Roe is dead

Mr. Deez said:
I'm not sure. Why weren't similar qualifiers used when talking about Christine Blasey Ford's allegation or about the initial reports on Kyle Rittenhouse or George Zimmerman or Michael Brown? It's not that your criticism of Jordan isn't a fair one. It is, but you all have no credibility on the matter. Playboy might be a dirty magazine, but the criticism would ring hollow coming from Larry Flynt. Same goes for this.
Click to expand...
Quit being reasonable. And polite. Some could learn from your behavior. :)
 
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/14/texas-sues-biden-administration-over-abortion-rule.html

  • Texas on Thursday asked a federal court to block the Biden administration’s requirement that physicians and hospitals provide abortions in medical emergencies.
  • The lawsuit comes three days after Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra warned hospitals and physicians that they are required to provide abortions in medical emergencies where it is the necessary treatment to protect the life of a pregnant woman.
  • Although most of the state abortion bans make exceptions for when the woman’s life is in danger, U.S. health officials worry that wary doctors could wait too long to treat ectopic pregnancies and complications from miscarriages while awaiting legal guidance.
And now for the nitty-gritty legal issues at play in this suit:
  • Becerra said the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act pre-empts state laws that restrict abortion access in emergency situations. But Paxton said the law does not mandate any specific treatment, arguing that the HHS requirement is unlawful, unconstitutional and unenforceable.
 
Question:

in Catholic hospitals, if a competent licensed physician makes a medical determination that he must abort or the mother dies, will an abortion be performed in a Catholic hospital? Or do they let the mother die? Or do they let both mother and baby die? Or it a case-by-case, hospital-by-hospital, diocese-by-diocese determination?
 
Chop said:
Question:

in Catholic hospitals, if a competent licensed physician makes a medical determination that he must abort or the mother dies, will an abortion be performed in a Catholic hospital? Or do they let the mother die? Or do they let both mother and baby die? Or it a case-by-case, hospital-by-hospital, diocese-by-diocese determination?
Click to expand...
Sangre Naranjada said:
Here is the Catholic teaching on ectopic pregnancy, and includes the Catholic perspective on the life of the mother vs that of the child.
_____________________________
Moral actions that produce two effects need to be evaluated under the Catholic understanding of the principle of double effect:
  1. The action must be either morally good or neutral.
  2. The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
  3. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect; the bad effect can in no way be intended and must be avoided if possible.
  4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in proportion to the bad effect.
An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized ovum implants in the fallopian tube or in some other location. A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube, and thus, there exists a danger to the lives of both the mother and the child.

Removing the fallopian tube is considered in accordance with the principle of double effect:
  1. Removing a part of the body that is about to rupture and cause the death of the individual is a morally good action.
  2. The death of the child is not the direct intention of the procedure. It is the removal of the fallopian tube that saves the life of the mother, not causes the death of the child.
  3. The death of the child is not willed and would be avoided if at all possible—if, for example, re-implantation in the womb were reasonably possible.
  4. The life of the mother is, of course, equal to the life of the child.
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Deez said:
A few things can be true at the same time even if they support conflicting political narratives. First, Biden and others are wrong to exploit a child rape victim for partisan political purposes. Second, there never should have been an abortion or a pregnancy because the guy who did it shouldn't have been in the country. Third, Republicans shouldn't be exploiting his immigration status for partisan political purposes. Nobody looks good in this. Fourth, it isn't crazy that people didn't take the initial media reports of the story as fact. When politically-charged stories are reported, the media bullshits and lies all the time. Why should anyone have been summarily believed?
Click to expand...
Recall Trump was called a racist for saying illegal immigrants had rapists among them. Is this no longer in dispute now?
 
mchammer said:
Recall Trump was called a racist for saying illegal immigrants had rapists among them. Is this no longer in dispute now?
Click to expand...

Lol. Trump never spoke that precisely when off teleprompter. It was never in dispute, but he didn't say there were rapists among them. Those are your carefully-crafted and correct words (since there are rapists among every large group of humans). His exact words were, "they're rapists."

The Left would have attacked him as a racist either way, because that's one of the big tools in their shed. (Keep in mind that Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George W. Bush were supposedly racists too.) However, Trump's sloppy rhetoric made it harder to defend him on that.
 
