Interesante....
Gawker Article (http://gawker.com/internet-catches-texas-senate-altering-timestamp-on-abo-584135789)
QuoteAfter a half-day filibuster that was controversially halted by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Republicans in the Texas Senate scrambled to quickly pass the equally controversial abortion bill SB5, but were halted themselves by two hours of motions and parliamentary inquiries from Democrats trying to run out the clock on Gov. Rick Perry's special session.
In the end, it all came down to a last-minute vote that could barely be heard over the din of cheers from pro-choice activists gathered in the gallery.
But where did that last minute fall — before or after the bill's midnight deadline?
Shortly after 10 PM CDT, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, in hour 11 of her historic filibuster to prevent an anti-abortion bill from passing, The Associated Press and several other large media outlets initially reported that the bill had passed, taking Lt. Gov. Dewhurst's word that the vote was taken "just before" 12 AM.
But Democratic State Senators and the tens of thousands who witnessed the vote live on a YouTube stream were skeptical.
As well they should have been.
Screengrabs of the official SB5 results page captured by several wonks clearly show the record vote was called after midnight local time, and was therefore dated 6/26.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.gawkerassets.com%2Fimg%2F18s0ij1qrr9qdjpg%2Fku-xlarge.jpg&hash=5fc6df558bb2cbd6d103741c49326474162558d0)
But seconds later the results page was suddenly taken down, and when it returned, the vote's date had miraculously been altered to make it seem as though it had been cast in time — on 6/25.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.gawkerassets.com%2Fimg%2F18s0ijtda4z6ljpg%2Fku-xlarge.jpg&hash=d68d77c7550d12fcf91c64ea1850d612ce0db126)
So what happened? Did someone tamper with official state documents? It would seem so, and that's a crime.
As Technology Policy Analyst Kathy Gill notes over at The Moderate Vote:
QuoteIn my experience (I've done web work since 1993 or so), pages like this one are automatically generated from a database file. In other words, a person doesn't code the page.
In order to change something like this, someone has to change the database. And things like votes and official times, they're often (usually?) automatically generated also.
In other words, changes like this are deliberate.
Ultimately, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst conceded that the vote was three minutes too late, and SB5 was pronounced dead. But that doesn't mean it won't rise again. In fact, it almost certainly will. And when it does, will the same people still be watching to make sure the official voting record keeps
This came up on Facebook in a post by a guy from Canada named Karsten School. Here's his post:
QuoteLast night something very important happened down in Texas, something that if you weren't following as it happened, you're probably not going to hear the whole truth about. I was one of the people who was in the right place to watch, and so I'm now going to try to pass on the word as best I can. I'm tagging some of you at the bottom, people who I think should read this. Apologies for anyone who fi...nds this disruptive.
The Texas senate voted yesterday on an bill that essentially would have closed nearly every abortion clinic in the state. To try to counter the bill (which was heavily supported by the Republican majority, senator Wendy Davis attempted a one-woman day-long filibuster, during which time she spoke on the subject while going without food, water, bathroom breaks or being allowed to sit down or even lean on her table for support. She lasted nearly eleven hours before being ruled off topic on a technicality. A second female senator then stepped up and tried to continue the filibuster by asking for salient points to be repeated to her, as she missed part of the session that day to attend her father's funeral.
But here's where things get interesting. With fifteen minutes before the midnight deadline, the lieutenant governor ordered the senate to proceed, and actually had the democrats' microphones cut off. The spectators in the assembly responded by cheering, chanting and generally causing a ruckus, in order to drown out attempts at a vote. The midnight deadline passed without a vote being taken, but the chair held a vote after midnight, as the spectators were forced out of the assembly. During all of this, there was no coverage on MSNBC, CNN or any other major news network, with the only coverage coming from a livestream set up by the Teas Tribune.
At 12:15, the Associated Press ran a story saying the bill had passed, which CBS picked up. This was based on a sole source, which the AP later admitted was a republican senator. Meanwhile in the chambers, the senators stood around, both sides confused if the vote had even happened, if they had even voted on the correct issue. The chair had left with the lieutenant governor without ending the session. The Tribune's feed was cut at 12:20 with 70,000 people watching. CNN at this point was talking about the deliciousness of muffins.
Outside in the halls of the senate building, thousands of people were packed wall to wall, chanting "shame, shame", while thousands more were outside. State police had formed a barricade around the entrance hall, and were making sporadic arrests (50 or so by night's end) and confiscating cameras. In the thick of it was a guy named Christopher Dido, who used his cell phone and a live stream to report on what was happening. He was the only journalist in America who was filming at the senate, with as many as 30,000 people watching the stream at one time, and over 200,000 viewers by night's end. He did this while the state police surrounded the protesters in the building, some of them with nightsticks drawn. The police at this time refused to let through food or water that people tried to send in, instead eating and drinking it themselves. They also barricaded access to vending machines and water fountains within the building, and were said to have blocked off access to the washrooms for at least a period of time. Meanwhile, journalists still inside the chambers tweeted out news updates, which were disseminated and retweeted by people like Matt Fraction, Felicia Day and Will Wheaton, reaching an audience that would otherwise have probably not seen or heard what happened next.
The senate was recalled 90 minutes after its midnight end point, to determine whether or not the vote was valid- behind closed doors with no microphones, and only the Senate's own muted camera. Then something disturbing happened. The senate website carries the official record of the caucus. It listed the vote as happening past midnight, on June 26th. Until suddenly it didn't. The date was quietly manually changed to 6/25, the minutes altered to say the vote happened at 11:59, despite almost 200,000 people watching live who saw differently. Suddenly twitter and other social media sites blew up with before-and-after screen shots. Inside the closed sessions, the democrats were made aware of the alterations and brought them up- without social media, almost no one would have known, and never in time. Ultimately, based on the fraudulent alterations, the GOP conceded defeat, admitting the vote had taken place at 12:03, and declaring the bill to be dead. When this happened, the AP and CBS said the vote was overturned, never admitting to shoddy journalism. CNN ignored the story until this morning, because muffins take priority.
Yesterday, I witnessed women's rights under fire, a crippled legal system that didn't represent its people, a corrupt government body attempting to commit a crime in front of hundreds of thousands of witnesses, and the complete failure of the main stream media. I also witnessed a woman performing a nearly superhuman act to do what was right, the power of the people making themselves heard both in person and online, and the extraordinary value of one young man with a cellphone making sure people saw and heard the truth about what was going on.
