Texas Capitol State Police Confiscating Tampons and Sanitary Napkins, but not Guns, for Abortion Bil

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Nice double standard, wrabbit: when I ask you for better documented evidence of your claim in a thread you created, you tell me to go find it myself, e.g. in your thread about federal student lunch guidelines, but when you challenge the points I make in a thread of mine, you insist that I provide you evidence. Besides being two-faced, you're lazy.

But here, as you requested:

TRAP laws
TRAP stands for targeted regulations of abortion providers. These laws differ in the fine print, but the common goal is to make it prohibitively expensive, or simply impossible, for providers to operate. Often the first step is to require an abortion clinic to meet the same regulatory standards as an ambulatory surgical clinic (a facility that’s not a hospital but does outpatient surgery), which often costs too much money for a clinic to do. It doesn’t matter if the abortion clinic only does first-trimester procedures that are far simpler and less risky than many other kinds of surgery. Twenty-six states now have these laws. And other more onerous red-tape requirements have gone into effect in states like Kansas, threatening or succeeding in shutting down clinics. This is another aspect of the Texas bill Davis tried to block.

The latest breed of TRAP law requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Sounds reasonable, right? The state is just making sure that a patient with complications can get the care she needs. Except that any patient who shows up at an emergency room gets care. Her doctor doesn’t need to be affiliated with the hospital. The underlying goal is to use the hospitals’ denial of admitting privileges to shut down the clinics. “For hospitals to decide whether to allow or deny abortion—that’s new,” says Elizabeth Nash, state law expert for the Guttmacher Institute. Seven states now have these laws, though so far they’ve only gone into effect in Tennessee, Utah, and partially in Kansas. (Two of the state’s four clinics challenged the law, and it’s been blocked for them.) In Wisconsin and North Dakota, suits have recently been filed. And in Alabama and Mississippi, judges have blocked these laws. Providers at Mississippi’s lone clinic actually tried to get the admitting privileges. It was after no hospital would grant them that the judge stepped in.

The legal argument against laws requiring hospital admitting privileges is that they impose what the Supreme Court calls an “undue burden” on women exercising their right to have an abortion. In other words, they’re about shutting clinics down, not patient safety. Still, here’s what has pro-choice advocates worried: In nine states, abortion providers are also required to have an agreement with a hospital that lets them transfer a patient who needs emergency care. (Again, the hospital would have to take the patient in an emergency anyway.) In 2003, an Ohio doctor challenged his state’s law after the hospital he’d worked with canceled their transfer agreement, without giving a reason, and he couldn’t find another hospital to take its place. The doctor wanted a waiver so he could continue to operate, but he essentially lost in federal appeals court. The judges said that because there was another clinic 55 miles away, the law’s effect on this clinic didn’t pose an undue burden to women.

Slate: abortion TRAP laws


Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know this isn't conservative propaganda organ like the Washington Times, so you won't acknowledge it as a legitimate source. Not my problem.


Also, what you are calling "hateful" rhetoric on my part is just exasperation. I used the term "you and others" in the literal sense, when I said you and others keep on bringing this issue of the 20-week limit as if it is the only point at issue in this law. NEVER MIND that this thread is not about the law itself, but how the authorities are intimidating female citizens that want to observed the supposedly democratic process of lawmaking in Texas.

And you're right, I can't stop you from saying anything you want to in this thread. You can bring up Reptilians from Zeta Reticuli, and there isn't much I can do about it. I can, however, point out that all of the persons, including yourself, who are trying to sidetrack the point of this thread, and call you out on it. If you want to label that ugly or unpleasant behavior on my part, go ahead and delude yourself and your reactionary fellow travelers, as you're only preaching to your choir.

I have yet to read in this thread one good defense of how the Texas Capitol DPS handled security at this event, confiscating women's hygiene products but letting people with concealed weapons in.

