It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Texas Abortion Restrictions Declared Unconstitutional By Federal Judge

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 09:11 AM
reply to post by Nephalim

So, is your argument that late term abortions aren't humane to the fetus?

Regarding this less that sincere and honest doctor in the video testifying to crushing the skull, do you think that doctors crush and rip apart a living fetus? They don't!

Dilation and Extraction: a surgical abortion procedure used to terminate a pregnancy after 21 weeks of gestation. This procedure is also known as D & X, Intact D & X, Intrauterine Cranial Decompression and Partial Birth Abortion. *This procedure is now considered against the law in the U.S. according to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995*

Also this:

What also has escaped notice is the distinction between how the fetus is killed and how it is extracted. In most post-20-week abortions performed by clinics U.S. News interviewed, physicians first kill the fetus by cutting the umbilical cord or injecting digoxin (a heart medication) or other lethal agents to stop the fetal heartbeat. Then the fetus is removed, either intact (using a D&X procedure) or in pieces (using D&E).

ALL abortions after 20 weeks, here in the US, doctors must wait for the fetal heartbeat to stop before removing the fetus.

Because the neural structures necessary to feel pain have not yet developed, any observable responses to stimuli at this gestational stage — like the fetal "flinching" during an amniocentesis — are reflexive, not experiential. Which is to say, the fetus at 20 weeks can't actually feel anything at all. Which is to say, the fundamental justification for these laws is a really big, really popular lie.

Fetal Pain Is A Lie: How Phony Science Took Over The Abortion Debate

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by OrphanApology

A woman has a right to do with her body as she wants. If a woman does not want to host a pregnancy, she does not have to.

To be an individual one must be able to live individually. Unborn babies, fetuses, or whatever you want to call them are still a part of the woman's body. No one has a right to tell an individual what to do with or keep in their own bodies. If you want to have the right to do with your body as you see fit then stop trying to tell others what to do with theirs. If a woman chooses not to be a host for another organism she has the right to not be a host. If she wants to then fine.

The "fetus" is a baby in the works, ie. human. And the thing that differentiates between life is brain growth and REM. Now most of that occurs 12 weeks on, so first trimester was always what made sense, and here in Canada, many doctors will not even consider performing abortions or sending you to the clinic unless its very early on, ie. 6 weeks-8 weeks is a good window.

We're dealing with real life as the world turns, not just individual human right, but the way Mother Earth, Creation/God whatever you wish to call it, reproduces new life. Basic Biology is what some would call it. And there is no point for any intelligent being to hide their head in the sand over what this entails.

I am pro choice, but not pro butchering and there is a balancing point that must be honored where one person's rights does not super impose on anothers.

Because Biology already teaches us that there is a point where one Life incubates another.

Some of the children who are being aborted live most of the time when delivered as preemies. And they are removed in pieces without being put to sleep first. There is something terribly wrong with this picture.

Most women are not so far gone as to assume that they are willful in the face of the basic foundation or layout for the biology of the planet. The platform is understood.

What is actually terrible is the US medical system.

Here, everyone is covered, no cost, low cost/subsidized, to full, and that is around 60-70 dollars for a single person, just over 100 for a family.

As soon as you discover you're pregant you have a choice to make. Doctors want to make it fast.

We need to have laws that protect both the woman's rights and the developing babies, with understanding of the biology and science fields of when brain growth is gearing up.

What you're saying is not only selfishness, but its also murder and torture, dismemberment, satanic, which is why its allowed, because of who the leaders are, they are the left hand path, and ritual sacrifice is how they gain "knowledge" and "protection" and "promotion". But its also a complete disrespect for biology and nature.

Allowing Choice, having good medical system, (not obama care) and yet capping the time period allowed, is a compromise.
edit on 30-10-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by windword

Never argue with an anti abortionist, their quest is an agenda regardless of the many pages of post to prove ones as pro choice, anti abortionist do not have to prove anything because their argument is always the same, "save the fetuses and women are criminals".

Again praise the Lord for protecting the rights to abortions in the nation, is really a god in haven
edit on 30-10-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by windword

Sorry Im done dealin with you. Everyone has a line they don't cross. I think you might want to find yours.

Good luck.

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by Nephalim

Nobody knows that line until they come to it. It's always wise not to judge others and the lines they hold or cross unless you have walked in their shoes.

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:17 PM
Although they probably exist, I have never known a woman who had a pregnancy terminate after 12 weeks who did not have some emotional repercussions from it eventually -- biology affects us.

If it was after 20 weeks, it was either involuntary or for endangerment issues and in both cases was a horrible grieving tragedy for her because she wanted the child. If she didn't, it would have been resolved before that point.