Anyone reading the papers or watching network news today won't get the full story. Hopefully enough people saw it unfold live, that the lessons from last night won't be forgotten.
This is difficult to adjudicate. On the one hand, the bill brings up some good points. After all, you have to draw the limit as to what to abort somewhere, and it's not a bad idea to set high standards as to the sort of places that do them, seeing as it is a somewhat dangerous procedure, and you want to avoid the sort of nonsense like that guy in Philadelphia or whatever. But at the same time, you know that the Republicans weren't concerned one iota with the safety of anyone. The point was to close abortion clinics. Truly two loathsome groups of people here.
They're already preparing another vote. The GOP will get their bill through. What are the odds of a democratic majority any time soon?
QuotePerry Calls Another Special Session on Abortion
(Newser) – Will Wendy Davis bust out her pink tennis shoes again? Texas Gov. Rick Perry has called another special legislative session beginning July 1 to put in place stringent new abortion restrictions statewide, reports the Dallas Morning News. Davis famously foiled him the first time around with a 12-plus-hour filibuster last night that helped run out the clock on the special session. (She got some late help from boisterous supporters after Republicans called her on a rules violation.)
No word yet on whether Democrat Davis plans another filibuster, but Perry vows that "we will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do." Abortion isn't the only topic on the agenda for the 30-day special session, but this time Perry plans to have it addressed immediately instead of waiting until the end. The tough new abortion rules would outlaw the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy and effectively shut down most of the state's clinics, reports AP.
Will their bill survive federal lawsuits?
Quote from: HVC on June 26, 2013, 05:52:47 PM
They're already preparing another vote. The GOP will get their bill through. What are the odds of a democratic majority any time soon?
10-15 years away. Not anytime soon.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2013, 05:55:57 PM
QuotePerry Calls Another Special Session on Abortion
(Newser) – Will Wendy Davis bust out her pink tennis shoes again? Texas Gov. Rick Perry has called another special legislative session beginning July 1 to put in place stringent new abortion restrictions statewide, reports the Dallas Morning News. Davis famously foiled him the first time around with a 12-plus-hour filibuster last night that helped run out the clock on the special session. (She got some late help from boisterous supporters after Republicans called her on a rules violation.)
No word yet on whether Democrat Davis plans another filibuster, but Perry vows that "we will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do." Abortion isn't the only topic on the agenda for the 30-day special session, but this time Perry plans to have it addressed immediately instead of waiting until the end. The tough new abortion rules would outlaw the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy and effectively shut down most of the state's clinics, reports AP.
Ah love having Mr. Corruption and Cronyism lecture people on decency.
Somebody has to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:31:18 AM
Somebody has to.
Well if somebody had managed that special session half-way competently maybe somebody wouldn't need to whine at the indecency.
As long as it's about guns, fetuses and Mexicans, Texans are happy.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 10:32:42 AM
Well if somebody had managed that special session half-way competently maybe somebody wouldn't need to whine at the indecency.
Whether that's true or not, screaming and hooting to prevent a vote is not something civilized people do. It's a Bolshevik tactic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
Whether that's true or not, screaming and hooting to prevent a vote is not something civilized people do. It's a Bolshevik tactic.
Yes, it's much more American to just slam it home in a special session, hoping no one's paying attention.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:31:18 AM
Somebody has to.
The same guy who immediately then probably broke a law by forging his own legislators data?
Funny the things you choose to be outraged about, and the things you allow to pass without comment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
Whether that's true or not, screaming and hooting to prevent a vote is not something civilized people do. It's a Bolshevik tactic.
Yeah those protestors did not show up to be civilized. What was idiotic is not knowing they would show up.
Bolshevik tactic? :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 10:37:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
Whether that's true or not, screaming and hooting to prevent a vote is not something civilized people do. It's a Bolshevik tactic.
Yes, it's much more American to just slam it home in a special session, hoping no one's paying attention.
And if that doesn't work, just forge the results. Not a problem!
Hell, if you are willing to simply forge the results, why, you can get all kinds of great legislation passed!
Guys please. Try to show some decency.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 10:44:36 AM
Yeah those protestors did not show up to be civilized. What was idiotic is not knowing they would show up.
Bolshevik tactic? :lol:
I think they used it once or twice in their wranglings with Mensheviks and/or Cadets.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:46:56 AM
I think they used it once or twice in their wranglings with Mensheviks and/or Cadets.
I am sure they did many things but having loud boisterous crowds for votes on controversial bills is hardly unique to them.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 10:48:30 AM
I am sure they did many things but having loud boisterous crowds for votes on controversial bills is hardly unique to them.
Probably not. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about a loud and boisterous crowd *preventing* a vote.
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2013, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 10:37:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
Whether that's true or not, screaming and hooting to prevent a vote is not something civilized people do. It's a Bolshevik tactic.
Yes, it's much more American to just slam it home in a special session, hoping no one's paying attention.
And if that doesn't work, just forge the results. Not a problem!
Hell, if you are willing to simply forge the results, why, you can get all kinds of great legislation passed!
But it's for TEH BABIES
Governor Perry on Senator Wendy Davis: She was teenage mother herself and it's unfortunate she hasn't learned from her own example.
Way to go Governor Decency! Though...I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 11:00:55 AM
Governor Perry on Senator Wendy Davis: She was teenage mother herself and it's unfortunate she hasn't learned from her own example.
Way to go Governor Decency! Though...I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean.
:hmm: Yeah. So she should have aborted?
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 11:00:55 AM
Governor Perry on Senator Wendy Davis: She was teenage mother herself and it's unfortunate she hasn't learned from her own example.
Way to go Governor Decency! Though...I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean.
:lol: No, there's absolutely no misogyny involved in curtailing women's reproductive rights at all.
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 11:01:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 11:00:55 AM
Governor Perry on Senator Wendy Davis: She was teenage mother herself and it's unfortunate she hasn't learned from her own example.
Way to go Governor Decency! Though...I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean.
:hmm: Yeah. So she should have aborted?
She should have realized from her own experience that a teenaged mom can never amount to anything.
I mean, really. A
Texas senator? Couldn't she get a decent job at Wal-mart or something? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 10:44:36 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
Whether that's true or not, screaming and hooting to prevent a vote is not something civilized people do. It's a Bolshevik tactic.