That is what this thread is about, along with the onerousness and sliminess of the Republican tactic to pass this bill in a special session (and claiming that all of a sudden it came to the attention of Texas lawmakers that current Texas abortion laws are severely wanting, and required a special session to enact new laws is either incredibly specious on your part or amazingly naive).

Furthermore, I'd love to the what the Texas Capitol DPS does next time if the legislature is discussing immigration laws and a bunch of Latinos with concealed weapons permits and their weapons show up and want to sit in on the legislative session. Or better yet, if a bunch of black folk similarly armed show up to observe a session on criminal and prison reform laws. Heck, I'd be curious to see how the Texas Capitol DPS would handle minorities with guns and concealed weapons permits showing up en masse for any legislative session.

Originally posted by Eshel
The problem with this thread is that points out some ridiculous measures in an attempt to deny/hinder opposition voices over a controversial piece of legislation and it was posted in a forum that is going over the top with right wing leaning people.

It's nearly impossible now to see two points of view on this site anymore. The conservative/right leaning people in this site will simply drown out anyone with a conflicting view and beat you into the ground with the same rhetoric over and over until you just submit and go away.

I could not be more aghast at this report. I first read it on news sites yesterday and it blew my mind. Let's just say, "ok, hygiene products can be a weapon". If we are going to confiscate them for being a "potential weapon", they why are we not confiscating ACTUAL weapons?

To not see the complete craziness in this, is to ignore the truth.

Let's "deny ignorance" and start looking at things with logic and reasoning and not with so much emotion and hyperbole.

If OP wasn't such a political flamer, he'd get more constructive feedback.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


I'm not sure if you've lived in Texas or even been inside the state. If you've said, I missed that. However there is one thing about Texas that makes it almost unique. Anywhere you are, you're under the jurisdiction of at least 3 different law enforcement agencies and in some places, as many as 5. Texas has layers of it and it can check itself/ each other in the overlaps. It's not an All White club...and hasn't been since I've been in and out of Texas.

Furthermore, I'd love to the what the Texas Capitol DPS does next time if the legislature is discussing immigration laws and a bunch of Latinos with concealed weapons permits and their weapons show up and want to sit in on the legislative session. Or better yet, if a bunch of black folk similarly armed show up to observe a session on criminal and prison reform laws. Heck, I'd be curious to see how the Texas Capitol DPS would handle minorities with guns and concealed weapons permits showing up en masse for any legislative session.

I'd really love to see that happen, personally. It would give some other DPS agents or Texas Rangers a good day for getting some bigots out of Uniform. Contrary to popular myth, Texas may HAVE racism (every state does in some form, in some places) but Texas is not a racist place as I ever saw it. I lived there 6 months in Abilene and spent a lot of time all over Texas in the truck for years.

Racism so openly practiced would go over like a bag of lead. A good % of Texas is Hispanic/Latino and the Statehouse turning away valid weapons permits in an area where the law says a man may carry his weapon, based on race? Well..... I suppose they could have a replay of the Alamo. Not likely, regardless.


Now, to recap....

* Protesters * HAVE * used these items in other protests and in other places in the past to very NASTY and biologically dangerous effect.

* Major damage and serious violence * HAS * been done to Statehouse buildings in the recent past (See the Wisconsin Statehouse during the Union issues).

These are Texas's version of the State Police (DPS Officers) and it's their JOB to insure nothing bad happens. By the way, just how many women could possibly have been in that specific 3 or so day period of their monthly cycle on the SAME day to need to be carrying enough for news to report? That really has seemed odd on this.

I'd say they even had a clue by that (and other indications apparently) that something may not have been quite right.

This 'cavity search' business you talk of so freely, you Americans, I take it happens frequently? How much fluoride is there in your water that you all allow this to happen? They must have dumped a serious overload of the stuff in your water supply for it to be spoken of so casually. Surely that type of humiliation is an attempt to destroy the inner person to prevent future protest about anything.
It sounds completely SICK. Or am I the only one seeing this?

