Perry just called 2nd special session

I have a genuine question as well, and feel kind of stupid for not knowing the answer.

Why would limiting abortions to the I believe, 4 month mark close down such a high percentage of clinics? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought there was already a "cut off" period, so to speak. My understanding is that science believes the fetus begins to feel pain at this point.

Is business booming in such a way for late-term abortions that so many would need to close?
Not trolling--just really want to understand this.
Thanks.
 
It was other parts of the bill that would close 37 of the 42 providers if they did not make changes. Admitting privileges at hospitals less than 30 miles away was the big one I believe.
 
I favor legalized murder of your children up to age fifteen, with special dispensation to kill them up to 18 if they have significant problems with the law or make low grades. So I am perfectly ok with abortion at any time.

That said, this waste of time and display of parliamentary incompetence was due solely to Dewhurst having got his clock cleaned by Ted Cruz and his desire to get back in the good graces with the Tea Party types before the next election. He induced Perry to put this pos in the special session and then he blew it. He is a joke in his own party and he is going to get hammered if he puts his name on the gop ballot next year,.

He is the only reason Perry put it on the table---and he did that midway through the special session.

I admire Perry's loyalty to his retainer but Dewhurst needs to go. AG Abbott is going to have one more constitutionally indefensible act by the pack of criminals and idiots in Austin to defend in the federal court system. He must be getting tired of doing all the heavy lifting for these retards
 
stand with majorapplewhites and clean on this matter.

I once worked as a Committee Clerk in the House. I remember 'Sine Die' when the session closed. I worked that session fulltime... dropped out of UT for that semester to catch my breath. Ended up with the most committee meetings logged among us clerks. We had specifically assigned committees but were also available for ad hocs as well. Were headquarted at an upper level room where we hung out in case of an unscheduled committee meeting on the floor, such as under the portrait of Jim Hogg.

To pass the time between meetings we played Hearts. Good memories.
 
I have not followed this as closely as others and there was a lot I didn't know

maybe something less than 24 weeks is really keeping it more about the female's health.

but this from Larry T caught my eye
"It was other parts of the bill that would close 37 of the 42 providers if they did not make changes. "

From the news reports I thought the way the bill was written all those clinics would close period. I didn't know changes could keep them open

and did not know what the changes were

If I read it correctly the changes in the law would mean any facility performing more than 50 abortions a year would be required to meet the same standards established for all outpatient surgeries.

50 abortions a year?
Question since I do not know

Aren't abortions medically speaking even more complicated and have as many if not more risks as typical outpatient surgeries?
 
My understanding is the bill requires all clinics providing abortions to upgrade their facilities to those of an Ambulatory Sugical Center.link

I understand that requiring the upgrade of these clinics provides additional safeguards to women, a justifying argument. However, is this a necessary requirement? Have we a seen a spike in reported mishaps at these clinics in Texas? Doesn't such a requirement in effect provide a government imposed economic impediment to this commercial activity? That seems to be the intended result.

I seem to recall it also requires doctors performing such procedures to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.
 
ahhh did you not see or read about the Philadelphia situation? It may be an isolated case but as any good politico operative knows, take advantage while the skillet is hot.

Most of these abortion cliniics receive Federal and or State funds so they are not completely commercial endeavors.

There are over 300 Ambulatory locations across the state so there are actually more options than the 50 or so clinics.

Why am I even justifying this abomination of a medical practice......

Getting an abortion is not an easy choice and it should not be guided by someone who actually makes money off of the practice and their main source of income is the practice of abortion. It should be a practice of absolute last resort.
 
If I invited him into my car and he isnt hostile then I have no right to kill him.

If he forced his way in (rape) or was invited in but later tried to kill me (life of the mother), then I have the right to defend myself.

I just find the logic that a person can kill anything inside of them at any point ridiculous. What is the developmental difference between a baby 1 hour from birth and a baby one hour after birth? Not much.
 
very well said Texas ex2000. BI isn't interested in reasoning about this. he is fighting straw men while you are making good arguments that he is failing to address.
 
The fetus didnt ask to be trapped in the mother's body. It was invited into her body.

Yes, rape happens, but lets not kid ourselves. The vasst majority of pregnancies are not rape. They may be unwanted, but they are not rape in the least.

Are many pregnancies the result of poor planning? Yes. Its not the baby's fault. Killing it isnt the answer either.