Yeah those protestors did not show up to be civilized. What was idiotic is not knowing they would show up.
Bolshevik tactic? :lol:
If lumberjack tactics are the only thing they understand, then we will use lumber jack tactics on them.
What does the bill actually do?
Says that you can only perform abortions in surgical clinics.
Effectively shuts down all but 5 abortion providers in the state.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 10:32:42 AM
Well if somebody had managed that special session half-way competently maybe somebody wouldn't need to whine at the indecency.
Whether that's true or not, screaming and hooting to prevent a vote is not something civilized people do. It's a Bolshevik tactic.
When did Bolsheviks shout and hoo to prevent a vote?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2013, 11:13:50 AM
What does the bill actually do?
It's a combination of several provisions that failed under an omnibus 2/3rds vote in the regular session; legal ban criminalizing abortions after 20 weeks, and forcing clinics to adhere to a variety of post facto ambulatory and structural guidelines that would shut down the number of clinics from 47 to 5, like requiring clinics to be within 30 miles of a hospital.
All in all, it's a very enlightened bill.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2013, 11:19:00 AM
When did Bolsheviks shout and hoo to prevent a vote?
I don't know. In the afternoon?
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2013, 11:16:56 AM
Says that you can only perform abortions in surgical clinics.
Effectively shuts down all but 5 abortion providers in the state.
The noose is tightening. It will be very easy to protest and harrass anybody using the remaining 5.
I would feel much better about it if they were also working to provide cheap birth control and contraceptives to poor women so as to help make abortions less necessary...but naturally they have been attacking those programs as well. Which is just lunacy from a public policy perspective. Under Governor Perry our public education spending, and other programs for children, have been in a state of constant crisis and he has done little besides hammer anybody who has tried to address the problem (including his own Lt. Governor). So I am not exactly sure what the plan is besides see if we can have as many children in poverty with as few educational opportunities and as poor health care as possible. Seems a recipe for social disaster, I am not sure what they are thinking.
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2013, 11:16:56 AM
Says that you can only perform abortions in surgical clinics.
Effectively shuts down all but 5 abortion providers in the state.
I'm not sure that's really so bad. Something that seems ignored in these debates is the fact that in Europe there are a lot of restrictions on abortions, especially after 12 weeks, and they are rarely performed in clinic settings like in the United States. No one ever argues that Europe is an anti-choice continent, so I don't actually think a tightening of abortion restrictions is such a bad thing. They should be moved to surgical clinics and hospitals. The reason they are done in small Planned Parenthood clinics and outpatient centers in the United States is primarily because hospitals and the better doctors that work in them and have privileges with hospitals don't want to touch abortion. It's too much trouble and they make better money doing other stuff that doesn't involve walking through a picket line every day at work.
Just have the government take over Planned Parenthood and have them run a network of member doctors who can do the procedure in hospitals around the country and you fix all the access problems and get rid of our provincial clinic system.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2013, 11:25:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2013, 11:16:56 AM
Says that you can only perform abortions in surgical clinics.
Effectively shuts down all but 5 abortion providers in the state.
I'm not sure that's really so bad. Something that seems ignored in these debates is the fact that in Europe there are a lot of restrictions on abortions, especially after 12 weeks, and they are rarely performed in clinic settings like in the United States. No one ever argues that Europe is an anti-choice continent, so I don't actually think a tightening of abortion restrictions is such a bad thing. They should be moved to surgical clinics and hospitals. The reason they are done in small Planned Parenthood clinics and outpatient centers in the United States is primarily because hospitals and the better doctors that work in them and have privileges with hospitals don't want to touch abortion. It's too much trouble and they make better money doing other stuff that doesn't involve walking through a picket line every day at work.
Just have the government take over Planned Parenthood and have them run a network of member doctors who can do the procedure in hospitals around the country and you fix all the access problems and get rid of our provincial clinic system.
You say that as if the state - in particular, the state of TEXAS - actually:
a) Cares about the health of these women
b) Wants to fix access problems
c) Has any interest whatsoever in preventing poor women from having children (See: Valmy's post)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2013, 11:25:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2013, 11:16:56 AM
Says that you can only perform abortions in surgical clinics.
Effectively shuts down all but 5 abortion providers in the state.
I'm not sure that's really so bad. Something that seems ignored in these debates is the fact that in Europe there are a lot of restrictions on abortions, especially after 12 weeks, and they are rarely performed in clinic settings like in the United States. No one ever argues that Europe is an anti-choice continent, so I don't actually think a tightening of abortion restrictions is such a bad thing. They should be moved to surgical clinics and hospitals. The reason they are done in small Planned Parenthood clinics and outpatient centers in the United States is primarily because hospitals and the better doctors that work in them and have privileges with hospitals don't want to touch abortion. It's too much trouble and they make better money doing other stuff that doesn't involve walking through a picket line every day at work.
Just have the government take over Planned Parenthood and have them run a network of member doctors who can do the procedure in hospitals around the country and you fix all the access problems and get rid of our provincial clinic system.
My major problem with the bill isn't the >20 week restriction. There are so few abortions past that point it's almost irrelevant. And most of those cases are fetuses with severe genetic defects who are probably going to die quickly anyway when nature takes its course post-partum. The bigger issue is the surgical center requirement.
You don't need to be in a surgical center for a medically induced abortion on an early term pregnancy. It's ridiculous. When someone miscarries the natural way they are allowed to do so in the privacy of their own home. A clinic is sufficient. You're married to an ob/gyn right? Hopefully this shit is making her livid.
The five remaining centers aren't going to be able to handle the volume. And a lot of women seeking an abortion aren't going to be able to make the trips. For example Odessa/Midland and Lubbock each had one PP clinic that could do abortions. Now the nearest facility will be 6 hours away in Dallas, assuming you can even get an appointment. Hurrah for more unwanted births! I'm sure it'll do great things for society.
The other problem with this bill is requiring a physician to have admitting privileges at a hospital. They don't have them now in communities like the one I live in because there are no permanent OB/gyns in the area who provide abortions. PP staffs their clinics with rotating physicians from out of town so that the batshit crazies can't protest their homes / harass their kids & spouse / disrupt utheir general OB/gyn practice.
Quote from: Fate on June 27, 2013, 01:40:02 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2013, 11:25:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2013, 11:16:56 AM
Says that you can only perform abortions in surgical clinics.
Effectively shuts down all but 5 abortion providers in the state.
