pack it?

a reply to: dandandat2

I disagree. Being pro- choice is the one political topic I have in common with my republican friends and family. My BFF has two boys. We had a passionate discussion yesterday on how awful this is, especially the bounty crap.

My parents and my husbands parents are both staunch republicans but very anti-religious believe it or not. Both very much pro- choice. Obviously antidotal, but still this whole bounty crap isn’t gonna sit well with folks, IMO.

This thread alone is telling.

Eight flags on a supposed “win”for republicans and their anti- abortion stance. Lol

a reply to: TzarChasm

Rest asdured...
All things work together for good for those who love christ and are called according to his will...

a reply to: Serdgiam

Which, to be clear, "six weeks" is not in the bill at all. That is merely an extrapolated generalization based on the average emergence of a detectable fetal heartbeat.

Which becomes detectable at the 6 week mark, for fetuses that are developing normally.

A case story from the mainstream media, from inside the last abortion clinic in Texas, the day after the ban took effect: One woman, who had been in the day before, had her sonogram, and, at that time, no heart beat was detected. She returned after serving her required 24 hour wait period, for her procedure. The new law required the clinic to recheck, and this time a heart beat was detected, so she was no longer eligible for the procedure, under the new Texas law. She was 5 weeks, 6 days along.

Why would a victim of sexual assault be exempted from having the sonogram results explained (presumably of a detectable fetal heartbeat) in this bill?

Because, its cruel and unusual punishment to compound the trauma and guilt a rape victim carries by describing the development of the fetus growing inside of them, due do sexual assault/rape.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: jrod
An all female group of judges need to decide this.

If you do not have a uterus, you should have no power to enact laws on those who do.

And only the Military should get to decide if society goes to war?

All politicians dance to the MIC tune. Who do you think decides if the US goes to war. hint...it's not the taxpayers

the word "naïve" springs to mind here....

N/m

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dandandat2

It was the zealous nature with which you hold your opinion as being more righteous than other people that I draw the comparison.

I'm zealous when it comes to defending the rights of women to act autonomously and to make their own, educated and well considered choices based on their own "truth". And I'm zealously against anyone who would rob women of their autonomy and ability to choose, if and when they choose to embrace motherhood. I'm not zealous toward any chosen outcome.

At the risk of going around in circles I will quote myself from earlier.

"Its interesting how you phrase your own personal opinions in such absolute terms. It remindeds me of uncompromising religiously motivated people."

I already said that I was uncompromised when it comes to defending, and uncompromised in my opposition to those that fight against the rights we've been speaking of.

You can rationalize your righteousness as much as you would like; but you still sound like the uncompromising religiously motivated people you are arguing against.
I get it you have an opinion; your passionate about your opinion.... but so is every body else.

There's a difference in having an opinion, and seeking to force that opinion on the unwilling. Nobody is trying to force abortions on anyone. On the other hand, Texas IS forcing women, and young girls, to carry unwanted children to term, right now!

We can continue to scream at each other about how our own small options are better than everone else's. But where does that get us?

I'm not screaming. Are you?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Serdgiam

Which becomes detectable at the 6 week mark, for fetuses that are developing normally.

Mhm.

It makes it easier for discussion and media dissemenation, but is not technically accurate for the bill.

And thats important, given the amount of legalese dedicated to it specifically. There isnt actually a specific time limit outside of a detectable fetal heartbeat. The bill seems to allow for an abortion to take place at 7 weeks, for instance, depending on the results.

Because, its cruel and unusual punishment to compound the trauma and guilt a rape victim carries by describing the development of the fetus growing inside of them, due do sexual assault/rape.

Agreed!

Id go further and state that the whole explaining it to the mother in cases where rape, incest, etc arent involved is odd, even if I understand the intent behind it.

Why would they be exempt from that in this bill prior to an abortion though?

Does everything in the bill refer to procedures before a detectable fetal heartbeat?

a reply to: Serdgiam

And thats important, given the amount of legalese dedicated to it specifically. There isnt actually a specific time limit outside of a detectable fetal heartbeat. The bill seems to allow for an abortion to take place at 7 weeks, for instance, depending on the results.

Sure.

And, there are plenty of times a healthy heart beat heard at one doctor's appointment may "disappear" by the next. Most miscarriages happen between 3 - 10 weeks. LINK

So, the law allows for the removal of a "dead" fetus after 6 weeks. But that doesn't mean that the people involved in that happening can't be sued anyway. Even though they will eventually win, they will still be on the hook for their legal fees.

Does everything in the bill refer to procedures before a detectable fetal heartbeat?

Anyone coming in for abortion services is required to undergo a pelvic sonogram. If that sonogram detects a heart beat, too bad for them.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yup, it varies for when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat.

Now, Im assuming you have read the bill and ctrl+f'd all the relevant stuff.

Have they restricted abortions prior to a detectable heartbeat in a way that, say, a victim of sexual assault would need an exemption to receive an abortion? Rephrasing it: would an individual who was sexually assaulted be refused service without these exemptions, in cases where there is no heartbeat detected?

This seems to be the claim, so please correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that abortion as outlined by the bill is indeed available prior to the detection of a fetal heartbeat without the need for any exemptions, whether someone was sexually assaulted or not.

Is someone turned away from receiving these services prior to the detection of a fetal heartbeat? If not, why outline exemptions for restrictions that do not exist?

ETA: Maybe it will be easier to outline my understanding currently, and you can tell me where I am going wrong:

1) There are few, if any, restrictions on who can receive an abortion prior to the detection of a fetal heartbeat
2) The detection of the fetal heartbeat is variable, and not a static six weeks
3) Once a heartbeat is detected, there are exemptions to the now imposed restrictions for medical issues, rape, & incest

a reply to: Serdgiam

Have they restricted abortions prior to a detectable heartbeat in a way that, say, a victim of sexual assault would need an exemption to receive an abortion? Rephrasing it: would an individual who was sexually assaulted be refused service without these exemptions, in cases where there is no heartbeat detected?

Roe V Wade allows women to have an abortion, without question, for any reason, up until the point of viability, around 22 weeks. Some states have push that back to around 20 weeks. So, in Texas, before the law took effect, a rape victim would not be denied an abortion, and wouldn't even have to assert she was raped to get one, before or after a heart beat could be detected. If she wanted to forego the obligatory sonogram description, she could do so by revealing she that was a rape victim, but the invasive pelvic sonogram still would have to be done.

The only thing that changes with the Texas law, is that the SCOTUS cut off point of viability is replaced by a detectable heart beat, and there are no exception for rape or incest. So, as long as there is no detectable heart beat, anyone can get an abortion in Texas right now. If there is a detectable heart beat, no one, not even rape and incest victims, can get an abortion in Texas.

Of course, this is a violation of Roe V Wade. Texas knows that, and that the law would be struck down if Texas tried to enforce law and prosecute violations. But they can't, so they deputized private individuals to hunt and stalk people who might have aided anyone in procuring an abortion after 6 weeks, or heart beat time.

The law waives "standing" and offers a $10,000 bounty, plus expenses and legal fees, to those who win their civil lawsuits, proving that this unconstitutional ban was violated. People defending themselves against accusations, even if they win, are not awarded expenses and legal fees.

link

Here is a cleaner version of the bill.
There is no mention of rape or incest in it.
In one place it talks about an exemption to protect the life of the mother. But when it outlines the documentation medical doctors need to keep it mentions medical emergencies along with other reasons.
But the way I am reading it...
I don't know, kind sounds like the only exemption may be to preserve the life of the mother.

Maybe there is a clearer version, but quite frankly I really can't stand the versions like the one previously provided.