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Why is is that you only mention 'feminine products' and totally disregard the urine and feces?

reply to post by Mutant

If urine and poo was to be thrown then certainly that was BAD.
However, the trend to discourage protest, and by the way I don't agree with the protesters BUT feel adamant that vocal protest is essential as it is the pressure valve of society, is what is worrying.
We have kettling in the UK for protesters, especially peaceful protesters. This is not good.
Protests are less likely to turn violent if they are not 'squeezed' or harrassed.
Or maybe causing protests to become violent is the 'agenda'.

Either way, the erosion of freedom of speech, an ESSENTIAL pressure valve of society, the humiliation, degradation and criminalisation of protesters are not a wise move, unless anger is the desired result....and it might be.

And what if these women actually do need them? This could end up being a bloody mess.

(Pun intended)

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Actually I will make it better Republicans are such whores to anybody that fill their pockets with money be corporate or Religious fanatics right that they hate women regardless it doesn't matter, is just the desire to monitor and control women vaginas and wombs.

This it what Republicans has become in this country since the Democrats took office.

What a legacy.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
And you're insinuating that the female Texan citizens, who were humiliated and intimidated by having the personal effects confiscated, intended to use them to do bodily harm by first soiling them and then tossing them at lawmakers.

And yes, you're right about one thing: this thread is about the double standard of allowing people with guns to enter the state capitol, but confiscating women's toiletries for security reasons.

I am a woman in Texas and I would be neither humiliated nor intimidated by this request. Especially after what happened last time. If we can't have civil discourse when making laws then we have no right to be involved. The only way the "common man" could prove that they have the "right" to be involved in decisions alongside policy makers is by proving that we are smart enough and responsible enough to make a decision based on facts and not emotion.

Honestly, (I am sure you have read this about gun law debates many time.... right?) people that have a license to carry a gun have gone through a class and have proven that they are taking the "burden" of carrying a firearm responsibility. They understand the risks of carrying a gun and what will happen to someone when you pull the trigger.

However, (I am reaching but the point is valid) the type of people that would throw items like urine, paint, used (or unused) sanitary napkins at people have not really gone through "training" nor paid out fees to purchase a license to carry these items, and yes... they CAN be used as weapons. They would not lose the ability to carry a weapon in the future nor would they have any real punishment as would a licensed carrier of a firearm. Not only that but having these items thrown in a place where we are supposed to be serious adults making laws that impact people all over the state undermines the process entirely.

I have absolutely no issues with a person with a firearm if they are checked for a license. Seems like a silly argument to me. We have so many more important topics going on in the world.


ETA: If I go to Disneyland, and am allowed to enter their gates, I agree to follow their rules. I agree to behave in accordance with what they allow and expect. If I go to a friend's home I agree to the same stipulations. If I drive down the street I, yet again, agree to the rules that have been set forth. How is it any different that I should need to (and want to) agree to rules set out by the people in the capitol building to visit? It may seem strange and we may not understand why or how the rules came to be. We may not agree that the rules are fair. But rules are there for a reason.

Maybe the people that work in the building have been threatened by emotional people wanting to pelt them with bloody / painty / poopy / pissy projectiles. If you HAD to have visitors in your home wouldn't you have rules to keep you and your family safe from those emotional people? (...Illegal gun carriers vs. licensed...) If you don't want guns in your home, post a sign. If you don't want people stealing from you then hire a guard or lock your stuff in a safe. People make rules based on past experiences or a significant fear of something specific happening.

