It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abortion doctors would lose medical licenses under new Oklahoma bill

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo




Indeed, the State will not pay. It was an outright ban for most people because they could not afford it without insurance paying for it.
Whup. There goes that goalpost again, zoom! Health programs funded by the state do not allow it.

It is not banned. It is not illegal. No doctors will lose their license for performing it.

edit on 4/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BIGPoJo




Indeed, the State will not pay. It was an outright ban for most people because they could not afford it without insurance paying for it.
Whup. There goes that goalpost again, zoom! Health programs funded by the state do not allow it.
It is not banned. It is not illegal.




Lay off the coffee man, there is no goal post.



I am not making an argument that the State should take their licenses. I am just saying that they can take them away.

The real problem with stupid bills/laws like this is that it distracts the populous from the real issues.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Coffee? That was hours ago.



I am not making an argument that the State should take their licenses. I am just saying that they can take them away.
Not if they do so based on unlawful laws.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo




Partial birth abortions are illegal now if I am not mistaken. It should be illegal. I mean if the kid is hanging out of your vagina, let him live.


Partial birth are late term abortions, and yes, they have been banned. Now, doctors must use drugs to stop the fetal heart beat before inducing labor. In some cases, where the mother's life so gravely at risk that doctors don't have time to wait, the fetus may be born alive, but will probably languish in pain and die from its catastrophic disease, even if it is able to take its first breath. Well done Congress!

Doctors don't perform abortions on late term fetuses unless there is a dire health risk for the mother, usually because of catastrophic fetal anomalies causing the mother to go into septic shock. Otherwise, doctors and hospitals use extraordinary measures to keep both the mother and "baby" alive.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

The woman is the patient. Usually no harm comes to her with this procedure.


I'm asking can they do that? They are basically overturning a supreme court decision.
Although I'm thinking that states that legalise marijuana are doing the same.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




Although I'm thinking that states that legalise marijuana are doing the same.

Not exactly.
The difference is that federal authorities can enforce federal laws. Federal laws trump state laws.

edit on 4/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

They're overturning nothing at all.

They're not banning abortions...

They plan to reprimand doctors who involve themselves in elective abortions.



And I say good.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408


They plan to reprimand doctors who involve themselves in elective abortions.
False. Removing a license is somewhat more than a reprimand.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

but, the supreme court says that women have rights to abortions, states have a right to regulate it, but this law doesn't regulate it really, it bans it to all but those women whose health is at risk. regulating the abortion industry would involve making rules that improve the safety for women, not endangering it! and this would, since doctors would be far too cautious when it came to deciding an abortion is necessary and risking women's lives.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
When I first saw this I could not believe it and then went and did the fact checking to find out it is something that they really are considering. And now it becomes public discourse and of course if it passes, the lawsuits where a doctor will have to sacrifice him or herself on the judicial alter to remove the law.

The first problem with this bill, if it becomes law, is that it does fundamentally invade the privacy of the person and invalidates the confidentiality between a doctor and a patient. That invasion is dangerous enough as it would mean that the state, not the person or the doctor would ultimately have a final say in a person’s medical decision. And it is ripe and open for abuses on the part of the state and a state like Ok, as part of the bible belt, would use it to then start to persecute those it found undesirable, all on the grounds of protecting the public and the public welfare.

How would the state know if a doctor does or does not perform a procedure, if that privacy is maintained? And would it violate federal law? HIPPA is very specific and the government is forbidden from going in and poking around a patients private medical records, looking up or checking on a persons medical history, unless they have a court order that allows for them to do such.

So that would lead to the next question, how would the state of Ok, know or find out if a doctor does or does not perform an abortion, if all of this information is supposed to be private?

There are many questions, however what is true, is that the first doctor that they come after, chances are they are going to lose in federal court, going all of the way up to the US Supreme Court, which very well may rule against them, ending up with the state being in further debt to pay for the legal fees. Though we should find it amusing that the legislators tend to think that God will solve their economic troubles, but something tells me that they may find themselves in a far worse situation.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I'm sure it makes sense to some people. I mean what other elective procedure can you get that'll end someone else's life because it inconveniences you?
edit on 23-4-2016 by avgguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

in what other way does the law demand that you risk your life and well being for another person, let alone a two month fetus?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Metallicus

The woman is the patient. Usually no harm comes to her with this procedure.


I'm asking can they do that? They are basically overturning a supreme court decision.
Although I'm thinking that states that legalise marijuana are doing the same.


with the supreme court at 8....the political leaders in red states know that appellate court districts around the country have the last say....decisions (now), for or against Roe v. Wade, or any ruling that involves abortions, cannot go any higher that the nine district appellate courts decisions......republicans are bent on screwing women over what a mythical god said 2000 years ago...the republicans in congress are like the Mullahs in Iran...they get to decide what a woman can do with her own body, from "supposed knowledge" told by a mythical being....



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Geeze, how hard is it NOT to get pregnant?!



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Geeze, how hard is it NOT to get pregnant?!



A hell of a lot harder than finding a job, apparently.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Geeze, how hard is it NOT to get pregnant?!



Apparently, procreation is an involuntary act that happens.

Like sneezing, only with different body parts.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That really isn't the point, most birth control isn't 100% also.
How about we just stop telling women how to live their life? I sure as hell don't want any one telling me when I should or should not have sex and then afterwards telling me what I can do with my body.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo




A hell of a lot harder than finding a job, apparently.

What?
Nonsequitor much?
edit on 4/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Are only unemployed people having abortions?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That really isn't the point, most birth control isn't 100% also.
How about we just stop telling women how to live their life? I sure as hell don't want any one telling me when I should or should not have sex and then afterwards telling me what I can do with my body.


But that IS the point!

Responsibility!!!!!

And the "not 100% effective" is BS.

When you put the burden for your irresponsibility on others, then don't be upset when you don't get your way.

There is only 1 way normal people get knocked up, that I'm aware of and it's not from a public swimming pool.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join