# The newest brand of abortion ban Is next-level cruelty



## Paco Dennis (Sep 2, 2021)

_"In May, Texas governor Greg Abbott signed into law an abortion ban that feels inconceivably extreme, even by his state’s standards. Senate Bill 8 banned abortion past the point of fetal “cardiac activity” — in practical terms, around six weeks — even in cases where pregnancies result from incest or rape. Though cruel, this type of ban is not uncommon, particularly not in a year that saw state legislatures pass at least 90 abortion restrictions in six months. But S.B. 8 takes the unprecedented step of empowering private citizens to police their neighbors, placing at least a $10,000 “bounty on people who provide or aid abortions, inviting random strangers to sue them,” according to a federal lawsuit challenging the policy. So on top of being unconstitutional, S.B. 8 incentivizes vigilantes to sue strangers on suspicion of abetting abortion.


Lawmakers deliberately engineered S.B. 8 to withstand legal challenges, and indeed, federal courts declined to award abortion providers an injunction before the law took effect on September 1. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on an emergency application from abortion providers today, but in the meantime, here’s everything you need to know about this latest brand of anti-abortion extremism.

_
_       What does S.B. 8 do?_​_ 
Speaking purely in terms of the law’s effect, S.B. 8 does the same thing any six-week ban aims to do: outlaw abortion well before many people even realize they’re pregnant. In Texas specifically, S.B. 8 would make at least 85 percent of abortions performed in the state illegal.


The six-week mark is pegged to the fallacy — beloved by anti-abortion groups — that a human heart begins to beat about six weeks into pregnancy. But the existence of a heartbeat implies the existence of a heart, something embryos don’t have. Abortion antagonists have never been in it for accuracy, and in evoking the specter of a heartbeat, they seek to play on emotions. Still, six-week bans are hard to route around the Supreme Court, which currently — under terms set by Roe v. Wade — ensures the procedure legal until viability, at around 23 weeks.

_
_       How is S.B. 8 different than bans in other states?_​_ 
S.B. 8 specifically takes enforcement of the law out of the state’s hands, deputizing any private citizen who does not work for the government to do that job instead. Under the new law, random people would be incentivized to sue in civil court — to the tune of at least $10,000 in damages per termination — not only abortion providers, but also anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.” The latter category seemingly includes insurance companies, along with abortion funds that help people pay for the procedure and its attendant hidden costs. “Obviously we have a target on our back being abortion funds,” Cristina Parker, communications director of Texas’s Lilith Fund, told Jezebel. “We’ve got support on deck for if and when we get sued, but there’s not much to prevent folks from doing it.”


In short, Texas’s unprecedented tactic mobilizes untold private bounty hunters (complainants do not even need to live in Texas, necessarily, or be at all connected to the people they accuse), offering them a financial reward in exchange for policing clinics, physicians, aid groups, and other people who might, for example, agree to a favor as small as driving their friend to an appointment, or accepting the Uber fare. The law promotes a frankly unhinged degree of interpersonal surveillance, and unfortunately, that winds up being its strength. In dividing up the enforcement task between so many as-yet-unnamed players, lawmakers preserved the policy against injunction. As Jezebel notes, legal groups and/or providers typically sue state officials when faced with an unconstitutional abortion ban, blocking the law from taking effect on grounds that it violates precedent established by Roe v. Wade. But in this case, there is no clear defendant to name; just the credible threat of expedient action from anti-abortion zealots who are ready to act immediately. Providers did still try to stop S.B. 8 from taking effect before September 1, but they were not successful."

https://www.thecut.com/2021/09/texas-bans-abortion-at-6-weeks-sets-bounty-on-providers.html_


----------



## Pepper (Sep 2, 2021)

This crap happened because not enough people actually vote, and when they do, they don't vote their interests.

It's up to the next generation.  I've done my part, big-time.  Vote.  Organize & vote.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 2, 2021)

In my child bearing years abortion was illegal in Australia. Gynecologists did perform routine (legal) D & C procedures for a variety or reasons. I had one at the same time as I had my tubes cauterised as a precaution to make sure that I was not pregnant at the time. It blows my mind to think that some busy body could report that I had had an abortion and receive a bounty for doing so. Whatever happened to confidentiality and is every miscarriage now going to be regarded with suspicion by the neighbours?

As Pepper says, organise and vote because this is monstrous legislation.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 2, 2021)

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take a look at this and see if it complies with Roe vs. Wade, and overturn it.  There are already far too many kids being born to people who won't support and raise them properly.  I can't believe that these politicians would overlook incidents of incest and rape....and put a fetus "heartbeat" on a higher priority than a women's health.  Women should be outraged and protesting against this.


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 2, 2021)

SCOTUS voted 5-4 to let the Texas law stand.


----------



## HoneyNut (Sep 2, 2021)

Pepper said:


> It's up to the next generation. I've done my part, big-time. Vote. Organize & vote.


This is my attitude too, it is depressing for the situation to go backwards after our generation had worked so hard.  I remember in high school when abortion was illegal in my state how friends would have to travel out of state to get an abortion.  It worked okay for us because we were middle class and could afford to contribute our allowances to the girl in need.  But there were also horrid photos published back then of young girls bodies who died from illegal botched abortions.  
But I just feel too old to fight now, the current young people will need to take over the fight.  
I suppose organized crime people will provide abortions, and hopefully they will have better modern equipment now.  I hate organized crime, whenever we make something illegal that people are going to do anyway, it just fuels the criminals.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 2, 2021)

This is a highly decisive issue, and one we will not easily put to an end.

I see no chance on people agreeing about the morality of abortion.  In the US maybe half think its immoral, even murder, and half don't.  Kind of depends on how you ask the question, and what part of the country you are in.

I don't like abortion and wish it didn't happen.  However since there is so little common ground on this one my opinion is that the government should not get involved.  Let people make their own decisions.  That seems to me to be the conservative view, but most conservatives probably don't agree.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 2, 2021)

Personally, I'm not in favor of abortion but IMO it's a personal/private decision that should be left up to the individual.

This new law sounds like it will do more to create spiteful nuisance lawsuits that will clog the courts and disrupt families already in turmoil all for an award of $10,000.00. 

IMO the lawyers will be the only ones to benefit from this new law.

Very sad.


----------



## feywon (Sep 2, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> In my child bearing years abortion was illegal in Australia. Gynecologists did perform routine (legal) D & C procedures for a variety or reasons. I had one at the same time as I had my tubes cauterised as a precaution to make sure that I was not pregnant at the time. It blows my mind to think that some busy body could report that I had had an abortion and receive a bounty for doing so. Whatever happened to confidentiality and is every miscarriage now going to be regarded with suspicion by the neighbours?
> 
> As Pepper says, organise and vote because this is monstrous legislation.


Some states have enacted laws that will encourage 'investigation of miscarriages.  As usual all these laws are aimed strictly at the woman.  They ignore the fact that the fathers involved often pressure and pay for the abortions.  i knew a young woman in Honolulu in early 70's who's high ranking Military Dad flew her to Japan twice for abortions when they were still illegal here. Why he didn't get her on the pill after the first one who knows.

In the early 60's i almost lost my  mother because abortions were illegal.  My step-Dad pressured her to get one.  Something went horribly wrong, tho not due to error of the abortionist, but the nature of the pregnancy.  And to be fair if they'd been legal i'm not sure if sonograms were available everywhere and that's probably what would have been needed to diagnose that it was ectopic pregnancy. (Fetus forming in an ovary).  Because it was ectopic it was more difficult to expel the fetus and she hemorrhaged from damage to that ovary.  A friend got her to go to hospital where the Doc who treated her labeled it 'miscarriage due to being ectopic'.   One of the scariest events in my life, and it took a heavy toll on her. She thought she'd never be able to have another a child.  But even with just one ovary intact she got pregnant again a couple of years later by same man who again first wanted her to abort then tried to get her to essentially 'sell' the baby to wealthy childless friends of his.  As much as my baby brother complicated my teen life, i was extremely glad she told his father what he could do with his suggestions.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 2, 2021)

Browsing around I have picked up a couple of common reactions.

People are demanding that the President remove the filibuster. I'm not sure whether he has that power, or if he does, what difference it would make.

They are also demanding that the President expand the Supreme Court to 13, one for each federal district court. Again, not sure what this would accomplish.

The problem with this Texas legislation is two fold. It does not actually ban abortion. It simply sets a time limit that is unworkable for the majority of women seeking one. A grey area that might be amended ???

The second problem is that the responsibility for acting against the practice of providing safe medical abortions has been outsourced to civilians. Effectively it has set up a bounty hunter system where the hunted have to pay the bounty of $10,000 and it is wide enough in scope that it includes women, medical practitioners, receptionists, taxi and Uber drivers. In this way the whole deal is shielded from Roe v Wade and it seems to me that SCOTUS delivered the correct legal decision ???