I'm not sure that's really so bad. Something that seems ignored in these debates is the fact that in Europe there are a lot of restrictions on abortions, especially after 12 weeks, and they are rarely performed in clinic settings like in the United States. No one ever argues that Europe is an anti-choice continent, so I don't actually think a tightening of abortion restrictions is such a bad thing. They should be moved to surgical clinics and hospitals. The reason they are done in small Planned Parenthood clinics and outpatient centers in the United States is primarily because hospitals and the better doctors that work in them and have privileges with hospitals don't want to touch abortion. It's too much trouble and they make better money doing other stuff that doesn't involve walking through a picket line every day at work.
Just have the government take over Planned Parenthood and have them run a network of member doctors who can do the procedure in hospitals around the country and you fix all the access problems and get rid of our provincial clinic system.
My major problem with the bill isn't the >20 week restriction. There are so few abortions past that point it's almost irrelevant. And most of those cases are fetuses with severe genetic defects who are probably going to die quickly anyway when nature takes its course post-partum. The bigger issue is the surgical center requirement.
You don't need to be in a surgical center for a medically induced abortion on an early term pregnancy. It's ridiculous. When someone miscarries the natural way they are allowed to do so in the privacy of their own home. A clinic is sufficient. You're married to an ob/gyn right? Hopefully this shit is making her livid.
The five remaining centers aren't going to be able to handle the volume. And a lot of women seeking an abortion aren't going to be able to make the trips. For example Odessa/Midland and Lubbock each had one PP clinic that could do abortions. Now the nearest facility will be 6 hours away in Dallas, assuming you can even get an appointment. Hurrah for more unwanted births! I'm sure it'll do great things for society.
Surgical centres - this one came up in the Kermit Gosnell trial. During a routine abortion , no it's fine, but it's not unheard of for there to be serous complications. A "natural" abortion is "allowed" to happen at home because they rarely know what's happening until it's too late.
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 01:51:09 PM
Quote from: Fate on June 27, 2013, 01:40:02 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2013, 11:25:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2013, 11:16:56 AM
Says that you can only perform abortions in surgical clinics.
Effectively shuts down all but 5 abortion providers in the state.
I'm not sure that's really so bad. Something that seems ignored in these debates is the fact that in Europe there are a lot of restrictions on abortions, especially after 12 weeks, and they are rarely performed in clinic settings like in the United States. No one ever argues that Europe is an anti-choice continent, so I don't actually think a tightening of abortion restrictions is such a bad thing. They should be moved to surgical clinics and hospitals. The reason they are done in small Planned Parenthood clinics and outpatient centers in the United States is primarily because hospitals and the better doctors that work in them and have privileges with hospitals don't want to touch abortion. It's too much trouble and they make better money doing other stuff that doesn't involve walking through a picket line every day at work.
Just have the government take over Planned Parenthood and have them run a network of member doctors who can do the procedure in hospitals around the country and you fix all the access problems and get rid of our provincial clinic system.
My major problem with the bill isn't the >20 week restriction. There are so few abortions past that point it's almost irrelevant. And most of those cases are fetuses with severe genetic defects who are probably going to die quickly anyway when nature takes its course post-partum. The bigger issue is the surgical center requirement.
You don't need to be in a surgical center for a medically induced abortion on an early term pregnancy. It's ridiculous. When someone miscarries the natural way they are allowed to do so in the privacy of their own home. A clinic is sufficient. You're married to an ob/gyn right? Hopefully this shit is making her livid.
The five remaining centers aren't going to be able to handle the volume. And a lot of women seeking an abortion aren't going to be able to make the trips. For example Odessa/Midland and Lubbock each had one PP clinic that could do abortions. Now the nearest facility will be 6 hours away in Dallas, assuming you can even get an appointment. Hurrah for more unwanted births! I'm sure it'll do great things for society.
Surgical centres - this one came up in the Kermit Gosnell trial. During a routine abortion , no it's fine, but it's not unheard of for there to be serous complications. A "natural" abortion is "allowed" to happen at home because they rarely know what's happening until it's too late.
No, they usually do know well before hand. The process takes many hours. They usually come into the ER bleeding through their fun hole. We stick a speculum in their fun hole and observe an open cervix. We tell them they have something called an incomplete abortion and that their pregnancy is non-viable. We give them some pills to help speed the expulsion process along. They go home. Conceptus is expelled. We don't admit them to a surgical center for observation.
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2013, 10:46:15 AMAnd if that doesn't work, just forge the results. Not a problem!
Hell, if you are willing to simply forge the results, why, you can get all kinds of great legislation passed!
That sounds like something Bolsheviks might do...
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2013, 11:25:14 AMJust have the government take over Planned Parenthood and have them run a network of member doctors who can do the procedure in hospitals around the country and you fix all the access problems and get rid of our provincial clinic system.
Somehow I don't think that's going to happen in Texas.
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
That sounds like something Bolsheviks might do...
Exactly. Both are undemocratic. Yet it seems only one is objectionable.
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 01:51:09 PM
Surgical centres - this one came up in the Kermit Gosnell trial. During a routine abortion , no it's fine, but it's not unheard of for there to be serous complications.
Then call an ambulance if there's a complication. A doctor doesn't need admitting privileges for that from their office. Why do they need it for this?
QuoteA "natural" abortion is "allowed" to happen at home because they rarely know what's happening until it's too late.
You're joking, right? When I lost my son at 17 weeks, they were more than happy to send me home to "wait it out" for up to six weeks while we waited for him to die and be expelled "naturally". (My water broke.) Luckily, my doctor took pity on me because of my three toddlers at home and did a D&C instead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 02:32:20 PMExactly. Both are undemocratic. Yet it seems only one is objectionable.
Let me guess which one you find objectionable: the people supporting the filibuster in Texas?
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 02:43:57 PM
Let me guess which one you find objectionable: the people supporting the filibuster in Texas?
A better guess would be the two that I called undemocratic.
"Supporting the filibuster" is a nice euphemism. Very Bolshevik.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 02:32:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
That sounds like something Bolsheviks might do...
Exactly. Both are undemocratic. Yet it seems only one is objectionable.
Actually only one happens to be illegal.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 02:48:28 PM
Actually only one happens to be illegal.
Pretty sure that's not right.
Illegal immigrants = undocumented democrats
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 02:50:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 02:48:28 PM
Actually only one happens to be illegal.
Pretty sure that's not right.