The claim seems to be that legal clinics with licensed doctors are wildly violating laws just to butcher viable babies inside a woman for some whim of her convenience. Why would a doctor do something to make the process even more disgusting? Doctors are people too. What evidence is there that this is actually happening?

i think if we have to drag assumptions or even lies into an argument to make one side of it, then it's probably not a very good argument. If the debate is merely on personal-ethics grounds, that is fine where it is, but trying to invent medical and legal claims to support subjective-ethical views seems... well, lacking in communications integrity.

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:21 PM
Federal court reinstates key part of Texas abortion law

This is great news IMO. I am appalled that corner abortion conveyor belts are allowed to go on at all. If you are going to do surgery as well as put someone under anesthesia it needs to be done in a hospital OR. There are no ifs ans or buts about it. That is the only responsible way to handle it. I have a personal horror story about a Texas abortion I personally witnessed. I might type it out later. However after going through that horrific event I can only concur with this new law.

A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a key part of a new Texas abortion law, considered to be among the most restrictive in the country.

The decision came three days after a federal judge struck down the provision, which requires doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic at which they're providing abortion services.

Thursday's decision means the requirement will remain in place while a lawsuit moves forward.

"While we acknowledge that Planned Parenthood has also made a strong showing that their interests would be harmed by staying the injunction, given the State's likely success on the merits, this is not enough, standing alone, to outweigh the other factors," read a part of Thursday's 20-page ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Makes perfect sense to me. When you've had someone almost bleed out in your vehicle you would change your tune. I do not believe those who support planned parenthood have any idea at the horrific complications that can arise from these corner store abortions.
edit on 31-10-2013 by Pimpintology because: he was vaccinated as a child

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 02:52 AM
I do believe that any clinic performing invasive medical practices should be able to get the patient to an OR stat should a problem arise.

I think, like many things in our country, it's more a matter of how corporatism-bureaucracy-politics have interfered with everything that anybody would ever argue that in the first place. I mean, "of course" there should be a hospital backup nearby, right? That seems like a no-brainer.

But I have heard, directly and indirectly, a lot of bad stories about the politics of hospitals and the leverage against doctors related to them. It is likely that the doctors at the clinic couldn't GET admitting rights at all, or there would be some major extortion-level cost or politics involved. Doctors/admitting politics are like the earliest days of internet or cell phone policies but worse. There needs to be something established where a nationwide clinic system like planned parenthood can get admittance permissions for non-private hospitals closest to them on an agency, not individual doctor, basis.

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by Pimpintology

If you are going to do surgery as well as put someone under anesthesia it needs to be done in a hospital OR.

Why should these clinic be subject to higher standards that others?

Should these same policies apply for oral surgery? How about office-based surgery and conscious sedation performed by a podiatrist?

Appropriate emergency supplies, equipment and medications should be available and commensurate with the scope of surgical and anesthesia services provided at the podiatrist's office. The podiatrist and at least one additional staff member should be competent to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation. You should also develop an emergency care plan for your practice that includes provisions for safe and timely transfer of patients to a nearby hospital when hospitalization is indicated.

Vasectomies? Liposuction?

Examples of procedures that are OBS include but are not limited to: upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, rhinoplasty, mammoplasty, lithotripsy or vascular access related procedures when accompanied by moderate or deep sedation, major upper or lower extremity nerve blocks, neuraxial or general anesthesia. Most procedures like botulinum toxin injections and minor integumentary procedures are performed with minimal or no sedation therefore can be performed in offices not requiring OBS accreditation.

Why should doctors who perform certain legal, safe, AMA and FDA approved and constitutionally protected services be arbitrarily denied access to hospital admittance privileges. How does that help protect women's health?

Officials for one chain of abortion clinics testified in the trial that Yeakel oversaw that they've tried to obtain admitting privileges for their doctors at 32 hospitals, but so far only 15 accepted applications and none have announced a decision.

Do we need to draw up new laws to protect doctors and force hospitals to accept certain types of physicians?

When you've had someone almost bleed out in your vehicle you would change your tune.

Ahem....back alley abortions? Coat hangers? Drano douches?

edit on 1-11-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by Pimpintology

I do not believe those who support planned parenthood have any idea at the horrific complications that can arise from these corner store abortions.

In the United State, more women die giving birth than do due to botched abortions.

The risk of death associated with a full-term pregnancy and delivery is 8.8 deaths per 100,000, while the risk of death linked to legal abortion is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 women, according to the study. That means a woman carrying a baby to term is 14 times more likely to die than a woman who chooses to have a legal abortion, the study finds.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 02:41 AM

In the United State, more women die giving birth than do due to botched abortions.

linked to legal abortion is 0.6 deaths per

There is no reason for any LEGAL abortion to be a 'botched' abortion except very rare accident.

The abortions that tend to be deadly are the ones that are NOT legal. The ones women are forced to seek out or try themselves. I doubt there is any count on those.

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in