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 2, 2021)

Warrigal you know a lot about the US and our policies.  Good questions, answers to the few I know a little about:


Warrigal said:


> They are also demanding that the President expand the Supreme Court to 13, one for each federal district court. Again, not sure what this would accomplish.


It would allow him to appoint a new justice, presumable a more liberal Democrat.  Many see this a a way to bring more "balance" to the court.  I doubt it will happen.


Warrigal said:


> The problem with this Texas legislation is two fold. It does not actually ban abortion. It simply sets a time limit that is unworkable for the majority of women seeking one. A grey area that might be amended ???


Good point, and this is what a lot of the anti-abortion state level legislation has been designed to do.  Make abortion more difficult without taking on Roe v Wade.


Warrigal said:


> The second problem is that the responsibility for acting against the practice of providing safe medical abortions has been outsourced to civilians. Effectively it has set up a bounty hunter system where the hunted have to pay the bounty of $10,000 and it is wide enough in scope that it includes women, medical practitioners, receptionists, taxi and Uber drivers. In this way the whole deal is shielded from Roe v Wade and it seems to me that SCOTUS delivered the correct legal decision ???


Good analysis, right on I think.  As to the question, I have no idea what the correct legal decision would be, however I know this will not settle the issue.  It is only a kind of temporary thing.  As I understand it this allows Texas to enforce the law whilst the underlying constitutionality is being litigated.  Does not say the law is or isn't constitutional. 


Aunt Bea said:


> IMO the lawyers will be the only ones to benefit from this new law.


Very likely...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 2, 2021)

Way back in the 1960s when I was a student in Teachers College we did a course in government. It was in three parts - the American Revolution and the American constitution and the federal system of government. Next was the the Russian revolutions (there were two) and the Soviet system. Finally we looked at the Mother of Parliaments - Westminster and our own system which is a combination of the Westminster parliamentary system which has the monarch as titular head, supremacy of the parliament and a constitution that is very similar to the United States in terms of the powers of the states and the commonwealth. 

We have the same separation of powers as US - the Executive (an appointed Governor General in place of an elected president. He/she is the symbolic representative of the monarch. We have the legislative branch consisting of House of Representatives and the Senate and we have the Judiciary. Our High Court is the equivalent of SCOTUS and we have various federal courts, including the family court (which will soon be subsumed into the more general courts). Behind all of this, doing the work, is the Public Service.

I have always found the way different countries are shaped by their history and chosen forms of government to be really interesting.


----------



## Lara (Sep 2, 2021)

Aunt Bea said:


> IMO the lawyers will be the only ones to benefit from this new law.


...and the baby who at 6 weeks has developed a heartbeat, spine, eyes, and ears


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 2, 2021)

Lara said:


> ...and the baby who at 6 weeks has developed a heartbeat, spine, eyes, and ears


IMO your reply to my post is inappropriate.

If you want to express your personal feelings on this sensitive topic please leave me out of it.


----------



## Lara (Sep 2, 2021)

I'm sorry to have offended you. It's not a personal feeling I posted. It's the actual facts the Supreme Court used when voting. I didn't start the thread. The one who did also mentioned the heartbeat at 6 weeks. This fact was the driving force in the Supreme Court's decision.
To leave it out would leave a discussion on a topic not fully addressed. No?


----------



## Lara (Sep 2, 2021)

I won't be offended for my post to be removed...surprised but not upset. I always like to be informed of the whole issue but I don't want to make anyone sad. I'm sincerely sorry.

The only problem is that the opening post also mentions the baby's heartbeat at 6 weeks so if my post is removed then post#1 will be in jeopardy as well.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54 (Sep 2, 2021)

Pepper said:


> *This crap happened because not enough people actually vote*, and when they do, they don't vote their interests.
> 
> It's up to the next generation.  I've done my part, big-time.  Vote.  Organize & vote.


Exactly! If people had voted in 2016 instead of playing videogames or whatever, 3 additional justices favorable to Roe vs. Wade would be on the court now. Today's vote would  have been 7 -2 since Roberts sided with the liberals.

The Texas law will mainly hurt the poor. Those that are better off can still go to another state.

Make no mistake, there are several hard right states that will copycat the law very, very quickly.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 2, 2021)

@Nosy Bee-54 
"Make no mistake, there are several hard right states that will copycat the law very, very quickly."

They already have.


----------



## Patch (Sep 2, 2021)

Texas, and soon Florida, allow the reproductive rights of a virus while denying the reproductive rights of women.  Whether in favor of abortion or not, the issue should be decided by a women and her doctor on a case by case basis, not a political party attempting to appease a large donor base.  
The Texas law was carefully designed in an attempt to circumvent the SCOTUS from being able to stay it.  The battle in the SCOTUS is not over, but with the current conservative majority I assume the Texas law will stand.
Beyond the "somewhere around six weeks" part of the law, the "bounty" issue is from the 1800's.  A nosey neighbor, with zero proof, can file suit against a woman for getting an abortion.  The woman may have miscarried or never been pregnant to begin with.  There is no penalty for the nosey neighbor... jilted ex boyfriend... local church deacon... whoever brings the suit.  
Also, this law does not have any relief for incest or rape.  A 13 year old girl, raped by a stepfather, has to carry the baby to birth and deal with the emotional and physical baggage.  A 'morning after' pill is illegal.  She has been ravaged, physically and mentally.  Now, she has to deal with going through a pregnancy, giving up the baby for adoption, or see the baby kept by the same family that allowed the rape to happen in the first place.  
We are living in sad times.......


----------



## Nosy Bee-54 (Sep 2, 2021)

In Texas, it's a predominant male legislature and all the burden is put on pregnant girls and women.


----------



## Myquest55 (Sep 2, 2021)

You cannot legislate morality - can you?  What about the separation of church and state?  

Abortion is not something that I personally would condone HOWEVER, it has been happening ever since the dawn of time so why can it not happen safely?  Especially as when incest or rape is concerned????  I agree that a woman has a right to chose for herself and that at some point, during a pregnancy, there must be a point of no return.

As for Texas, what is in place to prevent people from accusing a random anyone - just to collect a bounty??  What happens when someone is "mistakenly" accused?  Hopefully this will clog the courts and it will just bog everything down?!  My son tells me there are computer people working on this already, specifically just to make trouble and bring the court system to a stand still.  (although, how he knows anything about that, mystifies me!)

I DID see something about a potential "loop hole."  It seems they can only accuse someone of having an abortion IN the state of Texas however, if they go out of state, jurisdiction is lost.  There are a couple of groups fund raising for travel money, as we speak. 

You're right - sad times........................


----------



## senior chef (Sep 2, 2021)

I personal favor a  woman's rights to control her own body.  That said, however, Texas is a very, very conservative state. I have no specific facts to support this BUT I strongly suspect that the majority of Texas citizens support this new draconian law.


----------



## raybar (Sep 2, 2021)

The extremely restrictive abortion laws being enacted conservative states, which limit abortion to 6 weeks are, IN PART, a reaction to the extremely unrestrictive laws being enacted in liberal states, some of which allow abortions to be performed even when the baby is about to be born. 

As usual with extremes, I think both these ideas are absurd. 

I favor abortion on demand during the first trimester, and no abortions at all once the baby is viable. If medical conditions require terminating a pregnancy when the baby is viable, do a caesarian or induce labor.  After the first trimester, but before viability, abortions would be allowed only when necessary because of serious medical problems.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 2, 2021)

raybar said:


> I favor abortion on demand during the first trimester, and no abortions at all once the baby is viable. If medical conditions require terminating a pregnancy when the baby is viable, do a caesarian or induce labor.  After the first trimester, but before viability, abortions would be allowed only when necessary because of serious medical problems.


Well, look at you deciding what's best for that woman you don't even know.  How dare you.  How many children did you bear when you were not willing?  When were you forced to bear a child you couldn't have for reasons you should not have to share with anyone but your doctor?  Not once were you ever in this predicament.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 2, 2021)

I heard that gov Abbott helped someone get an abortion. Every pro-choice Texan should sue him!


----------



## Tish (Sep 2, 2021)

It's absolutely ludicrous, to think that someone you don't even know has the right to police you and get paid for it.
I mean seriously, what the Hell!


----------



## raybar (Sep 2, 2021)

Pepper said:


> Well, look at you deciding what's best for that woman you don't even know.  How dare you.  How many children did you bear when you were not willing?  When were you forced to bear a child you couldn't have for reasons you should not have to share with anyone but your doctor?  Not once were you ever in this predicament.


And look at you deciding what someone else can say.