The Texas State Troopers disagree. But I guess you know far more about our laws than they.
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 02:52:21 PM
Illegal immigrants = undocumented democrats
In that case the Democrats will be sitting pretty for awhile.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 02:50:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2013, 02:48:28 PM
Actually only one happens to be illegal.
Pretty sure that's not right.
Oh? Is this the same surety that that tells us that it's a Bolshevik tactic without telling us when the Bolsheviks used it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 02:43:57 PM
Let me guess which one you find objectionable: the people supporting the filibuster in Texas?
A better guess would be the two that I called undemocratic.
"Supporting the filibuster" is a nice euphemism. Very Bolshevik.
They stood in a place they are allowed to stand and made noise where they are allowed to make noise. I agree it was not one of the best moments in the history of Democracy but I find it rather puzzling you declare this equivalent to murdering capitalists in their beds or whatever.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 02:55:26 PM
The Texas State Troopers disagree. But I guess you know far more about our laws than they.
??? They disagree with me that both acts are illegal??
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 02:58:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 02:55:26 PM
The Texas State Troopers disagree. But I guess you know far more about our laws than they.
??? They disagree with me that both acts are illegal??
Yes. They did not arrest anybody and refused to act when asked...because nothing illegal was going on. I guess they forgot to ask you oh keeper of the laws of Texas?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 02:45:56 PMA better guess would be the two that I called undemocratic.
"Supporting the filibuster" is a nice euphemism. Very Bolshevik.
Normally you don't resort to name calling like that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 02:59:51 PM
Yes. They did not arrest anybody and refused to act when asked...because nothing illegal was going on. I guess they forgot to ask you oh keeper of the laws of Texas?
Do you have a link to that? All I can get from Meri's articles is that the screamers in the gallery were forced to leave and 50 people ended up being arrested, whether from the outside group or inside being unclear. Not clear to me why the inside screamers would be forced to leave if they were doing nothing illegal. Also boggles the mind that I could walk in to the Texas legislature and scream my head off without breaking the law.
Is it an absolute requirement that you be a dick when responding to one of my posts?
Screaming your head off in a public place is usually the offence of disturbing the peace.
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
Screaming your head off in a public place is usually the offence of disturbing the peace.
I have heard that sometimes non-Bolsheviks do that too.
BTW, does something being an offence mean that it is illegal?
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
Screaming your head off in a public place is usually the offence of disturbing the peace.
This is not normally the case at political events.
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
Screaming your head off in a public place is usually the offence of disturbing the peace.
Well you can easily see where we could be heading off a slippery slope here. As soon as you make it ok to haul off people because they are being unpleasant in the gallery you might as well get rid of it.
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 03:30:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
Screaming your head off in a public place is usually the offence of disturbing the peace.
I have heard that sometimes non-Bolsheviks do that too.
BTW, does something being an offence mean that it is illegal?
Yes. But there is always discretion whether to arrest, and once arrested discretion whether or not to charge.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 03:34:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
Screaming your head off in a public place is usually the offence of disturbing the peace.
Well you can easily see where we could be heading off a slippery slope here. As soon as you make it ok to haul off people because they are being unpleasant in the gallery you might as well get rid of it.
Took look in google and the Disorderly conduct is the law in Texas, and I don't think it applies to the state capital.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 03:34:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
Screaming your head off in a public place is usually the offence of disturbing the peace.
Well you can easily see where we could be heading off a slippery slope here. As soon as you make it ok to haul off people because they are being unpleasant in the gallery you might as well get rid of it.
How is that a slippery slope?
Galleries are to observe lawmakers in action. If you want to have a demonstration you do it outside the building.
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 03:37:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 03:34:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
Screaming your head off in a public place is usually the offence of disturbing the peace.
Well you can easily see where we could be heading off a slippery slope here. As soon as you make it ok to haul off people because they are being unpleasant in the gallery you might as well get rid of it.
How is that a slippery slope?
Galleries are to observe lawmakers in action. If you want to have a demonstration you do it outside the building.
Where do you go when you want to fabricate time stamps?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 03:09:17 PM
Do you have a link to that? All I can get from Meri's articles is that the screamers in the gallery were forced to leave and 50 people ended up being arrested, whether from the outside group or inside being unclear. Not clear to me why the inside screamers would be forced to leave if they were doing nothing illegal. Also boggles the mind that I could walk in to the Texas legislature and scream my head off without breaking the law.
Which is more "undemocratic", Yi? The yelling in the cheap seats to avoid the vote, or the lying that the vote took place on time?
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 04:18:27 PM
Which is more "undemocratic", Yi? The yelling in the cheap seats to avoid the vote, or the lying that the vote took place on time?
It turns out that the first one is not undemocratic at all. So clearly the second.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:20:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 04:18:27 PM
Which is more "undemocratic", Yi? The yelling in the cheap seats to avoid the vote, or the lying that the vote took place on time?
It turns out that the first one is not undemocratic at all. So clearly the second.
I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.
I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.
But I admit to bias, which is why I'm asking you.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.
I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.
But I admit to bias, which is why I'm asking you.
And I answered. If in fact there is no law against disrupting a vote by screaming from the gallery in Texas, it's a legitimate legislative tactic and not undemocratic.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:20:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 04:18:27 PM
Which is more "undemocratic", Yi? The yelling in the cheap seats to avoid the vote, or the lying that the vote took place on time?
It turns out that the first one is not undemocratic at all. So clearly the second.
I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.
I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.
But I admit to bias, which is why I'm asking you.
If a fillibuster is a valid tactic, then so are tactics to try and force a vote.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:28:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.
I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.
But I admit to bias, which is why I'm asking you.
And I answered. If in fact there is no law against disrupting a vote by screaming from the gallery in Texas, it's a legitimate legislative tactic and not undemocratic.
Is this a general principle?
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 12:04:36 PM
You say that as if the state - in particular, the state of TEXAS - actually:
a) Cares about the health of these women
b) Wants to fix access problems
c) Has any interest whatsoever in preventing poor women from having children (See: Valmy's post)
I made no comment on what Texas is doing. I don't believe good policy has to be hijacked by other concerns.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:28:35 PM
And I answered. If in fact there is no law against disrupting a vote by screaming from the gallery in Texas, it's a legitimate legislative tactic and not undemocratic.
I guess I disagree. Even if something is legal it does not mean it is democratic and should be done.
