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: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

I am sure you would agree with 90% of this bill if you read it.
So, ignore the bad part? Yeah, legislators use that ploy a lot.




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

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?


Does it have anything to do with interfering with a doctor and his female patients reproduction decisions?

If you can't figure out the Feeding LIVING children part - - - - that's your problem.


edit on 23-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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?


The left claims its a right to privacy provided by the Constitution. I would argue that the Declaration of Independence gives you the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Inalienable rights, that even a fetus should enjoy.

But this thread is about this bill.
webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

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?


Does it have anything to do with interfering with a doctor and his female patients reproduction decisions?

If you can't figure out the Feeding LIVING children part - - - - that's your problem.


That is for you to decide. Did you read it? How can you even argue against something that you haven't read? Did the news tell you what to think?

Living children, aborted fetus's don't even get the chance to live. Food is ubiquitous in the USA, such a weak argument for pro-infanticide.
edit on 23-4-2016 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2016 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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?


The COTUS doesn't say anything about abortions, or any other social issues. Those are left to the states and people to figure out themselves.

Activist judges found 'penumbras' and 'emanations' from the 'right to privacy' (also not listed in the COTUS) in order to say that the states can't prohibit abortions under specific conditions. While I will concede that abortions are a valid medical procedure that are sadly necessary at times to save the mother's life, that does not mean that the Federal Government should be giving tax payer dollars to clinics that provide abortions. Or to medical clinics in general, truth be told. Leave it to the states and private funding.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

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?


Does it have anything to do with interfering with a doctor and his female patients reproduction decisions?

If you can't figure out the Feeding LIVING children part - - - - that's your problem.


That is for you to decide. Did you read it? How can you even argue against something that you haven't read? Did the news tell you what to think?

. . . aborted fetus's don't even get the chance to live.


I don't care.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo




Did you read it? How can you even argue against something that you haven't read?


This is a problem.



Performance of an abortion as defined by Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, except that an abortion necessary to preserve the life of the mother shall not be grounds for denial or revocation of a medical license. No such condition may be determined to exist if it is based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman may engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death



Section 1730. As used in this article: 1. "Abortion" means the purposeful termination of a human pregnancy, by any person with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child;


That means that any doctor performing any elective abortion in OK will loose their licence to practice medicine. This law will make ALL elective abortions effectively illegal in the state, by threatening the doctors that perform them.




edit on 24-4-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

I am sure you would agree with 90% of this bill if you read it.


I haven't actually found anything on those links that explains the bill.

If you've got something - - post it.

I did find this:


"If we take care of morality,” bill supporter David Brumbaugh, a Republican, said during deliberations, "God will take care of the economy."


NO ONE defines my morals for me.

My morals say take care of the LIVING CHILDREN.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

That means that any doctor performing any elective abortion in OK will loose their licence to practice medicine. This law will make ALL elective abortions effectively illegal in the state, by threatening doctors.



Thank you. I was searching, but . . . other stuff is going on around me that I have to pay attention to.

The fact they introduced an abortion bill at all - - - I'm against.


edit on 23-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

there's a young lady in south america that was denied abortion. unfortunately that young lady also had lupus. the doctors wants to terminate the pregnancy because it endangered the mother, the gov't refused. eventually, the gov't was pressure enough to allow the girl to undergo a c-section at 27 weeks, and delivered a baby that died a short time later. she had one other living son she was responsible for also. between the lupus, kidney failure, and the pregnancy her health has been severely impaired.




The story of “Beatriz,” the 22-year-old woman caught in the firestorm of the abortion conflict in El Salvador, no longer appears on the front pages of the country’s newspapers nor on TV nightly news. Beatriz, however, struggles daily with poor health resulting from denial of abortion care, while trying to build a life for herself and her 20-month-old son.

rewire.news... iety/


I particularly like this part:




“the most disgusting and inhumane” episode occurred when the anti-choice group brought Beatriz a basket of baby clothes, including small knitted caps to cover the head of the anencephalic fetus she was carrying.


it was known to the doctors that this baby had no chance of survival anyways, it didn't have a brain, but still common sense be danged! ya know the right to life and all that!

the law that this discussion is about wouldn't provide an exception for this young lady, and even if it did, half the time those entrusted with the decision making on such things kind of poo poo the dangers, much like so many here on ats tend to do.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: windword
I found a version of the bill, not sure if it's the same version that was passed, but it also includes a year of jail time for anyone who performs, or aids a women in getting an abortion.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




The COTUS doesn't say anything about abortions, or any other social issues. Those are left to the states and people to figure out themselves.
To a certain extent, yes. But it does not mean that states can make any laws they wish.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Can you offer examples of other "elective" procedures which have been made illegal based on "moral" grounds?



I can. M.U.R.D.E.R.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter
Abortion is not murder, even in Oklahoma. Look it up.


edit on 4/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
What about Fetal alcohol syndrome and crack babies?

Does the bill mention anything about them?



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

The link was posted. You can read, right?



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Bill 1118, right?

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

or

Bill B1552

www.oklegislature.gov...

Are these different bills?

I guess they go together.





SB 1118 and SB 1552 are extreme bills that do absolutely nothing to help the people and families in our state take charge of their own reproductive health.

Further, by blocking access to safe, legal abortion and possibly eliminating it altogether these bills are blatantly unconstitutional and politically motivated.

SB 1118 would ban abortion as early as 6 weeks, or once a fetal heartbeat can be detected. This law has been struck down as unconstitutional in other states, including Arkansas and North Dakota. This bill's vague language could lead to requiring physicians to force a transvaginal ultrasound on any woman who seeks abortion care.

SB 1552 would require that any doctor who performs an abortion for any reason to lose their license. Even a doctor who has performed an abortion out of state and is coming to practice medicine in Oklahoma in areas other than abortion care could be denied an Oklahoma license. This bill could eliminate access to safe, legal abortion altogether.


www.oklegislature.gov...
edit on 24-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter
Abortion is not murder, even in Oklahoma. Look it up.



Abortion is murder and none of you can convince me otherwise. I've no religion, not bound to any party.

But I know wrong when I see it.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter
Ok. Not trying to change your mind.
But we are talking about a law and the law does not say that abortion is murder.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

This bill (SB1552 from OK) is what has people getting bent out of shape over.

webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...
edit on 24-4-2016 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join