Chop said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/14/texas-sues-biden-administration-over-abortion-rule.html

  • Texas on Thursday asked a federal court to block the Biden administration’s requirement that physicians and hospitals provide abortions in medical emergencies.
  • The lawsuit comes three days after Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra warned hospitals and physicians that they are required to provide abortions in medical emergencies where it is the necessary treatment to protect the life of a pregnant woman.
  • Although most of the state abortion bans make exceptions for when the woman’s life is in danger, U.S. health officials worry that wary doctors could wait too long to treat ectopic pregnancies and complications from miscarriages while awaiting legal guidance.
And now for the nitty-gritty legal issues at play in this suit:
  • Becerra said the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act pre-empts state laws that restrict abortion access in emergency situations. But Paxton said the law does not mandate any specific treatment, arguing that the HHS requirement is unlawful, unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Click to expand...

A few things to unpack here. Obviously, the devil is in the details. I haven't read the specifics of the federal mandate, but if it truly only requires abortion when it's necessary to save the mother during a medical emergency, then it's consistent with state law. No legal reason to sue.

Also, it's not really a mandate. It's a condition of receiving federal Medicare and Medicaid money. They can probably preempt state law on that if it's properly enacted.

However, does Becerra have authority to pull this out of his *** rather than through an act of Congress? That's another question, and since we now have a Supreme Court that is less sympathetic to regulatory bullies unilaterally enacting laws without clear authority, it's hard to say what might become of this sort of thing.
 
The story of the 10 yo girl gets hinkier.
Apparently the abortion activist Dr. In Indiana did report the rape on July 2.
Glenn Kessler of WaPo searched every child protection agency in Ohio where the rape happened and found no report. The Ohio AG found no report.
Why wouldn't the Ohio Dr report the rape? She was a Dr specializing in child abuse so she certainly knew the law.
Really hinky
 
Horn6721 said:
The story of the 10 yo girl gets hinkier.
Apparently the abortion activist Dr. In Indiana did report the rape on July 2.
Glenn Kessler of WaPo searched every child protection agency in Ohio where the rape happened and found no report. The Ohio AG found no report.
Why wouldn't the Ohio Dr report the rape? She was a Dr specializing in child abuse so she certainly knew the law.
Really hinky
Click to expand...
You have to read things. From the link I provided: "As it turns out, the girl's mother had reported the rape to Franklin County's Children Services agency, which referred a complaint to Columbus police on June 22nd, according to Detective Huhn's testimony Wednesday." The doctor wasn't contacted from Ohio until June 27th.

Could there be confusion in Ohio if the procedure was illegal? Certainly. However, given that the Indiana AG is making noise about charging the Indiana doc highlights that there's a place for docs to be paranoid about boundaries.
 
OUBubba said:
Could there be confusion in Ohio if the procedure was illegal? Certainly. However, given that the Indiana AG is making noise about charging the Indiana doc highlights that there's a place for docs to be paranoid about boundaries.
Click to expand...
I would be more inclined to run with the media not accurately reporting the facts as they all trip over themselves trying to be the first with some twitter link clickbait.
 
As I said this is a hinky story
Why couldn't either Glenn Kessler of WaPo or AG of Ohio find the report said to have been filed June 23? If it was on file how could neither find it?
Since the report was allegedly filed June 23 and the child named the rapist why did it take the police 17 days to arrest a named rapist of a confirmed pregnant 10 yo child? The arrest came after the story was reported by the Indiana Abortion Activist.
Why didn't the Ohio child abuse specialist Dr report the rape pregnancy as required by law.
Why didn't the Ohio Dr do the abortion or send her to somewhere else in Columbus area?

Hinky stuff
 
Horn6721 said:
As I said this is a hinky story
Why couldn't either Glenn Kessler of WaPo or AG of Ohio find the report said to have been filed June 23? If it was on file how could neither find it?
Since the report was allegedly filed June 23 and the child named the rapist why did it take the police 17 days to arrest a named rapist of a confirmed pregnant 10 yo child? The arrest came after the story was reported by the Indiana Abortion Activist.
Why didn't the Ohio child abuse specialist Dr report the rape pregnancy as required by law.
Why didn't the Ohio Dr do the abortion or send her to somewhere else in Columbus area?

Hinky stuff
Click to expand...

It's hard as hell to find out what the truth is.
 
Don't flame me.

I would put the law for an abortion window to be a week prior to the earliest known surviving premature born baby on record. And that is with all fingers and toes.
 
Horn6721 said:
As I said this is a hinky story
Why couldn't either Glenn Kessler of WaPo or AG of Ohio find the report said to have been filed June 23? If it was on file how could neither find it?
Since the report was allegedly filed June 23 and the child named the rapist why did it take the police 17 days to arrest a named rapist of a confirmed pregnant 10 yo child? The arrest came after the story was reported by the Indiana Abortion Activist.
Why didn't the Ohio child abuse specialist Dr report the rape pregnancy as required by law.
Why didn't the Ohio Dr do the abortion or send her to somewhere else in Columbus area?