----------



## terry123 (Sep 2, 2021)

senior chef said:


> I personal favor a  woman's rights to control her own body.  That said, however, Texas is a very, very conservative state. I have no specific facts to support this BUT I strongly suspect that the majority of Texas citizens support this new draconian law.


I don't support it.  A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body.  The day a man gives birth is the day he can have a say!


----------



## raybar (Sep 2, 2021)

terry123 said:


> . . .  The day a man gives birth is the day he can have a say!


Here's something I said at a meeting once when I was told I wasn't entitled to speak to a certain topic: "I'm a member of this committee, and I will have my say and I have my ****ing vote."

With regard to abortion, or anything else, my First Amendment rights trump anyone's wish that I be quiet.


----------



## Lewkat (Sep 2, 2021)

There is too much hysteria over all this.  First of all, I cannot imagine people running around trying to determine on their own if an abortion being done is legal or not.  Of course, there will be the drama queens out there making trouble where ever they can.  We've been down this road before.  Secondly, it has to be proved in a court of law that the alleged abortion was illegal.  Imagine the courts take on this one.  Thirdly, before it can even get to the court level, a case must go before a panel of advisers and I would presume it would be largely made up of medical and legal personnel, and then much examining and debate would ensue.  The entire process would be daunting to say the least.  Most people would be advised to just live and let live.  The media has made its usual alarmist spectacle over all this once again.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 2, 2021)

raybar said:


> And look at you deciding what someone else can say.


No, I'm not.  I didn't tell you what you can say.  Say whatever you want.  If I feel like it, I may or may not comment.  Thank you.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 2, 2021)

raybar said:


> Here's something I said at a meeting once when I was told I wasn't entitled to speak to a certain topic: "I'm a member of this committee, and I will have my say and I have my ****ing vote."
> 
> With regard to abortion, or anything else, my First Amendment rights trump anyone's wish that I be quiet.


Actually, if the owners of this forum wanted to shut you up, they could, and there's nothing you could do about it.

Your 1st Amendment rights only apply to the government suppressing speech. You have no such rights on private property.


----------



## Jules (Sep 2, 2021)

Lewkat said:


> The entire process would be daunting to say the least.


What you say about the drawn out process may be true.  Unfortunately it will be longest for the woman involved.


----------



## mellowyellow (Sep 2, 2021)

Here we go, back to the good old days when unwanted children are born to mothers who never wanted them.  We can only imagine the nightmare childhood these children will receive.  Some women won't even know they are pregnant, this law has terrible consequences for women.


----------



## Patch (Sep 2, 2021)

Jules said:


> What you say about the drawn out process may be true.  Unfortunately it will be longest for the woman involved.


An accused woman working minimum wage job(s) just trying to pay rent and put food on the table suddenly has to appear over and over and over during this process just to keep from seeing her accuser paid a $10,000 bounty????!!!!!???  
The wealthy... the politically connected... those with means can provide transportation for and access to services in another state.  The working class can't.  The pastor or church elder who impregnates a member of his parish can make an abortion happen out of state.  That same pastor or church elder, the very next day, can turn in another parish member to collect the bounty since it was not his pants that got unzipped.


----------



## mellowyellow (Sep 2, 2021)

The thing that really angers me is that these laws are made by *old men* who have no concept of what a single woman has to go through to bring an unwanted child into the world. They dwell in a political bubble where life is good – they still believe that happily married couples are raising their children in a nice house somewhere in the suburbs. They have no idea.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 2, 2021)

mellowyellow said:


> The thing that really angers me is that these laws are made by *old men* who have no concept of what a single woman has to go through to bring an unwanted child into the world. They dwell in a political bubble where life is good – they still believe that happily married couples are raising their children in a nice house somewhere in the suburbs. They have no idea.



Not to mention the fact that many of the people who push this kind of thing the hardest are also the most vocal oppostion to any kind of financial aid or "welfare" for mothers who are forced to bear children they do not want and cannot afford.  Most of the concern of these pro lifers stops the minute the child exits the womb, which to me is the height of hypocrisy.


----------



## mellowyellow (Sep 2, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> Not to mention the fact that many of the people who push this kind of thing the hardest are also the most vocal oppostion to any kind of financial aid or "welfare" for mothers who are forced to bear children they do not want and cannot afford.  Most of the concern of these pro lifers stops the minute the child exits the womb, which to me is the height of hypocrisy.


Yes, they are the well-heeled people of the world, no idea whatever about real life.


----------



## Shero (Sep 2, 2021)

Even a taxi driver who takes a woman to a clinic, will be liable for fines. Now, I personally would not have had an abortion in my child bearing age, but I do respect a woman's right to decide. It is a bitter pill to swallow if someone is raped that they have to keep a foetus. Having people spying on each other. This attitude brings on many things for women, self harm, suicide etc. 

With all of that said, I believe in careful birth control and in so doing many abortions can be avoided.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 2, 2021)

Inevitably, this law will work against the poor. Any middle-class woman in Texas who wants an abortion will simply travel to a nearby state, assuming they don't all follow Texas' example, have her abortion, and come back home within a day or two. 

But those who already have six children, are living in dire poverty, maybe without a car or any means of traveling to the other state, will be stuck having a baby they don't want, and the child will likely have a miserable existence.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 2, 2021)

Whatever happened to the pills that induce an abortion or a miscarriage? I would think they would become popular as a way to skirt the law.


----------



## Nathan (Sep 2, 2021)

Paco Dennis said:


> _In short, Texas’s unprecedented tactic mobilizes untold private bounty hunters (complainants do not even need to live in Texas, necessarily, or be at all connected to the people they accuse), offering them a financial reward in exchange for policing clinics, physicians, aid groups, and other people_


The American version of the Taliban state, for sure.  Control over minds and bodies, the ultimate fascist totalitarian goal.


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 2, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> SCOTUS voted 5-4 to let the Texas law stand.


The vote was simply denying emergency Injunctive relief, not really to uphold it, not really "Ripe for Judgment" yet. Alito referred it to the whole court, which he did not have to do, but it could be applied for again to a different Justice had he denied it, it had to go to Alito first, he has the Allotment for that US Circuit.


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 2, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Browsing around I have picked up a couple of common reactions.
> 
> People are demanding that the President remove the filibuster. I'm not sure whether he has that power, or if he does, what difference it would make.
> 
> They are also demanding that the President expand the Supreme Court to 13, one for each federal district court. Again, not sure what this would accomplish.


Only the Senate can ban of modify the Fillibuster. Also expanding the SC is not going to happen.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 2, 2021)

Here's one way to fight back...

The Texas Right to Life (of the fetus) group's website uses the registrar GoDaddy, which has rules for what its sites can be used for. In the company’s terms of service for users, GoDaddy mandates that its site owners cannot use a GoDaddy-hosted site to:

collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content (as defined below) or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent.​​The ToS also states that GoDaddy’s customers cannot use its platform in a manner that “violates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another User or any other person or entity.” In either case, a site solely set up to out people who try to help someone attain a sensitive, stigmatized medical procedure probably fall under this domain.​​https://gizmodo.com/here-s-how-you-can-help-shut-down-the-vile-website-for-1847557293​
So let's all report the website to GoDaddy and see if we can get them shut down. The URL is: *texasrighttolife.com*

You can file an abuse report at:
https://supportcenter.godaddy.com/AbuseReport?


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 2, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Your 1st Amendment rights only apply to the government suppressing speech.


Not always just the gov., but here, the 1st is not applicable, true.


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 2, 2021)

Shero said:


> Even a taxi driver who takes a woman to a clinic, will be liable for fines.


I don't think that would fall under aiding or abetting etc.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 2, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> SCOTUS voted 5-4 to let the Texas law stand.




From what I've read this is true for now. The court decided that it should be litigated further in the lower courts.  Be interesting to see what the final outcome will be since the six week law is clearly not legally valid under Roe v Wade which gave a trimester (of three months duration)  period for individuals to determine for themselves what choice to make:


*Roe* *v*. *Wade* specifically set up a *trimester* framework for future abortion laws. In the *first* *trimester* of pregnancy, _*the state had to leave the abortion decision entirely to a woman and her physician.*_ During the second *trimester*, the state could only enact laws which regulate abortions in ways “reasonably related to maternal health.”
Reality of *Roe* - Right to Life of Michigan​rtl.org/abortion/reality-of-roe/


----------



## win231 (Sep 2, 2021)

I.B.T.L.    (In Before The Lock)

Aw, c'mon.  Let's get back to talkin' 'bout something nice & pleasant..........
Like the Covid Vaccine.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 2, 2021)

win231 said:


> I.B.T.L.    (In Before The Lock)
> 
> Aw, c'mon.  Let's get back to talkin' 'bout something nice & pleasant..........
> Like the Covid Vaccine.