Are you a Texas resident? Then go through the proper channels to show that "the people" do not agree with a rule. From what I have seen, Texas tends to listen to it's residents. As for myself, I can deal with this "rule" because I am not emotionally looking at this... I am looking at this rationally and can see the reasoning behind it. Whether I agree to it or not is not a point. I am able to see both sides of the coin and can make a decision while leaving emotion out of it. It sounds to me that this is just another way to argue about guns AGAIN. That horse is dead. Texas is (for now) keeping it's guns. The amount of time and training it takes to carry one legally is sufficient for me. Those responsible enough to obtain the license... vs. those that don't get it. Even for the few that slip through or later become mentally unstable... I am not afraid of someone with a gun because I am allowed to carry one myself. If I do not agree to gun rights then I will not carry. Sounds simple enough to me.

Originally posted by Elliot
This 'cavity search' business you talk of so freely, you Americans, I take it happens frequently? How much fluoride is there in your water that you all allow this to happen? They must have dumped a serious overload of the stuff in your water supply for it to be spoken of so casually. Surely that type of humiliation is an attempt to destroy the inner person to prevent future protest about anything.
It sounds completely SICK. Or am I the only one seeing this?

edit on 14-7-2013 by Elliot because: (no reason given)

Believe me when I say you are not the only one who sees these things.
It is just that not to many people have ingested this stuff for so long it's effects have taken hold and are really beginning to show results.
This is why I am almost glad to be so old. I wont have to put up with this "stuff" much longer.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Thank you for posting this thread. The constitutional rights to congregate and to protest are fundamental. These people were at the Texas capital to protest draconian regulation that will effect them and their families personally, while the lawmakers are railroading their rights and are oblivious to their voices.

I have never heard of protesters flinging poo and bodily fluids at any protest in my life, here in the US. I would like to see more evidence of these so called, confiscations and the arrests of people who are accused of bearing such items.

A Texas judge sentenced a fast food employee to 2 years in prison for spitting in someone's food. Flinging poos and body fluid or a "conspiracy to fling" is a serious crime. I would like to see the evidence, of this having been a real concern, before I justify and condone the police searching for and taking woman's feminine hygiene products.

I agree with the OP, that this was a tactic of pure intimidation and attempt was meant to shame and humiliate the women who are most effected by the passage of this horrible law.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
First off, fetuses aren't babies.

First off, they are humans with their own heart beating; humans who open and close their eyes; humans who play with their toes and the cord; humans who sleep and wake and yawn; humans who FEEL PAIN.

Second,

Second, comeon ... jars of poop and pee ??? That doesn't signal that something is wrong??

It is a LOT easier to throw an item previously mentioned in this thread, while emotionally charged, knowing it will not be likely to kill someone and / or have legal repercussions for the rest of your life. Easier than going through all the trouble of this just to protest one bill that ultimately makes sure women are safer while killing their baby. If I were working in the capitol building I would be right along side my peers... less concerned with the gun toting individuals then the other items.

1. What are the requirements for obtaining a Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL)? The Concealed Handgun Law sets out the eligibility criteria that must be met. Applicants must be at least 21 years of age (unless active duty military) and must meet Federal qualifications to purchase a handgun. A number of factors may make you ineligible to obtain a license, such as: felony convictions and some misdemeanor convictions, including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication; pending criminal charges; chemical or alcohol dependency; certain types of psychological diagnoses protective or restraining orders, and defaults on state or city taxes, governmental fees, or child support. . Eligibility requirements can be found in GC §411.172. You must also submit a completed application, pay the required fees and submit all of the required supplemental forms and materials.

20. What type of class or training is required in order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License (CHL)?
An original (first time) CHL applicant must complete a minimum 10 hour class, taught by a DPS certified CHL instructor. The class includes classroom and a proficiency demonstration (shooting). See CHL Qualification Course Requirements (PDF) for the proficiency demonstration requirements. There are four (4) required topics: use of force; non violent dispute resolution; handgun use; and safe and proper storage of handguns and ammunition. Additional topics may be taught as well.

Source

reply to post by FlyersFan

First off, they are humans with their own heart beating; humans who open and close their eyes; humans who play with their toes and the cord; humans who sleep and wake and yawn; humans who FEEL PAIN.