Hinky stuff
Click to expand...
There's medication for this. I think you're so hung up on making this "hinky" that you're missing the details. The story says that "the girl's mother had reported the rape to Franklin County's Children Services agency, which referred a complaint to Columbus police on June 22nd, according to Detective Huhn's testimony Wednesday. According to Huhn, the abortion took place in Indianapolis on June 30 - the day before the article about her plight was posted by the Star." I think you missed the word "testimony". Now, he was either explaining to those assembled how the Lord has made a change in his heart or he was under oath providing information in response to questions, likely, at a hearing of some sort.

Yes, an arraignment. Columbus man charged in rape of 10-year-old that led to abortion

So, you're throwing around "allegedly" like it's Rudy Gulliani outside of Four Seasons Total Landscaping talking about bamboo ballots. A detective was under oath. They received a confession in pretty short work. It appears that they system worked.
 
bystander said:
Don't flame me.

I would put the law for an abortion window to be a week prior to the earliest known surviving premature born baby on record. And that is with all fingers and toes.
Click to expand...
I think 70% of your co-Americans would agree. The other 30% would disagree violently.
 
bystander said:
Don't flame me.

I would put the law for an abortion window to be a week prior to the earliest known surviving premature born baby on record. And that is with all fingers and toes.
Click to expand...
From what i can find that puts it at about 5 months. Many have used 20 weeks as their standard for the cutoff. I don't find this entirely unreasonable as a compromise point IN A DEMOCRACY. I would personally make it about 10 weeks if I were king-for-a-day(henceforth known as KFAD) but given that we are in a democracy and there are many, many people that would like it to be much later than 20 weeks, I think a 20 week ban would be acceptable by most. If the GOP doesn't adopt a strategy of on compromise on this, it is going to lose us many elections. and when we lose those elections we are going to lose the ability to hold sway on much more than just abortion. I have a preference on abortion, but I'm not willing to let abortion be the sword that the party and the rest of our conservative issues dies on.
 
Don't compromise on the lives of infants. Plus Republican compromise for the last 100 years is why the Left is pushing for toddlers to see and touch drag queen genitalia today. Don't be afraid of standing up for what is true and right. Even California voted down gay marriage when given a chance. Americans are much more reasonable and normal. They won't have any problem with saying, "Oh the baby has a heart beat we can see? Don't kill it. That would be icky." Don't compromise with demons who are callous.
 
Monahorns said:
Don't compromise on the lives of infants. Plus Republican compromise for the last 100 years is why the Left is pushing for toddlers to see and touch drag queen genitalia today. Don't be afraid of standing up for what is true and right. Even California voted down gay marriage when given a chance. Americans are much more reasonable and normal. They won't have any problem with saying, "Oh the baby has a heart beat we can see? Don't kill it. That would be icky." Don't compromise with demons who are callous.
Click to expand...
so then you have to ask yourself...are you more committed to your anti-abortion stance or to democracy. Because about 85% of the citizens in this country disagree with your position of zero tolerance.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
so then you have to ask yourself...are you more committed to your anti-abortion stance or to democracy. Because about 85% of the citizens in this country disagree with your position of zero tolerance.
Click to expand...
Well, by that logic, he can be committed to that because his vote/stance will not overrule the majority vote. Right?
 
nashhorn said:
I don’t see 10 weeks as zero tolerance - but that’s just me I suppose.
Click to expand...
I don't either but i didn't think 10 weeks was his position. I interpreted some of what he said as much closer to a zero tolerance position. If I put words in his mouth, that was unintentional.
 
BOSDe, you push for what you can get on a state by state basis. Sometimes that'll be 20 weeks. Sometimes it'll be 10 weeks. Sometimes it'll be 6 weeks.
 
horninchicago said:
Well, by that logic, he can be committed to that because his vote/stance will not overrule the majority vote. Right?
Click to expand...
i guess that is the nuance of advocating on a board like this. I'm debating that position (zero tolerance) as though he had KFAD power. it is often posited as a "litmus test" sort of position for a "true republican". I'm simply stating that it is a political position that will lose us many elections. If the GOP doesn't allow for compromise on this within our ranks then we will lose more elections.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
so then you have to ask yourself...are you more committed to your anti-abortion stance or to democracy. Because about 85% of the citizens in this country disagree with your position of zero tolerance.
Click to expand...

I am more committed to the life of infants. Democracy if not based on what is true and right is basically mob brutality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top