I know you are being facetious, Win, but this is a subject that is of intense interest to women (and some men, obviously). Pregnancy, miscarriage, childbirth and care of children are intensely personal issues to those of us who have experienced such things. They are emotional rather than purely theoretical. IMO the laws surrounding abortion require a lot of empathy and compassion built in. Punitive legislation is very cruel.

If you have no more to say, just bow out. Don't try to close it down.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 2, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> Not always just the gov., but here, the 1st is not applicable, true.


Who else would it apply to? It says that Congress shall make no law yada-yada-yada... That's government.


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 2, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Who else would it apply to? It says that Congress shall make no law yada-yada-yada... That's government.


In specific Public forums from 1st AM case law that binds a private entity, or the State actor doctrine.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 2, 2021)

The problem with this anti-abortion law is that it's antithetical to civil tort laws. In order to be able to sue someone, you need to have been damaged in some way... you need to have standing. You can't just sue someone for the hell of it because you don't approve of their behavior or because you want to collect a reward.


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 2, 2021)

Irwin said:


> The problem with this anti-abortion law is that it's antithetical to civil tort laws. In order to be able to sue someone, you need to have been damaged in some way... you need to have standing. You can't just sue someone for the hell of it because you don't approve of their behavior or because you want to collect a reward.


I agree, even though the statute purports to assign standing, I think that provision will not endure scrutiny.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 2, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> I agree, even though the statute purports to assign standing, I think that provision will not endure scrutiny.



Yeah, I don't think you can "assign standing."    

I'd be willing to bet that nobody is going to win a lawsuit under this law. We shall see.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 2, 2021)

Even so, Irwin, but the 6 week window is still very problematic.


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 2, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Yeah, I don't think you can "assign standing."
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that nobody is going to win a lawsuit under this law. We shall see.


Here is a Bloomberg article _supporting_ our reasoning about _Standing_ from lawyers, even from the TX AG: "In a court filing Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the providers “have not shown that they will be personally harmed by a bill that may never be enforced against them by anyone.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...takes-effect-for-now-as-top-court-deliberates


----------



## Lara (Sep 3, 2021)

The Supreme Court has ruled against abortion after 6 weeks but it isn't "against the poor" as some posts have suggested.

Adoption can be a win-win alternative to abortion for both the 6 week heartbeat and for the ever-hopeful adoptive parents who are yearning so very much for an opportunity to support and love a child, and the dream of having a family.

The birth mother doesn't even have to see the baby. And she doesn't have to carry a lifetime of regret or guilt...as does sometimes happen with abortion. She can feel good that she has given a loving family their dream of a lifetime.

The adoptive family pays for any and all expenses incurred during and after birth whether she's rich or poor...including therapist, medical bills, supplies, shelter, and all other needs. Often the birth mother receives more to help her afterwards as well, especially with postpartum depression.

Yes the birth mother may find this 9 months uncomfortable but she will be kept safe and nurtured by the many organizations out there who will provide for her and support her. Meanwhile, she will have the benefits mentioned above.

We all have life choices. But an education of her alternatives is also her right and may save her from a lifetime of emotional pain.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 3, 2021)

Lara said:


> We all have life choices. But an education of her alternatives is also her right and may save her from a lifetime of emotional pain.


I agree with all you say!  

In the end though I think this has to be left to the woman most involved to decide, not the government or others.


----------



## Lara (Sep 3, 2021)

Ideally, yes, it should be left up to the woman and not the government...but it's more complicated as there is a silent voice to consider. And that's where the debate starts as to when life begins. The Supreme Court chose a beating heart at 6 weeks. Some choose life at the time of conception. Looks like the Supreme Court tried to find a point of compromise and that's what our votes are all about.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 3, 2021)

Lara, in this day and age well off parents who cannot have children are more likely to engage a surrogate mother and use invitro fertilisation techniques. I know one such mother who did exactly that. It's not that unwanted babies are scarce. It is because they want their own genetic baby,

The legislation may not be targeted at the poor and disadvantaged but these are the women who bear the brunt of this legislation. In the past they would give birth and then leave the baby on the convent door step (or worse), something that would haunt them for the rest of their lives. The well off would simply disappear for an interstate or overseas holiday and have a termination. Poor women often fell victim to backyard abortionists, the well off could afford the services of a respected gynecologist whose discretion could be relied upon.

I don't say that abortion is a good thing, but sometimes it is the least worst option available.


----------



## DaveA (Sep 3, 2021)

Texas Taliban on the rise.  Women beware.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 3, 2021)

Lara said:


> the debate starts as to when life begins


That is a problem.  I believe we would have a complete consensus that a baby born live and breathing is a new life.  As you work back from there to conception the consensus falls apart.  And I don't think many people's position on it will change on this, for lots of people its a fundamental belief.

It is for this reason, the lack of consensus and the improbability of getting to one that I think the government needs to stay of it and let people make decisions for themselves.  No one should have someone else's beliefs or opinions, mine included, forced on them...


----------



## Lara (Sep 3, 2021)

I understand Alligatorob (i like your username btw).

Warrigal, I'm aware of the popularity of invitro fertilization "in this day and age". I'm super happy for those who want their own genetic baby and have this available for them. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who want to adopt a newborn baby. Approximately 3,000 newborn babies put up for adoption every year are adopted within the first month after birth in Texas alone. Even one life matters to me but I understand that we don't all agree on what constitutes the beginning of life.

Here's my source:
"In Texas alone, there are routinely around 5,000 – 6,000 children waiting to be adopted every year. At the Adoption Alliance the majority of those waiting to be who are adopted are aged from birth up to 2 years and the state of Texas roughly reflects the adoption figures reported by other states in that around 62% of babies put up for adoption are adopted within the first month after birth."
https://adoption-alliance.com/what-percentage-of-babies-put-up-for-adoption-are-actually-adopted/


----------



## Lara (Sep 3, 2021)

The reason the government gets involved in this decision process is because the taxpayers are funding abortions right now. So even those who believe abortion is taking a life are having to be enablers. Am I right?


----------



## Irwin (Sep 3, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> Here is a Bloomberg article _supporting_ our reasoning about _Standing_ from lawyers, even from the TX AG: "In a court filing Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the providers “have not shown that they will be personally harmed by a bill that may never be enforced against them by anyone.”
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...takes-effect-for-now-as-top-court-deliberates


The bill may never be enforced, but abortion providers have already stopped providing abortions after six weeks.


----------



## Lara (Sep 3, 2021)

To add to my post #65... Yes, I'm right. American taxpayers, whether pro or con on abortion, pay 24% for abortions.
That's about 250,000 abortions a year. That's hard on those who believe abortions are taking a life. And that's why the government has to control the issue.

Without funding, abortion clinics would not be available...and that would cause shady clinics to be a horrible option as we all know. On the other hand those who believe that life starts at conception or at least at 6 weeks with the heartbeat, feel like enablers of epic ethic proportions. This is hard on everyone.

Forbes says:
"As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S.....with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions,  this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers  and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 3, 2021)

Lara said:


> The reason the government gets involved in this decision process is because the taxpayers are funding abortions right now. So even those who believe abortion is taking a life are having to be enablers. Am I right?


I think so.  

It is a tough question, if the government is going to pay for medical care picking and choosing can be a problem.  But since this is such a heart felt belief of so many I think the  best thing would be for the government to stop paying for abortions.  A reasonable compromise.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 3, 2021)

I wonder what the suicide rate would be among women forced to carry a child conceived through rape or incest? I guarantee that many women who do carry to term under those circumstances will suffer  debilitating long term psychiatric effects.


----------



## Lara (Sep 3, 2021)

Shalimar, even one suicide is one too many. The mother's life comes first. If a woman feels too traumatized to be able to carry her baby to term then I understand completely and would be supportive of whatever her decision is in order to avoid her demise by suicide. 

Alligator....I think you missed my posts 67 and 68. 
Defunding abortions would trigger other serious problems. The ones who want an abortion, especially teenage girls and young women, will go anywhere to get one. Unsafe shady clinics will crop up everywhere. And when not monitored by a government agency, malpractice goes rampant which can kill both mother and baby . 

Violations need enforcement. 
But if gov't takes it over then pro-life people are forced to pay taxes to fund clinics to take what they believe to be...a Life. That's happening right now to the tune of 250,000 abortions a year. That weighs heavy on their conscience. No one wins. Thus the Supreme Court is trying to find a solution, a middle ground, that is fair for everyone. We all need to understand it's hard for everyone...and a dilemma of epic proportions.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 3, 2021)

Thanks for clarifying things Lara.


----------



## Lara (Sep 3, 2021)

There's only one fair and healthy solution, as I see it, for pregnant pro-choice women to have "complete control over their bodies" for their abortion choice, void of government control.......is for the rich pro-choice private sector to support the abortion clinics.