However the main point in my mind is that the leadership totally failed to account for the fact there was passionate opposition to their bill somehow and bungled it. Then they tried to break the law to cover their incompetence and then whined about it pathetically. Which is the sort of leadership I have grown to expect from them.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 12:04:36 PM
You say that as if the state - in particular, the state of TEXAS - actually:
a) Cares about the health of these women
b) Wants to fix access problems
c) Has any interest whatsoever in preventing poor women from having children (See: Valmy's post)
I made no comment on what Texas is doing. I don't believe good policy has to be hijacked by other concerns.
Way too much is done on pure ideology and not with good policy and practical considerations in mind. Definitely not unique to Texas but frustrating. This is actually probably the voters of Texas' fault though, they are really demanding ideological purity without regards to results these days.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 02:32:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
That sounds like something Bolsheviks might do...
Exactly. Both are undemocratic. Yet it seems only one is objectionable.
Indeed, I was wondering why you only found one objectionable.
And it is the one that does not actually involve the elected representatives consciously and actively forging the results of a vote.
Curious.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Is this a general principle?
Without thinking through every possible ramification I'll say yes.
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.
You think screaming down your opponents in order to disrupt a vote that you're going to lose is a valid tool of the democratic process? Do you really believe that you would feel this way if the law had been one you support, and the protestors people you oppose? For example, let's say the bill was going to expand access to abortion for poor women, but religious protestors were so disruptive that the vote couldn't be held. Would you think that was a valid action for them to take because they couldn't defeat the bill democratically?
Quote
I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.
They apprently missed a deadline by literally a couple of minutes. Fudging the time stamp in order to avoid having to call a new session to pass a bill you have already demonstrated that you have the votes for is wrong (and maybe a crime), but I don't think it signals the end of democracy as we know it.
Quote from: Kleves on June 27, 2013, 04:41:24 PM
You think screaming down your opponents in order to disrupt a vote that you're going to lose is a valid tool of the democratic process? Do you really believe that you would feel this way if the law had been one you support, and the protestors people you oppose? For example, let's say the bill was going to expand access to abortion for poor women, but religious protestors were so disruptive that the vote couldn't be held. Would you think that was a valid action for them to take because they couldn't defeat the bill democratically?
I already admitted to bias. I'm not sure what more you want from me. In this particular case, and this particular state, I could see this scenario happening either way. As it is, it appears that while decorum was disturbed, the law was not broken. The same cannot be said for what the elected officials did.
Quote
They apprently missed a deadline by literally a couple of minutes. Fudging the time stamp in order to avoid having to call a new session to pass a bill you have already demonstrated that you have the votes for is wrong (and maybe a crime), but I don't think it signals the end of democracy as we know it.
Democracy ended a long time ago in Texas. The gerrymandering that takes place there is legendary, and I say this as a resident of the great state of Illinois. This is an example of what's going on, not an exception.
The deadline was important, and these "gentlemen" failed. But that wasn't what got to me. What got to me was that they then attempted to lie about it, and in doing so, break the law. Elected officials... breaking the law... to get their way....
Quote from: Kleves on June 27, 2013, 04:41:24 PM
They apprently missed a deadline by literally a couple of minutes. Fudging the time stamp in order to avoid having to call a new session to pass a bill you have already demonstrated that you have the votes for is wrong (and maybe a crime), but I don't think it signals the end of democracy as we know it.
It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a case of the normal legislative process causing things to run over. If you allow filibustering and someone is actively employing it shouldn't be a case of "ok, you just have to filibuster until midnight to stop it" and then hold the vote after that anyway.
Quote from: frunk on June 27, 2013, 04:59:11 PM
It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a case of the normal legislative process causing things to run over. If you allow filibustering and someone is actively employing it shouldn't be a case of "ok, you just have to filibuster until midnight to stop it" and then hold the vote after that anyway.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. But I don't think the filibuster is what stopped the vote from being taken on time, but instead the illegitimate disruptive actions of protestors. In that case, it at least makes a bit more sense to fudge the timestamp (although still wrong); after all, you probably see yourself as only correcting what would have been done but for the actions of others that prevent the democratic process.
Quote from: Kleves on June 27, 2013, 05:16:23 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 27, 2013, 04:59:11 PM
It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a case of the normal legislative process causing things to run over. If you allow filibustering and someone is actively employing it shouldn't be a case of "ok, you just have to filibuster until midnight to stop it" and then hold the vote after that anyway.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. But I don't think the filibuster is what stopped the vote from being taken on time, but instead the illegitimate disruptive actions of protestors. In that case, it at least makes a bit more sense to fudge the timestamp (although still wrong); after all, you probably see yourself as only correcting what would have been done but for the actions of others that prevent the democratic process.
You can claim the same with filibustering. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:20:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 27, 2013, 04:18:27 PM
Which is more "undemocratic", Yi? The yelling in the cheap seats to avoid the vote, or the lying that the vote took place on time?
It turns out that the first one is not undemocratic at all. So clearly the second.
I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.
I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.
But I admit to bias, which is why I'm asking you.
If a fillibuster is a valid tactic, then so are tactics to try and force a vote.
:yeahright: Uh, No.
It's interesting to see where people draw the lines on procedural wrangling, chicanery, and general shenanigans when it comes to the democratic process.
Ultimately, there's no slippery slope here because the Texan Lt. Gov. fucked up, and next session the bill will get pulled. It was pretty much a one-off opportunity that was seized; causing a ruckus in the spectator seat at the legislature is not going to significantly change how decisions are made henceforth.
While you can find a technical difference if you'd like to, I personally don't think there's a huge substantial difference between, say, refusing to recognize a speaker or upholding spurious objections on one hand, and causing a ruckus for 15 minutes in the spectator seats to let the clock run out on the other. Both are part of the gamesmanship of the legislative process, and while I am sympathetic to the desire to have a more civilized and fair-minded approach, I don't see that happening in the current US climate.
Indeed, and it is a line the Republicans had already crossed when they aborted the filibuster on some pretty stupid technicalities.
Really, talking about Planned Parenthood is not on topic in a discussion about closing abortion clinics?
They had already made it clear they had no care at all about the spirit of the process.
Quote from: Kleves on June 27, 2013, 04:41:24 PM
They apprently missed a deadline by literally a couple of minutes. Fudging the time stamp in order to avoid having to call a new session to pass a bill you have already demonstrated that you have the votes for is wrong (and maybe a crime), but I don't think it signals the end of democracy as we know it.
