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.

 

Texas Lawmaker attempts to block stringent abortion restrictions with 13 hour filibuster

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


From what I understand most clinics in Texas limit abortions to roughly 12 weeks already. There are a few that will go later, but for most of them the cut off is already below the 20 weeks of this bill.

You're right though, they're basically taking the choice away from people. A lot of women would have to travel over a hundred miles (the ones out in the smaller towns) to have a procedure performed. That's beyond the means of many of them.




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I think if the bill had been strictly about making abortions illegal after 20 weeks not many would have too much of a problem with it. The bill also sought to end abortion after 20 weeks even in the case of being medically necessary for the mother to survive, that a lot of people have issue with. The bill also sought to close all but 5 clinics, some people call them abortion clinics but they are also family planning centers/women's health centers where women and teenage girls can get and learn about birth control as well as have their gynecological exams, most people were not okay with these closures.

It kind of makes you wonder why a supposed pro-life governor would attempt to push this through in special session, why do the state legislators write a simple bill banning abortion after 20 weeks except in the event that a pregnancy becomes life threatening to the mother. A bill like that would probably sail through in Texas. Of course then it would lose some of it's power as a political football and it would become an issue that didn't have win/lose power during campaigns.

Kudos to Texas Senator Wendy Davis.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 


I already know that. But why do we need a welfare system? Charities do a much better job than the government, and in many cases the welfare state just promotes the welfare system. It's modern day slavery.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


It's not a protocol. According to the Constitution a law can not be enacted if Congress is adjourned. It's the same for states. If you read the "pocket veto" you'll see that. If a bill is not signed into law or vetoed within 10 days, it becomes law automatically, unless Congress is adjourned, in which case it can't become law.

They tried to pass a bill after the special session ended, and changed the time stamp to show they voted before it ended. They broke the law.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Wendy Davis' popularity and support are growing at an exponential rate here in Texas. I have a gut feeling that she will be the Democratic challenger against Perry in the next gubernatorial election....and she will win!



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Which system works better: A government that takes a little from every citizen, and uses that money to assist the poor, or a private group that collects donations from a few to assist the poor? Who is better equipped to determine who should qualify for assistance, the government or a private charity? Who is better equipped to determine fraud, a groups of private citizens or the government?

Is their room for corruption in the management of government funds? Yes. Is there room for corruption in an organization that manages private donations? Yes.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Which system works better: A government that takes a little from every citizen, and uses that money to assist the poor, or a private group that collects donations from a few to assist the poor? Who is better equipped to determine who should qualify for assistance, the government or a private charity? Who is better equipped to determine fraud, a groups of private citizens or the government?

Is their room for corruption in the management of government funds? Yes. Is there room for corruption in an organization that manages private donations? Yes.


Well, the government system has us currently at 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

So now everyone's children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren will inherit a massive tax burden that they did nothing to contribute to. On the other hand, charities have no red tape, no beauracracy, and helped the disadvantaged for centuries before the New Deal.

I'll take option 2 any day.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


It's not a protocol. According to the Constitution a law can not be enacted if Congress is adjourned. It's the same for states. If you read the "pocket veto" you'll see that. If a bill is not signed into law or vetoed within 10 days, it becomes law automatically, unless Congress is adjourned, in which case it can't become law.

They tried to pass a bill after the special session ended, and changed the time stamp to show they voted before it ended. They broke the law.


No, the states are independent of the Federal government, we are a Republic with a Constitution that guarantees a republican form of government.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So the constitution doesn't apply to the states?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So the constitution doesn't apply to the states?


It does, as long as it does not abrogate state rights, however, there are instances when Federal law corrects an injustice in state law, or establishes safety regulations across the spectrum. A State for example can not create a law that blatantly violates the Constitution. (Life liberty the pursuit of happiness rtc.) Yet a State can overturn an unfair or invalid law... as long as the State puts it up for a vote by the Governed Populace of that state, and that it passes that vote. (EG Colorado's removal of the marijuana prohibition.)

State Constitutions, such as the Texas Constitution, also hold much of the same precepts as the Constitution of the United States. And some inclusions that are questionable, such as Texas' Constitution only recognising marriage between a man and woman. (I suspect that one is going going to get heavily challenged.)

Gov. Perry and much of the people wishing to force abortion clinics to close or set terms on when a woman can or can not get an abortion; is going to find themselves facing a lawsuit based on Article 1, section 3a... as it violates the rights of women.

M.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So the constitution doesn't apply to the states?


It guarantees their right to govern themselves and prevents other states from imposing their will on another state and it's citizens.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Oh and BTW, the government does a HORRENDOUS job of controlling and eliminating fraud waste and abuse. To the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars according to the CBO.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by aethertek
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


Logged in just to *Star* your post.
What the religulous fail to comprehend ( or choose to ignore ) is that the Constitution not only guarantees freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.

K~


No it does not. The phrase "freedom from religion" appears nowhere in the Constitution.





Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That means freedom from the ignorant religious ideas that some would foist on the rest of the population by passing laws that conform to or (respect) religulous law or canon.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Then since it doesn't apply except to ensure their right to given themselves people need to stop using it and song over out.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Abstinence and adoption,if little Suzie has a kid and Johnny's run off, theres always someone to love that kid.It would cut down on many problems with our society and yes Suzie would look bad for doing so as she should as well as johnny.
Hostile penetration and medical intervention at the threat of loss life are the ONLY reasons to consider that .
There is enough death in our world...oh wait that would take good parenting that's not popular anymore,the "village" has dropped the ball here.
Who am I to decide? I am the guy who said what you just read nothing more,AKA my opinion.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by aethertek
 


Uh, no. The establishment clause means Congress cannot make any law declaring a certain religion to be the religion of the land. It preserves the free exercise clause for all citizens.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Private charities are no picnic either.

Some Disabled Goodwill Workers Earn As Little As 22 Cents An Hour As Execs Earn Six Figures

Nonprofit Fraud: Is the Salvation Army Worthy of Our Contributions?


Of course there are issues. But that's why we have the free market. People can choose to not give to them and give to a different charity. You can't do that with the government, you are forced to support their welfare no matter how bankrupt and inefficient it is. Secondly, you just tried to use an exception to define the rule, that's a fallacy.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Then since it doesn't apply except to ensure their right to given themselves people need to stop using it and song over out.


Not exactly sure what you mean, I'm sorry.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Private charities are no picnic either.

Some Disabled Goodwill Workers Earn As Little As 22 Cents An Hour As Execs Earn Six Figures

Nonprofit Fraud: Is the Salvation Army Worthy of Our Contributions?


Of course there are issues. But that's why we have the free market. People can choose to not give to them and give to a different charity. You can't do that with the government, you are forced to support their welfare no matter how bankrupt and inefficient it is. Secondly, you just tried to use an exception to define the rule, that's a fallacy.




I merely pointed out that the private sector isn't immune to corruption. The more people and the more money that's involved the greater the potential of corruption.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join