And that solution works for pro-lifers from being forced to pay for the abortions through their taxes which go against their belief that it's taking a life...

....The top 1% earners in the private sector who are pro-choice should step up to the plate and fund abortion clinics for their fellow American women.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 3, 2021)

Lara said:


> ....The top 1% earners in the private sector who are pro-choice should step up to the plate and fund abortion clinics for their fellow American women.


If the government were to stop paying for abortions I am sure some of that would happen.


Lara said:


> There's only one fair and healthy solution, as I see it, for pregnant pro-choice women to have "complete control over their bodies" for their abortion choice, void of government control...


Where would you draw the line between conception and live birth?  A very sticky question...

I think the Supreme Court is just as divided on this as we are...


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Sep 3, 2021)

I'm going to be honest, I don't know about abortion. On one hand, it is the woman's body. And quite frankly, unless you have a pregnant woman under 24/7 multiple camera surveillance, she can do what she wants with her body. And should an unwanted pregnancy alter the life of the woman? And on the other hand, it does seem that a human life is eradicated. I don't know the answer to this question. I only know that I'm happy not to make a decision.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 3, 2021)

GoDaddy has given the Texas Right to Life whistleblower site 24 hours to find a new host for violating terms. Ha!
https://www.slashgear.com/godaddy-gives-texas-abortion-website-notice-find-new-host-asap-03689530/

People can make a difference, although I'm sure they won't have any problem finding a new host. Plenty are owned by pro-fetus people.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 3, 2021)

Shalimar said:


> I wonder what the suicide rate would be among women forced to carry a child conceived through rape or incest? I guarantee that many women who do carry to term under those circumstances will suffer  debilitating long term psychiatric effects.


Ted Bundy is a good example of what can become of children of a woman who was raped by her father.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 3, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Ted Bundy is a good example of what can become of children of a woman who was raped by her father.


These are the extreme.  ANY woman should not be challenged as to her reasoning.  Period.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 3, 2021)

We used to use this saying:
Abortion on Demand, No APOLOGIES and No Excuses.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 3, 2021)

Lara said:


> Forbes says:
> "As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S.....with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions,  this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers  and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers


I cannot get my mind around this. Why are a quarter of a million abortions necessary in the age of effective contraception? Are people having unprotected sex in their millions? Is it a matter of not being able to afford the pill? Or is poverty and unemployment making it hard for many women to make ends meet if another baby is added to the family? What sort of sex education is provided for children and teens?

Interesting that Forbes is focussed on the money amount. Have they considered the human costs? Have they considered the possibility that better education and an investment in more social services could be the most cost effective way to reduce the number of abortions taking place?


----------



## Nosy Bee-54 (Sep 3, 2021)

*Pro-fetus supporters don't want their tax dollars used for abortions.
*Many people opposed the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan and would have prefer their tax dollars be used at home. 
*Israel gets the most US foreign aid and has the most lenient abortion policy. Evangelicals don't make a stink of it because they don't want to be denied access to the pearly gates of Heaven.

*What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?*

"Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose.  For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs.  The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care.  Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term.  Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision."

https://www.aclu.org/other/public-funding-abortion

"Israeli abortion law has something for everyone: A semblance of regulation for conservatives, but a reality in which almost any woman who wants an abortion is able to have one — and an estimated 40,000 Israeli women annually have them."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...l-about-the-country-s-abortion-laws-1.7274968


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> I cannot get my mind around this. Why are a quarter of a million abortions necessary in the age of effective contraception?


Exactly. This is my guess....media has repeatedly sent a clear relentless message to young and old that you can sleep with anyone, anywhere, anytime, without any moral code or thought of responsibility. Covid has sent everyone inside to binge on series, movies, streaming, etc. Immorality is constantly filling their minds with don't preplan, "just do it". Children are watching immorality too. And hearing it in their music.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54 (Sep 4, 2021)

“The physicians of Texas *never thought the day would come when the performance of our oath would create a private cause of action for persons not connected to or harmed by the action.*" The lines refer to the part of the law that allows for private citizens to take legal action against anyone they suspect of helping a woman get a now-illegal abortion after six weeks of pregnancy."

“The people that are most impacted are those with most number of oppressions," Moayedi said. “Women of color. Disabled people. Young people. Immigrants.”

She said the women that will suffer are the ones who don't have transportation, can't afford to fly to other states or who don't have jobs that allow for paid time off."

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/l...-law/287-4254c417-4e42-4f70-867b-46b1aaab8e21


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

Nosy Bee-54 said:


> "The lines refer to the part of the law that allows for private citizens to take legal action against anyone they suspect of helping a woman get a now-illegal abortion after six weeks of pregnancy"
> 
> 
> Nosy Bee-54 said:
> ...


I don't see anywhere that says "private citizens can take legal action against a pregnant woman". It says "against anyone suspected of helping a woman get an illegal abortion". So why would that impact "“Women of color. Disabled people. Young people. Immigrants.”?


----------



## Nosy Bee-54 (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> I don't see anywhere that says "private citizens can take legal action against a pregnant woman". It says "against anyone suspected of helping a woman get an illegal abortion". So why would that impact "“Women of color. Disabled people. Young people. Immigrants.”?


Try reading the article again. The answer is there. The law mainly impacts those groups when it comes to medical care for abortions. Furthermore, medical entities or individuals can be sued for a bounty by private citizens.


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

I still am not seeing...private citizens can take legal action against
pregnant women, women of color, disabled women, young people, immigrants getting an illegal abortion.

Can you be the one to read your article and post a quote from the article that says that? (you don't have to if you don't want to...SF is not exactly the FBI lol). Who is Moayedi who you say said that? All I can find is that he is from Tehran Iran and renovated a hotel in Dallas and is CEO of a company that I never heard of.

I'm not having a problem with the first paragraph in your post 82. It's the rest of your post that apparently comes from Moayedi.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54 (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> I still am not seeing...private citizens can take legal action against
> pregnant women, women of color, disabled women, young people, immigrants getting an illegal abortion.
> 
> Can you be the one to read your article and post a quote from the article that says that? Who is Moayedi who you say said that? All I can find is that he is from Tehran Iran and renovated a hotel in Dallas and is CEO of a company that I never heard of.
> ...


I posted a few relevant paragraphs as highlights of the issues involved with the Texas abortion law. It is customary to provide a *link* of the FULL article so that those who are interested can read it. The link is not blocked. It is available to anyone including those in North Carolina. If you had clicked on the link you would have read the doctor's full name who is an OB-GYN. I used Google to see where she practices. Very simple.

Also, the first paragraph quoted in my original post came from the Texas Medical Association.
The other two quotes came from the doctor.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 4, 2021)

Nosy Bee-54 said:


> *What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?*
> 
> "Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care.


I agree, and if it were up to me its what I would do.

However I think to try and put this issue behind us we will need to make some compromises that will not satisfy all.  The funding issue seems to me to be one of the hardest thing for those who oppose abortion to take, so as a part of some kind of grand compromise I think its something we may need to accept.  On the flip side those who support legalized abortion have an equally hard felt need for women to be able to make their own choices.  I support that position and think it worth giving on the funding thing to get it.

Not that any kind of compromise looks likely in today's political environment.  Too bad, we have lots of other problems to deal with, getting this one behind us would really help.


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

My post was strictly based on what you said in your post....which I found confusing and thought I'd ask for clarification. I don't make a habit of clicking on links to articles until I understand what the poster has posted. Nevermind. It's not important enough. I'll just assume its an error.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 4, 2021)

There is no way to address this *Bubba* law without gong 100% political because that is all it is right there with new election laws. All the more reason to limit terms of SC appointees. Also, change the name from "Supreme" to something else. It just does not fit.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> The reason the government gets involved in this decision process is because the taxpayers are funding abortions right now. So even those who believe abortion is taking a life are having to be enablers. Am I right?



No, Lara, you are not.  The simple fact is, since the passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, there is no federal Medicaid funding of abortion, except in three narrowly defined situations: if continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life of the woman, or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

What this means is that under current law a woman cannot use her Medicaid coverage to pay for an abortion; a provider cannot bill Medicaid for abortion services and Medicaid cannot reimburse a provider for abortion services, except for the three narrowly defined situations described above.

In other words, Medicaid does not provide block grants to providers. It reimburses based services provided. Each eligible covered healthcare  service is reimbursed if it meets the rules; and reimbursed based on an agreed upon fee structure.

Since abortion is not a covered service (except where the mother’s life is endangered or rape or incest), there is no federal reimbursement.

However, there is nothing in Hyde that prevents state governments from using tax dollars to fund abortions.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 4, 2021)

Thank you, @Butterfly, for your factual and cogent post.


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> No, Lara, you are not funding abortions via your taxes.
> There is nothing in Hyde that prevents state governments from using tax dollars to fund abortions.