They weren't avoiding a second special session. The second special session was going to be called regardless of the abortion vote outcome. Perry still has to pass two other measures - transportation and crime.
Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2013, 05:32:28 PM
It's interesting to see where people draw the lines on procedural wrangling, chicanery, and general shenanigans when it comes to the democratic process.
Ultimately, there's no slippery slope here because the Texan Lt. Gov. fucked up, and next session the bill will get pulled. It was pretty much a one-off opportunity that was seized; causing a ruckus in the spectator seat at the legislature is not going to significantly change how decisions are made henceforth.
The bill is getting passed next session which starts July 1st. There's no avoiding this bill becoming law.
Such a stupid system that filibustering is even a thing. Thank god the good guys won
Quote from: Kleves on June 27, 2013, 05:16:23 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 27, 2013, 04:59:11 PM
It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a case of the normal legislative process causing things to run over. If you allow filibustering and someone is actively employing it shouldn't be a case of "ok, you just have to filibuster until midnight to stop it" and then hold the vote after that anyway.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. But I don't think the filibuster is what stopped the vote from being taken on time, but instead the illegitimate disruptive actions of protestors. In that case, it at least makes a bit more sense to fudge the timestamp (although still wrong); after all, you probably see yourself as only correcting what would have been done but for the actions of others that prevent the democratic process.
Fudging the timestamp is a felony under Texas Law. It's called Fraud. Shouting from the balcony is at best a misdemeanor, and since it was political speech, probably not illegal at all.
Actually Missouri used to do the same thing, before there were computers. Because the our part time legislature could never get the budget in on the time required by the constitution, they simply unplugged the clocks at 11:55.
Quote from: Fate on June 27, 2013, 01:40:02 PMA clinic is sufficient. You're married to an ob/gyn right? Hopefully this shit is making her livid.
No, my wife actually has her specialty in Vascular Medicine (board certified by the ABVM) and Vascular Surgery (certified by VSB-ABS.) She's actually the one who has informed me to a small degree on the abortion issue. She's extremely pro-choice, but she has a general "aversion" to office based surgery and advises most of our friends and relatives to be very careful about submitting to any office based surgery. The reasons, to her, is that while accredited doctor's offices have safety records for their minor procedures equivalent to hospitals and outpatient surgical centers, the vast majority of offices are not accredited. That means they may be perfectly fine (and most of them are) but it means they could be similar to Gosnell's office. In particular aside from abortions she has concerns about dental office procedures because dentists actually have more accidents and complications than you might realize and they are not even MDs and have no nurses on staff so are very ill-equipped to respond to them.
She's the one who pointed out to me that most regulations that were proposed here in Virginia (which were similar to the Texas regs) were about the same as what you'd see in Europe. But like I said, my policy proposal was Federal funding for abortions and moving them into outpatient surgical centers and hospitals so that you can increase our regulations to be more inline with the rest of the civilized world
without decreasing access for women.
If you just do what Texas wants to do, you're just decreasing access, and that isn't good.
I should note I live in the same America you guys do, I have no illusions about Federal funding for abortions being politically acceptable. However, there is a reason we once had Federal funding for abortions and it was Nixon who set that up. It's because however much you spend it's a guaranteed return on investment. Fewer unwanted children, especially from lower income women, is by far a larger savings for society than whatever the government pays to provide abortions.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 28, 2013, 06:24:02 AM
I should note I live in the same America you guys do, I have no illusions about Federal funding for abortions being politically acceptable.
That's good, because for a moment I thought you would've forgotten that Virginia is just as squirrelly about abortion as Texas is.
QuoteHowever, there is a reason we once had Federal funding for abortions and it was Nixon who set that up. It's because however much you spend it's a guaranteed return on investment. Fewer unwanted children, especially from lower income women, is by far a larger savings for society than whatever the government pays to provide abortions.
Shame Nixon's party melded with the mega churches, and now we can't tell the difference.
Quote from: Fate on June 27, 2013, 07:52:27 PMThe bill is getting passed next session which starts July 1st. There's no avoiding this bill becoming law.
Yeah, that was a typo - I should've written "passed" instead of "pulled".
Filibuster lady is quite easy on the eyes.
It's been delayed until July 9. Probably hoping the hoopla will die down a bit.
They've passed the law. Go, Texas! :rolleyes:
I have a question. According to the law as passed, the consequences of giving an abortion outside of the parameters set by the state can be no more than a $4000 fine. Later, it talks of the possibility of losing their medical license.
Could I have a lawtalker read over the bill and tell me what the consequences actually are? Pretty please?
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/831/billtext/html/SB00005I.htm
You don't need a lawtalker to tell you it's the criminalization of women's reproductive rights.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2013, 09:48:31 AM
You don't need a lawtalker to tell you it's the criminalization of women's reproductive rights.
Nope, and I'm considering trying to find a way around it. If the fine is really all that the doctors will have, then why not have a fund-raiser to pay those fines for doctors? That way, the docs won't have to worry about it, women will be able to circumvent the laws, and Texas can go fuck itself. :)
$4,000 per abortion is a lot of fund raising.
The penalties vary by subchapter. But it appears that any violation of any of the provisions of the law by a physician is grounds for denying the issuance or renewal of a license to practice medicine.
Bottom line: this would be a good time to invest in Texas coat hanger factories.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2013, 12:46:02 PM
The penalties vary by subchapter. But it appears that any violation of any of the provisions of the law by a physician is grounds for denying the issuance or renewal of a license to practice medicine.
That's what I was afraid of. :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2013, 12:47:12 PM
Bottom line: this would be a good time to invest in Texas coat hanger factories.
Not really. :contract:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/05/8401288/ (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/05/8401288/)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 13, 2013, 04:37:33 PM
[Not really. :contract:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/05/8401288/ (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/05/8401288/)
What better time to invest? ;)
Guv signed his bill into law today.
Quote"All of you who stood up and made a difference, no one will ever have to ask, 'Where were you when the babies' lives were being saved?'"
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Hey derfetus, can that fit on a bumper sticker?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2013, 08:50:21 PM
Guv signed his bill into law today.
Quote"All of you who stood up and made a difference, no one will ever have to ask, 'Where were you when the babies' lives were being saved?'"
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Hey derfetus, can that fit on a bumper sticker?
I'll try.
Just need a small font size.
Or a bigger sticker.
