U.S. judge blocks enforcement of near-total abortion ban in Texas

I see you manage to include a link to whataboutisms but not to the claim women become depressed after abortion

https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion

 

The UVVA does NOT bestow rights on ZEFs.

It adds stronger charges if a fetus is killed during an attack on the woman it's in.

Yes, if an attacker takes away a woman's right to CHOOSE pregnancy they are punished more severely...as should be ANYONE who takes away a women's right to CHOOSE..

 

Ya, like when they're trying to ban abortion.....................

 

The first link Googe gave me: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/313098
And there are many more. What's your problem? Mental issues after abortion are not so uncommon as you might think.

Most women have a strong instinct to protect their children. It must be pure horror for any woman If she does realize that she's prevented that her baby's birth at all. This realization probably comes after many years after the abortion.
But it's always very painful!

 

I highly doubt that, but the larger question is.... asked many years after the abortion....

Was it the right thing for me to do at that time?

Oh look... there's a study... I'm positively shocked...

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/4...rly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study

 

Thanks!
"This debunks the idea that most women suffer emotionally from having an abortion."
With that, I withdraw my argument.

 

NOT research or even a scholarly article whereas my link did acknowledge that depression may occur but at a rate no different from pregnancy so your article could easily be titled “How to cope with depression after birth.

You are projecting and science does NOT support your hypothesis

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010782408003697

 

You're right. Psychological science doesn't support my opinion. So I'm forced to fall back to the moralistic argument. Murdering life at any development stage should be considered a capital crime.

 

Laws aren't based on morals.....but congrats on admitting you were wrong about how abortion affects women..

 

That's essentially what RBG's position was. She stated that the States were doing a fine job here that was overturned when SCOTUS stepped in, which essentially created the rise of the Political Right.

But, they won't overturn Roe though they will likely clarify Casey more in line Justice Robert's view that Legislatures have freedom to legislate in areas where there is medical uncertainty that are not legitimately reviewable by unelected judges who would them illegitimately assume the power to overturn the broad based decisions of elected legislatures.

 

You are denying a person is a human being now? You absurdity shows no bounds.

Person - Legal Dictionary
https://dictionary.law.com › Default

Search Legal Terms and Definitions ... n. 1) a human being.

 

Smoking marijuana was legal too. Slavery was legal too.

Another fail on your part.

 

Your thread is a nothing short of Stalinistic propaganda and disinformation.

The Texas law does not ban abortions and you can provide no evidence to the contrary.

The Texas law only provides a non-criminal private right of action for third parties.

You deceptively refuse to acknowledge that an attempt by a Texas resident to take action requires a woman who had an abortion to publicly so state, or for a doctor to violate HIPAA and provide evidence that he had performed an abortion.

You disingenuously have failed to demonstrate how a third party has legal standing to take action against either a patient or her doctor.

The first element of standing is that the plaintiff must have suffered an injury-in-fact.

The sub-elements of injury-in-fact are 1) concrete; and 2) particularized.

You cannot show how a plaintiff suffered a concrete physical or economic injury that is also particularized.

We all know you are incompetent in all things-legal.

Because, if you were, you know, competent, then you would have read the several studies conducted which analyzed the opinions of Supreme Court Justices over their life-times on the Supreme Court and you would know that Conservative justices become more liberal, while Liberal justices have a tendency to become slightly less Liberal.

To further demonstrate your incompetence in legal matters, the Supreme Court did not "respect stare decisis" here and reversed itself: Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 453, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001).

As an additional demonstration, do you think the Supreme Court should have "respected stare decisis" in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564 (192?

Really? Police don't need a search warrant to initiate a wire-tap of your phone or any other form of electronic communications?

I guess it's a good thing that the Supreme Court didn't listen to you and refused to "respect stare decisis." It over-turned Olmstead with Berger v. State of N.Y., 388 U.S. 41, 64, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 1886 (1967) (Douglas, J., concurring) ("I join the opinion of the Court because at long last it overrules sub silentio Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, and its offspring and brings wiretapping and other electronic eavesdropping fully within the purview of the Fourth Amendment.") and by Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 362, n., 88 S.Ct. 507, 517 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("... today's decision must be recognized as overruling Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944).

So do you. Murder is the taking of a life with premeditation for reasons of profit, personal gain, benefit and/or advantage.

I will grant you a fetus is not a human in the first trimester, but once it becomes a sentient being it is.

 

LOL... who are you kidding?? They shouldn't be, but then the GOP would stand for even less than they do now...

Geez, one of the most ill fated moral things to come out of Washington ever was named after a Republican....

Any guesses??

 

Since most women do not even know they are pregnant at 6 week, it is an 'effective' ban,

It's a pernicious provision, and it usurps the responsibility of the state to , well, read the Pittman order.

I would equate 'sentient being' with 'person'. And that is a philosophical debate.

I'm not a lawyer, so if you are going assert some someone is incompetent on legal issues, they would have to be a lawyer. Laypersons are, in varying degrees, correct or incorrect.

As a lay person, yeah, I'll take potshots, but hell, I know I'm not a lawyer, and I'm all for being corrected on legal issues.

But, if you want a competent rebuttal to rebut, why not rebut Pittman's order?

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2021/10/Texas-abortion-ruling.pdf

 

Yes, they are based on morals lol. AMong other things but to pretend no morality is present in the forming of our laws is as ignorant as it comes.

 

No, laws are not based on morals or it would be against the law to gamble or dance...there are people who think those things are immoral..

"Morals" are as ephemeral as a fart in the wind....they change from person to person, time to time, country to country....

Laws are based on keeping order and safety in society...

 

It most certainly plays a role in the creation of law, which was my argument. And that is objectively correct.

What its a derivative of makes no difference.

 

YOU invoked the topic of DEPRESSIONS related to PREGNANCIES, not me!

Don't COMPLAIN when YOU can't handle what comes through the DOOR that YOU opened.

Women suffering for post partum DEPRESSION have KILLED their own CHILDREN.

THAT is actual MURDER!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122575/

NOT my problem if YOU cannot deal with that obvious CONNECTION to the CONTENT of YOUR own post.

Sad!

 

Coming from the voice of ZERO EXPERIENCE?

The MAJORITY of women feel RELIEF after having an abortion.

https://www.healthline.com/health-n...men-say-they-do-not-regret-having-an-abortion

FACTS matter to everyone EXCEPT those that HATE women's RIGHTS.

Sad!

EDIT: Only subsequently saw your post conceding that you were wrong. That was a smart move and adds to your credibility. Granted YOU can consider abortion to IMMORAL but exactly how MORAL is it to DEPRIVE women of their RIGHTS?

 

YOU should use YOUR dictionary to look up the term "ONLY" because you obviously do NOT know what it means given YOUR puerile STRAWMAN response.

SAD!

 

It is YOU that wants to ENSLAVE women by FORCING them to bear UNWANTED children.

So that is an abject FAIL on YOUR part.

Sad!

 

suppose a woman dies cause the Texas law was in effect, how does her family and loved ones feel?

we should never force women to risk their lives, that has to be a choice

 

yes, had Andrea Yates of had an abortion, 4 children may be alive today, one just never knows

if one is really against abortion, the best way to prevent abortion is cheap\free easy access to long term birth control