Can you explain this contradiction then?


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> I don't see anywhere that says "private citizens can take legal action against a pregnant woman". It says "against anyone suspected of helping a woman get an illegal abortion". So why would that impact "“Women of color. Disabled people. Young people. Immigrants.”?


No criminal of civil action is permitted against the woman getting the abortion, true, just the enablers etc. 

In part:


Sec. 171.208.  CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR ABETTING VIOLATION. (a)  Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who:  (1)  performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter;  (2)  knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter; or  (3)  intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2).  (b)  If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this section, the court shall award:  (1)  injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this subchapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this subchapter;  (2)  statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter that the defendant aided or abetted; and


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 4, 2021)

I might also add, nothing in the bill abrogates a civil trial by a jury. Even if it did, that in and of itself alone would kill the Bill. Civil juries in TX do not require a unanimous verdict. Although the burden of proof is shallower in a civil case, the Plaintiff will spend big money and time for just a possible favorable liability judgment. Also, imo, the 1st Civil suit brought will not survive a Motion to dismiss and or a Summary Judgment. Badly written law, imo.


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 4, 2021)

TX Judge grants Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the lawsuit provision of the act.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/u...10902_temporary_restraining_order_granted.pdf


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 4, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> I might also add, nothing in the bill abrogates a civil trial by a jury. Even if it did, that in and of itself alone would kill the Bill. Civil juries in TX do not require a unanimous verdict. Although the burden of proof is shallower in a civil case, the Plaintiff will spend big money and time for just a possible favorable liability judgment. Also, imo, the 1st Civil suit brought will not survive a Motion to dismiss and or a Summary Judgment. Badly written law, imo.


Strongly agree.  Such a law would not survive in NM, based on the issue of standing alone.  Not to mention the horrible public policy aspect of setting up a system of monetary rewards to self-righteous, self-appointed officious intermeddlers.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> Can you explain this contradiction then?



By "contradiction," do you mean that the feds don't fund abortion from taxes but the state is not prohibited from doing so?

I don't see it as a contradiction at all.  There are a zillion things that the feds do not fund but the states aren't prohibited from funding.  The feds do not tell the states what to do with their state tax money; it is up to state legislatures to decide that.

Under the Constitution, actions not specifically allocated to the federal government are left up to the individual states. Administration of a state's own state tax revenues is one of the things most certainly left up to the states.


----------



## Lara (Sep 5, 2021)

.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 5, 2021)




----------



## oldman (Sep 5, 2021)

If someone wants an abortion, they still have 49 other states to choose from. Although I am pro-life, I respect any women’s decision to have an abortion. This law is a bit too restrictive and I believe that the Court will reverse itself sometime in the future after they have seen the consequences of it.


----------



## Sassycakes (Sep 5, 2021)

Many years ago my husband almost lost his job because I had signed a petition about whether I thought a woman had a right to get an abortion.
I signed yes. Somehow my husband's boss found out I had signed it and that my husband should make me change what I said or he would lose his job. I refused. Thankfully I never needed to have an abortion, but a friend of mine whose husband had just died from fighting a fire. They had a child 7yrs before that was born with many medical issues. A place called The Institute of human potential sent someone out every day to try to help the little girl but weren't successful. Because her husband was a Fireman they had to check if she was pregnant before they said he had died. They had tried not to get pregnant for 7yrs. But when they checked her she was shocked to find out she was pregnant. She called me and we cried and cried. They did a test on her to see if the baby she was pregnant with would have the same problem as the first child. Thankfully the baby didn't have the problem. The baby is 40yrs old now and has done wonderfully. That was when I decided it was a woman's right to have an abortion.


----------



## Jules (Sep 5, 2021)

oldman said:


> If someone wants an abortion, they still have 49 other states to choose from.


If they have the money and support.


----------



## chic (Sep 5, 2021)




----------



## Sunny (Sep 5, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Whatever happened to the pills that induce an abortion or a miscarriage? I would think they would become popular as a way to skirt the law.


From what little I know about the "morning after" pill, it only works for a very short time after conception, long before the woman even knows she is pregnant. It's taken as a preventative measure.

If it was as simple as just swallowing a pill, why would anyone bother going to a clinic for a (minor) surgical procedure?


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 5, 2021)

Lara said:


> No, of course I didn't mean "feds" since "feds" was not mentioned in my post #92.
> My post meant exactly what it said. It was short and quite clear as you know.
> Please don't respond further. The end.



Lara, I was not being snarky, I truly didn't understand what you meant by "contradiction."

I apologize if I offended you, but I still do not understand what "contradiction" you were referring to in your reply to me.


----------



## DaveA (Sep 5, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I think so.
> 
> It is a tough question, if the government is going to pay for medical care picking and choosing can be a problem.  But since this is such a heart felt belief of so many I think the  best thing would be for the government to stop paying for abortions.  A reasonable compromise.


I don't happen to be a drinker (I could be hypocritical and say it is because of my religious beliefs) but religion aside, how much am I paying to various government funded health care plans, for those killed or maimed by drunk drivers.  It would sound reasonable to me but I doubt that the general public would agree.

In fact, based on this reasoning, many health problems could be "carved out" of health plans, if one could be given the choice to not pay and not "participate" in that particular  problem.


----------



## Sassycakes (Sep 6, 2021)

*I was talking to a neighbor today and she said she read that a vasectomy could be reversed. She didn't remember the website she read it on. I was wondering if that was true. If it is would a man who wasn't ready to have a child get a vasectomy and then when he was ready to become a Dad have it reversed and is it covered by people's health coverage. If anyone finds the website please share it with us. *


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 6, 2021)

Problem is,  many women are too poor to travel to any of those other states where abortion remains available


----------



## Sunny (Sep 7, 2021)

Yes, I believe I mentioned that already earlier in this thread. The poorest of the poor will suffer the most from this cruel, antiquated, and let's face it, political ruling.  Those who can afford to will simply go to another state.

If a particular religious belief forbids something on religious grounds, that law should apply only to those who practice that religion. It should not be a part of civil law at all.  Orthodox Jews and Muslims believe it is a sin to eat pork?  Hindus, I think, believe it is a sin to eat beef?  Fine, so those groups voluntarily don't eat those things. All the rest of us are not forbidden by the state to eat those foods; it is an individual decision.  Why should this religiously oriented matter intrude into private decisions between a woman and her doctor? Especially, in extreme cases, when the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, or the fetus has severe abnormalities and no chance of living anyway, or the pregnancy is a threat to the woman's life?

Most abortions take place in the first trimester, when the fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being.  No abortions are allowed once the fetus is considered viable on its own, probably at about 5 months. And by then, it really is a baby, and I would be against abortion as well.  But at 2 months, a fetus is not yet a human being. It is a continuum, not a situation where conception takes place and, bang! we instantly have a human being. 

I doubt that this Texas decision will last long; it is too outrageous, and belongs in a theocracy or a fascist state. The majority of Americans don't want to live in such a country.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 7, 2021)

This is interesting...

The Satanic Temple has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division alleging that certain state-mandated abortion restrictions violate TST members' religious beliefs.​https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/texas-lawsuit​
The Satanic Temple is kind of a parody religion, but their causes are just. This should make for an interesting challenge to the Texas law.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 7, 2021)

Rather than targeting women over abortion rules, the government should be going after irresponsible Males who think they can procreate like a rabbit, without worrying about the consequences.  These types of scum should be given a mandatory vasectomy.  

https://www.wreg.com/news/tn-man-fathers-30-kids-but-cant-support-any/


----------



## Pink Biz (Sep 9, 2021)




----------



## oldman (Sep 9, 2021)

Somehow, I missed this law being passed in Texas. Roe vs Wade is still alive and well, right? Even if Texas has a ban of some type on abortions, can't women go to another state and get one?


----------



## Pepper (Sep 9, 2021)

oldman said:


> Even if Texas has a ban of some type on abortions, can't women go to another state and get one?


They shouldn't have to.  That's the point of Roe.  If that is a good thing (to go to another state), what happens when there are few states left?


----------



## Jackie23 (Sep 9, 2021)

Announced today....


Justice Department sues Texas to block abortion law​The Biden Justice Department sued the state of Texas on Thursday over its new six-week abortion ban, saying the state law is unconstitutional.

Announcing the lawsuit at a news conference in Washington, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Texas law's "unprecedented" design seeks "to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible."
"The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent" Garland said.

The Texas law was designed specifically with the goal of making it more difficult for clinics to obtain federal court orders blocking enforcement of the law. Instead of creating criminal penalties for abortions conducted after a fetal heartbeat is detected, the Texas Legislature has tasked private citizens with enforcing the law by bringing private litigation against clinics -- and anyone else who assists a woman in obtaining an abortion after six weeks.
...
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Austin, alleged that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it conflicts with "the statutory and constitutional responsibilities of the federal government."