Big enough to slap over and cover the poor chicks coochie.
LOL, as soon as the Guv signed that bill, the Republitards in the legislature introduced a "Fetal Heartbeat" bill to outlaw abortion after six weeks.
Now that would be a nifty trick; prohibiting abortion before most women would even know they're pregnant. TAKE THAT, WHORES
At what point do most women realize they are pregnant?
Ask your wife.
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2013, 02:14:46 PM
At what point do most women realize they are pregnant?
Usually in the 6-to-8 week time period.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2013, 02:20:51 PM
Ask your wife.
Both cases were well under a month. She had severe morning sickness both times.
It was rough. Sometimes it got so bad I had to turn up the TV to drown out the vomiting noises from the bathroom :(
For me:
Pregnancy 1 - Eight weeks
Pregnancy 2 - Six weeks
Pregnancy 3 - Eight weeks
Pregnancy 4 - Four weeks
Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2013, 02:51:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2013, 02:20:51 PM
Ask your wife.
Both cases were well under a month. She had severe morning sickness both times.
It was rough. Sometimes it got so bad I had to turn up the TV to drown out the vomiting noises from the bathroom :(
Horrible. I always mute commercials. I would go insane if I couldn't. :console:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 19, 2013, 01:37:28 PM
LOL, as soon as the Guv signed that bill, the Republitards in the legislature introduced a "Fetal Heartbeat" bill to outlaw abortion after six weeks.
Now that would be a nifty trick; prohibiting abortion before most women would even know they're pregnant. TAKE THAT, WHORES
You do realize that this is your own fault, right? You guys should be down there burning Ide's home and generally Shermanning the shit out of those places until they become civilized.
I don't see how that's consistent with Roe v Wade.
I just wish this weren't a legal thing. So far as I'm concerned, this should be a topic for a woman, her partner, and her doctor. The law has no business being involved except as to protect the health of the woman.
Quote from: merithyn on July 19, 2013, 04:48:45 PM
I just wish this weren't a legal thing. So far as I'm concerned, this should be a topic for a woman, her partner, and her doctor. The law has no business being involved except as to protect the health of the woman.
And a right to lifer would reply that society has an obligation to protect the life of the unborn, and we're no further along than before.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2013, 04:57:25 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 19, 2013, 04:48:45 PM
I just wish this weren't a legal thing. So far as I'm concerned, this should be a topic for a woman, her partner, and her doctor. The law has no business being involved except as to protect the health of the woman.
And a right to lifer would reply that society has an obligation to protect the life of the unborn, and we're no further along than before.
Capital punishment begins at conception.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2013, 04:57:25 PMAnd a right to lifer would reply that society has an obligation to protect the life of the unborn, and we're no further along than before.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP9q89iE.jpg&hash=49c9cbeb77b6ef6faae2e7e7ce143b9233c79aeb)
Too long, and silly.
Wicked silly.
I think the only reasonable position is to accept that both sides have legitimate arguments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2013, 05:40:07 PM
I think the only reasonable position is to accept that both sides have legitimate arguments.
:yes: That's why abortion is going to remain an issue for the foreseeable future, while something like gay marriage will probably go away sooner rather than later.
I wonder about the legitimacy of the anti-abortion arguments. I mean, no social good can come out of banning or even heavily restricting abortion, right?
Quote from: Neil on July 19, 2013, 06:08:22 PM
I wonder about the legitimacy of the anti-abortion arguments. I mean, no social good can come out of banning or even heavily restricting abortion, right?
Social good's got nothing to do with scripture.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2013, 04:57:25 PM
And a right to lifer would reply that society has an obligation to protect the life of the unborn, and we're no further along than before.
They're welcome to protect the lives of
their unborn children. :mellow: That's between them and their doctors. That's my point.
Texas and some other states have always been anti-abortion, so I wonder why such a law wasn't passed previously.
Quote from: Neil on July 19, 2013, 06:08:22 PM
I wonder about the legitimacy of the anti-abortion arguments. I mean, no social good can come out of banning or even heavily restricting abortion, right?
Well, it depends, doesn't it. At one end, aborting a fetus who would have been viable and alive if born sounds a whole hell of a lot like murder, doesn't it?
On the other end it seems hard to get too upset about aborting an unimplanted zygote.
Quote from: Barrister on July 19, 2013, 11:14:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 19, 2013, 06:08:22 PM
I wonder about the legitimacy of the anti-abortion arguments. I mean, no social good can come out of banning or even heavily restricting abortion, right?
Well, it depends, doesn't it. At one end, aborting a fetus who would have been viable and alive if born sounds a whole hell of a lot like murder, doesn't it?
On the other end it seems hard to get too upset about aborting an unimplanted zygote.
But that's not what we're talking about here. Texas isn't passing laws to restrict late-term abortions because they're consumed with concern for the viable eight-month fetuses getting aborted. They're passing laws to restrict abortion because their religion demands that they hate and persecute women who act in ways that they find immoral.
Quote from: merithyn on July 19, 2013, 11:05:56 PM
They're welcome to protect the lives of their unborn children. :mellow: That's between them and their doctors. That's my point.
I got your point. And the right to lifer responds you don't have a right to kill your unborn child, just like you don't have a right to kill your child when he or she is a toddler.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 20, 2013, 01:40:05 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 19, 2013, 11:05:56 PM
They're welcome to protect the lives of their unborn children. :mellow: That's between them and their doctors. That's my point.
I got your point. And the right to lifer responds you don't have a right to kill your unborn child, just like you don't have a right to kill your child when he or she is a toddler.
I do while that child is a parasite living off my body. That's what seems to get lost. It is a parasite causing untold damage to the host. While that's the case, the host body should be the only one with a say in how they handle it.
Quote from: merithyn on July 20, 2013, 07:57:07 AM
I do while that child is a parasite living off my body.
And then, at 15, a parasite living off your refrigerator. IS THAT A STICK OF BUTTER YOURE EATING?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2013, 07:58:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 20, 2013, 07:57:07 AM
I do while that child is a parasite living off my body.
And then, at 15, a parasite living off your refrigerator. IS THAT A STICK OF BUTTER YOURE EATING?
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on July 20, 2013, 07:57:07 AM
I do while that child is a parasite living off my body. That's what seems to get lost. It is a parasite causing untold damage to the host. While that's the case, the host body should be the only one with a say in how they handle it.
A legitimate argument.