- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
5th Circuit Upholds new Texas Abortion Law
Posted on 3/27/14 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 3/27/14 at 4:29 pm
quote:
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld new abortion restrictions that shuttered many of the abortions clinics in Texas.
A panel of judges on the New Orleans-based U.S. 5th Circuit issued the ruling Thursday, overturning a lower court's decision that the rules violated the U.S. Constitution and served no medical purpose.
Texas lawmakers last year passed some of the toughest restrictions in the U.S. on when, where and how women may obtain an abortion. The Republican-controlled Legislature required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and placed strict limits on doctors prescribing abortion-inducing pills.
In its opinion, the appeals court said the law "on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman."
Paging ASURob
#waronwomenz
11
Posted on 3/27/14 at 4:44 pm to MSMHater
quote:
ASURob
His posts are going to be painful to read in this thread.
Anyway, I'm not naive to the aspect that this is intended to restrict abortions as much as possible but safety is a legit concern as abortions are still a dangerous procedure so that's a good interest to have.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 6:45 pm to Sentrius
quote:
His posts are going to be painful to read in this thread.
Anyway, I'm not naive to the aspect that this is intended to restrict abortions as much as possible but safety is a legit concern as abortions are still a dangerous procedure so that's a good interest to have.
Shrug, we both know it's an attempt to get around roe v wade.
Win some, lose some, fight is not done with this.
(And yes I am in favor of making abortion as safe as possible for women...but that is not what this law was about.)
Posted on 3/27/14 at 6:48 pm to asurob1
quote:
yes I am in favor of making abortion as safe as possible for women...but that is not what this law was about.
Please explain how you would want to make abortions safer for women without causing "an undue burden on the woman."
Posted on 3/27/14 at 6:59 pm to MSMHater
That's progress.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:11 pm to MSMHater
This will give the Democrats ammunition to rile up women.
-"You see what happens when Republicans get to appoint federal judges?"
-"We can't afford to have any more Republican-appointed judges on the SCOTUS".
I can already picture the ads. This should help Hillary in 2016.
-"You see what happens when Republicans get to appoint federal judges?"
-"We can't afford to have any more Republican-appointed judges on the SCOTUS".
I can already picture the ads. This should help Hillary in 2016.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:12 pm to trackfan
You and your saviors are going to need it.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:25 pm to trackfan
quote:
I can already picture the ads. This should help Hillary in 2016.
Response: "Safe, legal and rare" (Pictures of Gosnell's facility) "The Democrats say that trying to stop this is 'anti-women.' Is that what you think? (more Gosnell pictures)"
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:26 pm to trackfan
quote:
This will give the Democrats ammunition to rile up women.
-"You see what happens when Republicans get to appoint federal judges?"
-"We can't afford to have any more Republican-appointed judges on the SCOTUS".
I can already picture the ads. This should help Hillary in 2016.
Actually, this is what's wrong with it. If fewer people played politics and pointed fingers, kept their noses out of other people's business and took care of themselves, we'd all be much better off.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:32 pm to MSMHater
It amazes me that liberals not only condone but fully support the murder of babies. How they cannot see it as human life is beyond my level of comprehension, which is saying something.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:33 pm to trackfan
quote:
This will give the Democrats ammunition to rile up women.
quote:At least you're admitting the Dems only hope is going after the emotions
I can already picture the ads. This should help Hillary in 2016.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:48 pm to SuperSaint
At what point does one obtain "rights" that the government is charged with protecting???
Do these rights extend to the womb? if not why not?
Do these rights extend to the womb? if not why not?
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:51 pm to TN Bhoy
quote:
Response: "Safe, legal and rare" (Pictures of Gosnell's facility) "The Democrats say that trying to stop this is 'anti-women.' Is that what you think? (more Gosnell pictures)"
Seriously, this is a "boom" level response. However, do the un-callus-hand white collar GOPers and their consultants have the balls to run such an ad?
I doubt it.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:52 pm to Sentrius
quote:
I'm not naive to the aspect that this is intended to restrict abortions as much as possible
Correct.
quote:
but safety is a legit concern as abortions are still a dangerous procedure
Well then legislation needs to start popping up re: many other "dangerous" procedures.
ETA: I'm still waiting on objective evidence that shows admitting privileges-->reduces adverse outcomes
This post was edited on 3/27/14 at 7:53 pm
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:53 pm to Jbird
quote:
You and your saviors are going to need it.
You should know me well enough to know that Hillary is no savior of mine.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:53 pm to MSMHater
This is great news! 
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:55 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Well then legislation needs to start popping up re: many other "dangerous" procedures.
This is my question...are the same "safe guards" in place for all outpatient procedures?
quote:
I'm still waiting on objective evidence that shows admitting privileges-->reduces adverse outcomes
Have hospitals moved away from the hospitalist model? I'm pretty sure if someone is taken as an urgent/emergent patient from an outpatient facility, they would see the first ER doc available and not wait to check admitting privileges of the referring physician.
But I could be wrong.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:55 pm to LeonPhelps
quote:
It amazes me that liberals not only condone but fully support the murder of babies. How they cannot see it as human life is beyond my level of comprehension, which is saying something.
Let's be honest, conservatives don't really see it as murder, otherwise, they'd be advocating the death sentence for both the mother and the doctor for committing first degree murder.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:56 pm to SuperSaint
quote:
At least you're admitting the Dems only hope is going after the emotions
As Al Davis would say, "Just win baby".
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:57 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Do these rights extend to the womb?
If you are holding a baby in your arms you are responsible for that baby and you definitely can't kill it.
If you are holding a baby in your womb, responsibility for the baby is questionable and you have the right to kill it in most circumstances.
Why does the disposition of the baby matter?
This post was edited on 3/27/14 at 8:00 pm
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News