"The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review," the lawsuit states.

The Justice Department is seeking a declaratory judgment declaring the Texas abortion ban invalid, as well as a "preliminary and permanent injunction against "the State of Texas" -- including all of its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties who would enforce the abortion ban.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/politics/biden-administration-texas-abortion-law/index.html


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 9, 2021)

So our governor is going to eradicate rape in Texas!  Does he know the majority of rapes are in the home. Does he know the majority of rapes go unreported? Does he know the great majority of rapes go unpunished? Has he ever been raped? Questions for the little boy in a chair. Why wait until *now* to wipe out rape in Texas? Are you also going to wipe out poverty? Homelessness? Drug addiction? Prostitution? Murder? He tried to wipe out voting but failed to do so. What a dirty little twit he is.


----------



## Daytona Al (Sep 9, 2021)

I just heard that Biden has instructed the justice department to challenge the law. The Supreme Court did not rule that it was constitutional. They just let the lower court decision stand... I think because the group bringing the action did not have status to challenge it. It will be back in the court soon.


----------



## oldman (Sep 9, 2021)

Pepper said:


> They shouldn't have to.  That's the point of Roe.  If that is a good thing (to go to another state), what happens when there are few states left?


I was just asking a specific question. What I wanted to know was, a Texan woman or any woman in any other state can get an abortion in any state that allows abortions, right? They aren’t committed to only staying in their home state.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 9, 2021)

oldman said:


> I was just asking a specific question. What I wanted to know was, a Texan woman or any woman in any other state can get an abortion in any state that allows abortions, right? They aren’t committed to only staying in their home state.


You're right, But............I have heard where it is being discussed, legislatively, to try to make it a crime to leave their state to obtain an abortion.  It is unconstitutional to any reasonable person, no matter where they stand on this issue.


----------



## oldman (Sep 9, 2021)

Pepper said:


> You're right, But............I have heard where it is being discussed, legislatively, to try to make it a crime to leave their state to obtain an abortion.  It is unconstitutional to any reasonable person, no matter where they stand on this issue.


It is unconstitutional. Every American is allowed to travel state to state without fear of prejudice or bias. Because abortions are partially and in some cases totally funded by federal government funding, a woman should be allowed to get an abortion in any state, regardless of her state of residency. But in today’s society, who knows what will happen next?


----------



## Pepper (Sep 9, 2021)

There is no government funding for abortion, even under Medicaid @oldman 

In U.S. politics, *the Hyde Amendment* is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.
wikpedia


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 9, 2021)

oldman said:


> I was just asking a specific question. What I wanted to know was, a Texan woman or any woman in any other state can get an abortion in any state that allows abortions, right? They aren’t committed to only staying in their home state.


As far as Criminal law jurisdiction goes, at least in Ohio, it needs to be a crime in the home state, plus the state entered into. If those are the facts, then it would be a crime to re-enter Ohio, if I remember correctly.

Example: It is a crime in Ohio, but not in Pennsylvania. A woman from Ohio travels to PA, re-enters Ohio, Ohio does no retain criminal law jurisdiction on her.


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 9, 2021)

Texas Territorial Jurisdiction:

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-1-04.html


----------



## Irwin (Sep 9, 2021)

Pepper said:


> There is no government funding for abortion, even under Medicaid @oldman
> 
> In U.S. politics, *the Hyde Amendment* is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.
> wikpedia


There is no federal funding of abortion, but states can fund them as they see fit, and several do.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 14, 2021)

Apparently abortion is now legal in Mexico https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/americas/mexico-abortion-ruling-regional-impact-cmd-intl/index.html

Probably makes the Mexican option safer.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 18, 2021)

So I would like to ask Governor Abbott since the passing of this new law against women how many rapists have been arrested since his claim to arrest them all.


----------



## mellowyellow (Oct 2, 2021)




----------



## mellowyellow (Oct 2, 2021)

Elderly woman at the Women’s March in Texas


----------



## mellowyellow (Oct 2, 2021)

Austin womens march from above


----------



## oldman (Oct 3, 2021)

This is going to be argumentative, but I will print it anyway. It's just my opinion and I think we are still entitled to that, at least for the moment we are.

I think if the U.S. wouldn't be having such huge numbers of abortions,( I think the average is around 1,000,000 a year), people would be able to cope with women having an abortion. Here in the U.S. according to CDC numbers, we had about 1.5 million abortions in the years of 2000-2015. Since that time, numbers have decreased to under 1 million. With these high numbers, it is probably obvious that at least some women are using abortions as a means of birth control. Yes, no, maybe?


----------



## Pepper (Oct 3, 2021)

oldman said:


> With these high numbers, it is probably obvious that at least some women are using abortions as a means of birth control. Yes, no, maybe?


First of all, I am unsure of your numbers as you provided no links.  Secondly, yes, I have known a few women throughout my adult life who did choose abortion as their means of birth control.  Thirdly, that's none of my business, nor is it yours.  That's what freedom of choice means.  Not my choice, or your choice, but the individual's choice.


----------



## Alligatorob (Oct 3, 2021)

Pepper said:


> that's none of my business, nor is it yours


I agree, everyone should have the right to make their own decisions.  No matter what I think of them.


----------



## Tom 86 (Oct 3, 2021)

Whatever happened to sex ed in schools?  Also how about when a girl gets to puberty start them on the pill so they can't get pregnant even if raped.  Teach guys to carry & use rubbers if they are going for sex.  That would stop 95%+ of the abortions.


----------



## Alligatorob (Oct 3, 2021)

Tom 86 said:


> Whatever happened to sex ed in schools?  Also how about when a girl gets to puberty start them on the pill so they can't get pregnant even if raped.  Teach guys to carry & use rubbers if they are going for sex.  That would stop 95%+ of the abortions.


All good ideas.  

But not good enough for the government to insert itself in a woman's right to choose.  However I am all in favor of most anything that would make such a choice less often necessary.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Oct 3, 2021)

In Texas yesterday
















"Texas law sparks hundreds of U.S. protests against abortion restrictions"​https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ab...cross-us-protest-restrictive-laws-2021-10-02/


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 3, 2021)

Tom 86 said:


> Whatever happened to sex ed in schools?  Also how about when a girl gets to puberty start them on the pill so they can't get pregnant even if raped.  Teach guys to carry & use rubbers if they are going for sex.  That would stop 95%+ of the abortions.


One of my grand daughters has an intellectual disability. It is genetic. She would not be able to raise a child by herself. Her mother had much difficulty in convincing her GP to implant a contraceptive pellet under her skin.

She was raped after being drugged by a couple whom she trusted. They invited her to stay overnight at their house. The next morning she woke up naked in bed and was "sore down there".

Her mother is a nurse and took her to the local hospital because pregnancy is not the only possible consequence of rape. She was assessed for possible STDs and the police were called. They said that they believed that she had been raped but that nothing could be done about it because she could not remember what happened and she would also be a poor witness in court.

Why am I divulging this? It is because contraception may prevent unwanted pregnancy but it does nothing to deter rape. Rape is a lot more common than people realise because either the victim does not want to tell anyone about it out of embarrassment and/or shame and because very few rape complaints ever make it to court. Of those that do, few result in successful prosecutions.

Also, even when contraception is being used, pregnancy can still occur. There can be many different reasons why a woman may not want to carry to full term. Her reasons are her own and are private. If she decides on termination then it should be her right to have a safe medical procedure, not a back ally job. We should be very careful to ensure legislation surrounding  legalised abortion does not drive desperate and poor women to risk their lives. It should never penalise the medical staff who provide safe terminations in clean, well equipped clinics.

The choice is clear - if you think that abortion is an evil act then don't have one. Your body, your choice. If men could become pregnant I surmise that they might have different views on this subject. Some would carry to term but many more would decide against it.


----------



## mellowyellow (Oct 3, 2021)

This woman knows what can happen to a woman if denied a legal abortion.


----------



## Alligatorob (Oct 3, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> One of my grand daughters has an intellectual disability. It is genetic.


You have a real challenge with your daughter, and I am very sorry this happened to her.  It was awful.

I sure hope no one takes the abortion right away from you and your daughter, you don't need to have your options limited!


----------



## Alligatorob (Oct 3, 2021)

I have a cousin who recently told me of the abortion she had in 1967.  She was about 16 and got pregnant by her boyfriend of about the same age.  She went to her father, my uncle for help.  That was really hard her father was extremely conservative, she had no idea what he would do.   At the time abortion was illegal so he found someone in Mexico who would do it.  It resulted in my cousin getting badly infected she almost died.