There is no proof that fetus' "play" in womb, little alone that there is a pain at 20 weeks. In fact, the medical and scientific community refute these claims, placing fetal pain at no earlier than 24 weeks and maybe as late as 29 - 30 weeks.

The women who will effected by the passage of this bill, however, ARE living breathing human beings with heart beats who play.

Second, comeon ... jars of poop and pee ??? That doesn't signal that something is wrong??

Where is the evidence? Show me proof an incident of poo and bodily fluid being flung at lawmakers in a similar situation, here in the US.

I don't believe these claims.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

A fetus is a baby - and these people were yelling "Hail Satan" - what would you put past them?

I know these kinds of people - I'm glad there were no bodily fluid grenades launched.

I think you're coming across as a biased, religiously motivated propagandist. There is no evidence to support what you claim to be the case, you just seem determined to make your opponents seem "evil" (under quite stereotypical religious dogma).

Sorry, having read everything I'm with the OP, and you are propagating complete nonsense in an effort to attack something you personally don't agree with.

reply to post by pslr2301

It is a LOT easier to throw an item previously mentioned in this thread, while emotionally charged, knowing it will not be likely to kill someone and / or have legal repercussions for the rest of your life. Easier than going through all the trouble of this just to protest one bill that ultimately makes sure women are safer while killing their baby.

This law does NOTHING to protect women or keep them safer, in fact, it ignores women's rights, endangers their safety and rips away the underpinnings of the the Law of the Land", Roe V Wade.

These politicians should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail!

reply to post by windword


Without derailing this thread, because I know that there are plenty of threads out there talking about the Texas abortion bill... this bill does NOT outlaw abortions. By 20 weeks, even starting the timing at date of last period, a woman should have decided whether she wants to abort. Waiting till the last minute is irresponsible and cruel.

The bill sets a time limit that is reasonable and makes sure women have access to proper medical care and practices by limiting location to a clinic within distance of a proper medical professional and facility. If a bunch of clinics that don't meet these requirements are shut down... more will open that DO comply with the new regulations. If for no other motivation than money.

As for the argument that women cannot afford to go to main hospitals or more expensive clinics to get help... We have plenty of clinics all across the state that work based on income. If you cannot afford to have a child you will be asked if you want to apply for help. If you go in and the pregnancy test shows you are pregnant you can also opt for the morning after pill. There are so many options out there for women that are pregnant and financial ways to help women. I can't qualify for any medical assistance but if I had a little plus sign on my test I would get anything I asked for. Assistance for pregnant women in Texas is, from what I have experienced, almost as easy as breathing.

To equate this bill to discrimination against women is (IMHO) just silly. But it appears from a different thread you have written, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

First off:
If you have a CC "you should be a person of some restraint"

AID/HIV are things I would not want to get hit with by chance, do U ??

OP, next time you post a story please post the ENTIRE story not lame steam media version!

reply to post by pslr2301


None of your arguments address the actual arguments against this bill. This bill undermines Roe V Wade and bypasses the American Medical Association's definitions of pregnancy and viability. It uses bad science to place perceived, and what can only be imagined, attributes of developed thought patterns, ie. fetal pain and pleasure, above a woman's choice.

It isn't about 20 weeks, which is actually 19 if you read the bill, it's about money and the politics of shame.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


I am sorry, in this day in age I do not see any humiliation carrying around general hygiene items such as pads and tampons. It is the same as a man carrying around a condom in his pocket. You would hope that they carry it around. They allow guns into their capital if you had the permit to carry said firearm. I guess you do not understand the fact that it is one thing to own a gun, it is another thing to have a conceal/carry permit. They do not give it out to just anyone though it is a right in their state. You assume a person with a conceal/carry permit is the same as a regular joe blow with a legally owned gun for home protection. Yes, there can be nuts with permits but it is few and far between. Statistically, it is a small number.