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: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   


The bill, now on the governor’s desk, would not apply to abortions performed to save a mother’s life, although the bill lacks similar exceptions for abortions performed in cases of rape or incest.


I'm fairly conservative (everybody run
), and on good days you might say I'm religious as well.

Change that last part so its exempt, assuming people will be honest about it, and be done with it. But don't force me to pay more taxes for abortions because someone couldn't drive a few minutes down to the gas station for a condom. that's all it comes down to. "but they provide other services too!" Yeah, which you can get from regular clinics now too.




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Are only unemployed people having abortions?


No, half are, half are not. But unemployed 4 times as likely to have an abortion.

Here is my obscure Internet evidence.

Almost half of the women who get an abortion are unemployed



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454



But don't force me to pay more taxes for abortions because someone couldn't drive a few minutes down to the gas station for a condom.


Your taxes don't pay for abortions.

a reply to: BIGPoJo

That's Norway!

We're talking about doctors in Oklahoma loosing their licence to practice medicine for performing a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Wardaddy454



But don't force me to pay more taxes for abortions because someone couldn't drive a few minutes down to the gas station for a condom.


Your taxes don't pay for abortions.

a reply to: BIGPoJo

That's Norway!

We're talking about doctors in Oklahoma loosing their licence to practice medicine for performing a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure.




Are you sure about that?

Tax Payers Cover Roughly 24% of Abortion Costs

EDIT - too lazy to find number for OK so I used Norway because they actually did a study.
edit on 23-4-2016 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Your source:

As a very rough approximation, it appears that no more than 1,000 abortions a year are directly funded by federal taxpayers [3]–i.e., roughly 1 in 1,000 abortions



But tell me, how much did you spend on killing people in Iraq?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Funny I thought under Roe v. Wade abortion was legal? What is wrong with these people? They say that getting rid of doctors will have no impact on the medical community. As usual the Republicans who keep crying keep the government out of our lives want to control women's bodies.


Not quite. More like it's based on the safety and health of the mother, vs the state's interest in preserving the life of the unborn.

What it sounds like the state of Oklahoma is saying that if the doctor can't show that the abortion is performed in the interest of the mother's health (during the 2nd and 3rd trimester?) then it will revoke that doctor's medical license.

mic.com...


The Court based its test on the trimester framework of pregnancy. During the first trimester of pregnancy, when an abortion was considered a safer procedure than childbirth, the Court reasoned that the decision on whether to abort must be left exclusively to the mother. Therefore, any state or federal regulation that interfered with the right to have an abortion would be presumptively unconstitutional. For the second trimester, the Court ruled that the state could regulate abortion only in order to protect the woman’s health. During the last trimester, and after the fetus was considered “viable” (could survive on its own outside the mother’s womb), state laws were permitted to restrict and prohibit abortion except when an abortion would be necessary to preserve the health of the mother.


The problem with the trimester rule is that it does not take into account the ever-advancing improvement in medical technology, both in how it affects abortion and childbirth. Truthfully I have other, bigger, problems with the ruling (big surprise) but using medical status was pretty lame.
edit on 23-4-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Your source:

As a very rough approximation, it appears that no more than 1,000 abortions a year are directly funded by federal taxpayers [3]–i.e., roughly 1 in 1,000 abortions



But tell me, how much did you spend on killing people in Iraq?


But tell me, what does military spending have to do with social program budgets?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

first what the states decide to do is up to them.
second, if cases where the mothers health is at risk, I am sorry, but if you don't want to pay for the healthcare that would cause a women needless suffering and possibly death, then I don't see any reason why we should be paying for anyone's healthcare.
fourth, if you don't want to include women's healthcare in insurance plans, then I refer you to my last statement... why should we pay for anyone else's healthcare?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Your source:

As a very rough approximation, it appears that no more than 1,000 abortions a year are directly funded by federal taxpayers [3]–i.e., roughly 1 in 1,000 abortions



But tell me, how much did you spend on killing people in Iraq?


Straw man much?

I wish 100% of my taxes were spent on NASA, but as an American I do not get to choose what they are spent on.

Doctor's main function is to help not harm, killing a human being is harm. Just because that human being is growing inside another human being does not change that. But that is how I see it, others celebrate abortion, I do not.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The same that how any and all tax moneys are spent.
I thought the invasion of Iraq was immoral. So what?


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



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Hey, let's tax churches - - they can pay for the war - - not abortions.

I'm good for paying for abortions. Take my money to pay for abortions - - not war.

For every unwanted kid not born - - let's send a LIVING ONE to college.

Maybe that LIVING KID will become a doctor - - then self-righteous idiots who can't mind their own business can yank his license.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Hey, let's tax churches - - they can pay for the war - - not abortions.

I'm good for paying for abortions. Take my money to pay for abortions - - not war.

For every unwanted kid not born - - let's send a LIVING ONE to college.

Maybe that LIVING KID will become a doctor - - then self-righteous idiots who can't mind their own business can yank his license.


You can pay for the abortions, I will pay for the Elderly Processing Center. Any elderly person that can't crawl off of the conveyor belt under their own power gets milled up and sold as medical specimens. It could be a brave new world...

I mean, we need to make room for the "worthy to live" and get rid of the "unwanted".