My uncle never spoke to anyone of it, and my cousin waited until he passed before telling us.  She was quite lucky that she was able to get medical care and survived the whole thing.  Many others did not survive similar experiences.  I would not want anyone to have to go through what she did.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 3, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> You have a real challenge with your daughter, and I am very sorry this happened to her.  It was awful.
> 
> I sure hope no one takes the abortion right away from you and your daughter, you don't need to have your options limited!


Not my daughter, Alligatorrob, my eldest grand daughter who has the genetic anomaly XXX instead of XX. My daughter has three daughters and one son and when she was pregnant with the last one her doctor offered her a termination because she was in a state of emotional turmoil. However, she chose to continue to term and afterwards she said to me, "Mum, this one is the icing on the cake". And she is. Financially my daughter has had a tough time but that time is now in the past and she has always had her parents moral and financial support when needed. Sadly the same cannot be said of every pregnant woman.

Terminations are legal everywhere in Australia with sensible limitations and are available in public and private hospitals. There is funding  under medicare, our national health system, that is available to everyone. We won't be going backwards unless the Taliban take over.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 3, 2021)

Pepper said:


> First of all, I am unsure of your numbers as you provided no links.  Secondly, yes, I have known a few women throughout my adult life who did choose abortion as their means of birth control.  Thirdly, that's none of my business, nor is it yours.  That's what freedom of choice means.  Not my choice, or your choice, but the individual's choice.


Absolutely!!  It's not the government's business either.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 3, 2021)

What I want to know is -- If Texas is going to effectively ban abortion, is Texas going to step up and help support all those unwanted children?

Or, as I strongly suspect, does the right to lifers' concern about life end at the birth canal?


----------



## Paco Dennis (Oct 4, 2021)

_Abortion bans are a result of the crumbling of church-state separation_​_"The terrifying rash of state abortion bans spreading throughout the United States has captured the nation’s attention, but in order to stop this trend, those who are fighting back must also focus on its deeper cause: the ever-crumbling wall of separation between church and state.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing one set of religious beliefs, or religion at all, on others, but that’s undeniably what these bans are doing.

“This legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God,” said Gov. Kay Ivey after signing Alabama’s uncompromising abortion ban into law on May 15. Explaining the ban’s rationale, Alabama Sen. Clyde Chambliss asserted: “I believe that if we terminate the life of an unborn child, we are putting ourselves in God’s place.” In Missouri, Rep. Holly Rehder expressed her support for that state’s abortion ban, which, like Alabama’s, lacks a rape or incest exception: “To stand on this floor and say, ‘How can someone look at a child of rape or incest and care for them?’ I can say how we can do that. We can do that with the love of God.”


These abortion bans are but one piece of a larger Christian nationalist effort sweeping America now. Last year, more than 800 state legislators across the country received the 150-page playbook of Project Blitz, a national initiative to codify a far-right evangelical Christian America. Project Blitz’s strategy is to pass an increasingly ambitious set of state laws, starting with bills that require prominently displaying “In God We Trust” and establishing Bible classes in public schools, and escalating to laws that would permit religion to be used to justify discrimination, particularly against women, LGBTQ people and religious minorities. More than 50 Project Blitz bills have already been introduced in 2019, from Virginia to Alaska and many states in between."_

3 minute read

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opin...s-separation-church-state-20190523-story.html


----------



## CarolfromTX (Oct 5, 2021)

So if it’s not the government’s business what a woman does with her body (never mind the body of the unborn child) does that mean it’s not the government’s business whether or not she vaccinates that body? Asking for a friend. Kind of a conundrum there.


----------



## mellowyellow (Oct 5, 2021)

The lawsuit by the Biden administration aims to strike a blow against the law, which bans abortions from the time of a fetal heartbeat, effectively prohibiting the procedure for women who have been pregnant longer than six weeks.


----------



## Alligatorob (Oct 5, 2021)

CarolfromTX said:


> So if it’s not the government’s business what a woman does with her body (never mind the body of the unborn child) does that mean it’s not the government’s business whether or not she vaccinates that body?


You raise a legitimate question, and point out the oversimplification of the "_none of the government's business_" statement.  I will give you my take:

On abortion I do not believe it is any of the government's business as it only effects the life of the mother and the fetus growing within her.  I know some believe that fetus is a person with rights equal to or similar to the mother.  However this is not something universally agreed upon, depending on how you ask the question the division is something along the lines of 50/50.  Not like taking the life of a living breathing person where we have near 100% agreement.  So I don't believe the government should get involved, it should be the mother's decision.   I am sure some will think of the father, and I would sure hope that a woman in that situation would contact the father, but it should be her decision.  In some cases, like rape, contacting the father would not make sense.

I am very uncomfortable with the government requiring vaccinations.  However I do understand the argument that for some people who have lots of contact with the public it may be necessary for protection of others.  I would sure want to see any such requirements very limited, and mostly avoided.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 5, 2021)

CarolfromTX said:


> So if it’s not the government’s business what a woman does with her body (never mind the body of the unborn child) does that mean it’s not the government’s business whether or not she vaccinates that body? Asking for a friend. Kind of a conundrum there.


Slightly false comparison. The government is not banning vaccinations. It is encouraging them but not forcing anyone to have the jab. The choice is up to the individual but choices always come with consequences.

In China during the one child policy years women had their second pregnancies terminated against their will. The same is not happening in US. The government is not forcing anyone to have an abortion but neither should it be making this choice impossible. 

The issue is freedom of choice. Freedom to accept the consequences of that choice.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Oct 5, 2021)

But in fact they are all but forcing people to get the jab.  Teachers, border patrol, hospital nurses and doctors, and others, are all being threatened with loss of livelihood unless they are vaccinated. Whereas women asking for an abortion are being asked to decide within 6 weeks.  Yeah, I know, not quite that simple. But seriously, in this day and age, there are many available ways NOT to get pregnant, so maybe just a little personal responsibility please. Note: My whole family is vaccinated. But it was our decision.  I do not presume to make that decision for others. As for abortion, I just think it’s a damn shame It’s as common as it is.


----------



## Alligatorob (Oct 5, 2021)

CarolfromTX said:


> As for abortion, I just think it’s a damn shame It’s as common as it is.


I agree, and if there is something the government or anyone else could do to make it less common I am all behind it.  

However, I still believe in the end it should be the woman involved who makes the choice.  Not the government, or me, or anyone else.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 5, 2021)

CarolfromTX said:


> But in fact they are all but forcing people to get the jab.  Teachers, border patrol, hospital nurses and doctors, and others, are all being threatened with loss of livelihood unless they are vaccinated. Whereas women asking for an abortion are being asked to decide within 6 weeks.  Yeah, I know, not quite that simple. But seriously, in this day and age, there are many available ways NOT to get pregnant, so maybe just a little personal responsibility please. Note: My whole family is vaccinated. But it was our decision.  I do not presume to make that decision for others. As for abortion, I just think it’s a damn shame It’s as common as it is.


Condition of employment, Carol. The choice is still up to the individual even both options are unpalatable.

I was a teacher and before I started I was required to have a chest X-ray to make sure I didn't have TB. That was back in 1963 so mandatory health requirements are nothing new for certain professions. I had been immunised against TB as a child but that didn't count. All of the final year students at the Teachers' College had to have an X-ray or no job.

It is a condition of employment for some people that they are drug and alcohol free while at work and they may have to submit to breath, urine or saliva tests.  Hep C is a serious problem in hospitals so the health care workers are required to be vaccinated or find other employment. That is just how it is.

I agree with you about the number of terminations but do we really know why they are happening? Perhaps if someone was interested in finding the answer to this question we could help women to choose not to have one. I suspect that would cost money for child care or income support and this is why governments prefer punitive legislation.


----------



## Alligatorob (Oct 6, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> It is a condition of employment for some people that they are drug and alcohol free while at work and they may have to submit to breath, urine or saliva tests.


Forgot about that, I have had many required drug tests in my career.  We have come to just accept it.


----------



## WheatenLover (Oct 6, 2021)

CarolfromTX said:


> So if it’s not the government’s business what a woman does with her body (never mind the body of the unborn child) does that mean it’s not the government’s business whether or not she vaccinates that body? Asking for a friend. Kind of a conundrum there.


I would not compare a major public health issue to an individual's right to an abortion. Apples and oranges.

Further, I think that if the men who impregnated the women who get abortions were forced to get vasectomies (except for medically-related abortions), the men would suddenly be men being pro-choice.

Also, if the men would support the children they joined to conceive, some of the women would not choose an abortion.

If the buck didn't stop with insufficient funds to support children and their mothers, perhaps some women would not choose abortion.

Often, men take no responsibility for the children they helped conceive. I have heard this over and over from women.

I also would not force a woman to have a baby that was conceived via rape.

I firmly believe in the women's right to choose. This is a women's issue and men have no right to decide how it should be handled.


----------