And to have responsible medical standards for abortion clinics? The horror!
 
My thoughts are such:
I have zero problem with the burdensome restrictions it places on clinics. People can say “vasectomies, colonoscopies, and a whole host of other ‘surgical’ procedures are done at clinics that these requirements don’t affect” – yes, but none of those surgeries involve a potentially viable human life. Abortion is the termination of a potentially living breathing human being – to equate that to other surgical procedures is naïve and a complete and total disregard for the seriousness of what an abortion is.

I hate the death penalty, but at least we don’t just line people up and turn on “ole sparky” one after another – no, execution takes a long long time and rightly so. It’s the most serious thing that the State does and we want to make sure we get it right – and we still manage to mess it up at times (AND ITS HORRIFIC WHEN WE DO).

In the same right, if the state is ever involved in the termination of life we should take it very seriously. We should want people to be entirely informed (what abortion supporters would call “shaming”), we should want mothers to know exactly what they’re doing, and exactly what this unborn child looks like – because by the grace of God, our hope is they’ll say, “wow!! There is a heartbeat!! Nevermind!! I want to have this kid!” Is that a bad thing to want? Is it horrible to put laws in place that may encourage someone to bring a child into this world? So what if some girl has to drive 600 miles from El Paso to Houston to get an abortion - I'm glad that girl has a lot of time to think through what is about to go down, and maybe somewhere around Ft. Stockton she decides to turn the car around and have the baby.

Again, let’s throw the “safety” argument out the window – let’s pretend this bill actually wouldn’t make it more/less safer. What I’m saying is I don’t care. No one has said this, but what this bill means to me is the state of Texas saying: “We treat abortion different than any other type of medical procedure. We treat it differently, because it is the only surgical procedure in this state that terminates a potentially human life. Because of this, we think it should be held to very high standards – standards that will more than likely put the overwhelming majority of abortionists out of business. We realize this creates an unduly burden of some women, but due to the fact that we’re dealing with the termination of a potentially viable life, we are going to raise the standards by which this procedure is done.”

This bill doesn’t restrict abortion. What is does is gives abortion the level of seriousness it deserves. At the very least an unborn child deserves to be treated with a little more dignity than a colonoscopy.

Oh, and I don’t hate women, and I don’t hate anyone who is against this bill.
 
The list of procedures done in ambulatory centers is pretty long
. Actually colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures done at an Ambulatory center.


One would think people who perform, abortions would want the facility to be at least the same minimum standard.

an abortion is a bit more complicated than a colonoscopy, especially abortions after 20 weeks.
 
For the purposes of this debate, I am only arguing against abortion after the point of viability.

Another analogy. Lets say you leave your front door wide open and somebody walks in unwanted. You were stupid for leaving your door open but its still an intruder. You can shoot him. But, you cant let him stay for 20 weeks, make a home for himself, then decide to shoot him. A pregnant person may not have consented to being pregnant at the point of conception, but they certainly have consented by the point of viability.
 
My mother in law comes over all of the time. My wife invites her. However, she is unwanted.

In Lefty world, nothing is ever the individual's fault or responsibility.
 
Larry, what do you consider the point of viability? I only ask because I think I agree with you, but there appear to be several points of view on when this viability is reached.
 
Viability is a poor distinction. Many adults are not viable without different medical equipment or pharmaceuticals. Myself being a case of that. We are all dependent in some way or another. I understand a baby still in the womb is developing physically but in the same sense of me being viable babies are viable at 20 weeks. They just are. They may need more care, but they are viable. Just like many elderly. It doesn't make someone less human or worthy of respect.

Another issue that is brought up frequently is personhood. It is a subject I am thinking about right now because my wife is pregnant with our third child. I've already seen the beating heart at about 10 weeks. Now at 16 weeks we will find out the gender. Not too long after that the baby will have a name. That's a person. Everything but the name is independent of the minds of my wife and I. The name is just a recognition of what is already there, a person who is 16 weeks old, whether wanted or unwanted. In this case wanted.

And for those of the Libertarian persuasion, many of these abortions are done using taxpayer money. It's another thing the country is paying for that we don't have the money for. Yes, children cost money too, I know. The answer to that is find a job, take your tax exemptions, cancel the trip to Cancun or spend less on shoes, and raise the person who you created. Or to use a poor analogy, the person who walked into your house and is unwanted can be shown the door. There are other people who want the person to live in their house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top