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Annee
Hey, let's tax churches - - they can pay for the war - - not abortions.

I'm good for paying for abortions. Take my money to pay for abortions - - not war.

For every unwanted kid not born - - let's send a LIVING ONE to college.

Maybe that LIVING KID will become a doctor - - then self-righteous idiots who can't mind their own business can yank his license.


You can pay for the abortions, I will pay for the Elderly Processing Center. Any elderly person that can't crawl off of the conveyor belt under their own power gets milled up and sold as medical specimens. It could be a brave new world...

I mean, we need to make room for the "worthy to live" and get rid of the "unwanted".


I fully support Euthanasia.

Am against keeping the elderly alive by machine. That includes me.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo



You can pay for the abortions, I will pay for the Elderly Processing Center.

You can contribute directly to that charity, yes. And it will be tax deductible. As for the rest of you tax money, no, you have no say other than what your elected representatives choose.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo
you ever consider the damage a pregnancy causes a women, it depletes her calcium, which weakens her bones and damages her teeth. it can screw up her organs, their placement in her body, causes weight gain that can be a pain to get off, and we all know how dangerous being overweight is now, don't we? it can throw her back out, and probably a cause a hundred other problems. add to that the damage that her pregnancy might cause the family budget, and her earning potential, it can cast an entire family into poverty, thus the risk of malnutrition, and other unhealthy effect that poverty causes.
what does the right's constant drumming of the wardrums have to do with this?? well... why are they drumming? increase the profits in the defense contractors pockets so they and their buddies can reap a nice bounty? they are afraid that the evil terrorist will come kill or maim them? they are afraid that they will destroy their way of life???

the core emotional makeup is basically the same in both cases! only instead of the perceived threats being made up stories to gain the public support, they are very much real!



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Annee
Hey, let's tax churches - - they can pay for the war - - not abortions.

I'm good for paying for abortions. Take my money to pay for abortions - - not war.

For every unwanted kid not born - - let's send a LIVING ONE to college.

Maybe that LIVING KID will become a doctor - - then self-righteous idiots who can't mind their own business can yank his license.


You can pay for the abortions, I will pay for the Elderly Processing Center. Any elderly person that can't crawl off of the conveyor belt under their own power gets milled up and sold as medical specimens. It could be a brave new world...

I mean, we need to make room for the "worthy to live" and get rid of the "unwanted".


I fully support Euthanasia.

Am against keeping the elderly alive by machine. That includes me.


I am talking about mandatory euthanasia. You have to be able to fight your way to live, if you are helpless as a fetus you die.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Annee
Hey, let's tax churches - - they can pay for the war - - not abortions.

I'm good for paying for abortions. Take my money to pay for abortions - - not war.

For every unwanted kid not born - - let's send a LIVING ONE to college.

Maybe that LIVING KID will become a doctor - - then self-righteous idiots who can't mind their own business can yank his license.


You can pay for the abortions, I will pay for the Elderly Processing Center. Any elderly person that can't crawl off of the conveyor belt under their own power gets milled up and sold as medical specimens. It could be a brave new world...

I mean, we need to make room for the "worthy to live" and get rid of the "unwanted".


I fully support Euthanasia.

Am against keeping the elderly alive by machine. That includes me.


I am talking about mandatory euthanasia. You have to be able to fight your way to live, if you are helpless as a fetus you die.


Do we have mandatory abortions?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Not quite. More like it's based on the safety and health of the mother, vs the state's interest in preserving the life of the unborn.


Not quite. Roe V Wade protects the Doctor-Patient relationship and weighs the states' interests in protecting the "potential" life of the unborn after it reaches viability. Some never will, ergo, late term abortions.



The problem with the trimester rule is that it does not take into account the ever-advancing improvement in medical technology, both in how it affects abortion and childbirth.


Which is why Roe V Wade's ruling considers the point of fetal viability, not on weeks or trimesters. Most catastrophic fetal anomalies can't be detected before 20-24 weeks.
edit on 23-4-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Annee
Hey, let's tax churches - - they can pay for the war - - not abortions.

I'm good for paying for abortions. Take my money to pay for abortions - - not war.

For every unwanted kid not born - - let's send a LIVING ONE to college.

Maybe that LIVING KID will become a doctor - - then self-righteous idiots who can't mind their own business can yank his license.


You can pay for the abortions, I will pay for the Elderly Processing Center. Any elderly person that can't crawl off of the conveyor belt under their own power gets milled up and sold as medical specimens. It could be a brave new world...

I mean, we need to make room for the "worthy to live" and get rid of the "unwanted".


I fully support Euthanasia.

Am against keeping the elderly alive by machine. That includes me.


I am talking about mandatory euthanasia. You have to be able to fight your way to live, if you are helpless as a fetus you die.


Do we have mandatory abortions?


Every abortion is mandatory for the fetus, they can't opt out.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

does this law provide an exemption for those fetal anomalies? I don't remember seeing it listed as an exception.

oh well, I guess if God has this money to pay for the legal fees as these stupid laws fight their way to the supreme court, he can come up with the money to care for the treatment and care for all those anomalies, which between viruses like zika and fukashima radiation, well might increase some in the future?




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join