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: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

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.


If you don't want one, don't get one.




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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?



You are welcome to that opinion, and the First Amendment protects your right to criticize the government for it's actions. Your opinion doesn't change the fact that military spending is in the Constitution as an enumerated federal responsibility, but there is no mention of social program funding without distorting the 'General Welfare' clause.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

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.


If you don't want one, don't get one.



The fetus doesn't have a "choice".

Fetus's are just people who need another person to grow.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that military spending is in the Constitution as an enumerated federal responsibility, but there is no mention of social program funding without distorting the 'General Welfare' clause.
"Distortion" would be your opinion. Which would seem to have been overruled a while back.



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



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
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.


Unless you can get a second doctor to rubber-stamp a piece paper recommending the abortion will preserve the mother's *mental* health - no matter how healthy the child is and no matter how safe the childbirth should be - as was done by Dr. George Tiller in Kansas.




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.


Yet. That's my point. As technology improves we will continue to push the boundaries of detection and therefore the ruling.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar




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


No, not really. Not the way I read it. If a family gets a diagnosis of Down Syndrome, or Spina bifida , and the doctor doesn't deem it to be life threatening for the mother's health, then she won't be getting an abortion under this law. This law would women in the position of having to wait for their fetus to become so distressed as to risk their own life.
edit on 23-4-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that military spending is in the Constitution as an enumerated federal responsibility, but there is no mention of social program funding without distorting the 'General Welfare' clause.
"Distortion" would be your opinion. Which would seem to have been overruled a while back.




It is a 'distortion' if you've read the Federalist papers.

And overruled by whom? Politicians who bluff their way through everything in order to get votes.
edit on 23-4-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

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.


If you don't want one, don't get one.



That's what I tell the ladies: don't get pregnant. Then they call me a sexist. What's your excuse?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Not a 'distortion' if you've read the Federalist papers.

Right. That's what I said.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

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.


If you don't want one, don't get one.



The fetus doesn't have a "choice".

Fetus's are just people who need another person to grow.


I am a major supporter of LIVING CHILDREN.

When every LIVING CHILD is Loved, Fed, Secure, Clothed, Housed, etc - - - - then talk to me.

Otherwise I don't care about a potential person.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I haven't noticed that anyone post the actual bill. Has anyone in this thread actually read the thing?


Here you go, its quite the read. Latest version as far as I can tell.

webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Unless you can get a second doctor to rubber-stamp a piece paper recommending the abortion will preserve the mother's *mental* health - no matter how healthy the child is and no matter how safe the childbirth should be - as was done by Dr. George Tiller in Kansas.


WTH is that supposed to mean? Do you have a problem with doctors who save the lives of women who need late term abortions? Do you support the murder of doctors who are in the business of saving lives, as Dr Tiller was?

I Am Dr Tiller



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Not a 'distortion' if you've read the Federalist papers.

Right. That's what I said.


I fixed my typo. You are wrong, social welfare is not the original intent of the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
a reply to: Annee

I haven't noticed that anyone post the actual bill. Has anyone in this thread actually read the thing?


Here you go, its quite the read. Latest version as far as I can tell.

webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...


What part of "I don't care" are you missing?

I do care that a woman and her doctor can privately make the decision that is right for them. Without idiot busybodies not minding their own business.

You got a bill about feeding LIVING CHILDREN?
edit on 23-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Unless you can get a second doctor to rubber-stamp a piece paper recommending the abortion will preserve the mother's *mental* health - no matter how healthy the child is and no matter how safe the childbirth should be - as was done by Dr. George Tiller in Kansas.


WTH is that supposed to mean? Do you have a problem with doctors who save the lives of women who need late term abortions? Do you support the murder of doctors who are in the business of saving lives, as Dr Tiller was?

I Am Dr Tiller



If they are claiming mental stress, depression, or any of the other excuses that are rubber-stamped, yes I have a problem.

If there are actual physical medical complications that truly endanger the life of the mother, no I don't have a problem.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo


Has anyone in this thread actually read the thing?
Have you?
Do you think it does not mandate the removal of a medical license for performing an abortion?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




You are wrong, social welfare is not the original intent of the Constitution.

So? Why concentrate on any funding of abortions?
Does the Constitution prohibit abortions?
edit on 4/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Dr Tiller wan't in the business of performing risky late term abortion for women who just got into a fight with their significant others or lost their job. For god's sake man! Educate yourself!




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
a reply to: Annee

I haven't noticed that anyone post the actual bill. Has anyone in this thread actually read the thing?


Here you go, its quite the read. Latest version as far as I can tell.

webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...


What part of "I don't care" are you missing?

I do care that a woman and her doctor can privately make the decision that is right for them. Without idiot busybodies not minding their own business.

You got a bill about feeding LIVING CHILDREN?


You obviously did not read the bill. Take another look. BTW, here are the vote tallies.

Senate
webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...

House
webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...

I am sure you would agree with 90% of this bill if you read it. I mean, this thread is about this bill right? Or did I wander off into another thread about feeding impoverished children?



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
ya that's how I read it. doesn't seem to protect the mother from lifelong injuries either. I don't think it will get far in the courts anyways, and I don't think that someone is going to have to die before it gets in the courts. that's even if the gov signs it. heck, I'm old, I am almost inclined to say just let they have their stupid laws, heck cut off all funding for family planning, maybe a few decades of the younger generations living the way our mothers and grandmothers did will wake some of them up!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join