It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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 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.
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)
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
First off, fetuses aren't babies.
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.
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, comeon ... jars of poop and pee ??? That doesn't signal that something is wrong??
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.
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.