• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. judge rules against Louisiana abortion restrictions

Paleocon said:
Exactly. And Louisiana passed a law restricting abortion. They should enforce that law regardless of what the federal courts say.



That if you don't want to live under one legal system, you can move to another, is neither here nor there. This discussion isn't about me.
Click to expand...

Conservatives want to ignore court orders, but when Obama issues an executive order he's the imperial president. :lol:
 
calamity said:
Conservatives want to ignore court orders, but when Obama issues an executive order he's the imperial president. :lol:
Click to expand...

I don't find imperial to be an insult. But if you're referring to what I think you are, acting in contravention of law in a manner designed to damage our country is no the same as upholding a law designed to aid it.
 
Paleocon said:
I don't find imperial to be an insult. But if you're referring to what I think you are, acting in contravention of law in a manner designed to damage our country is no the same as upholding a law designed to aid it.
Click to expand...

Depends on your POV. I see the Roe V Wade decision to be "designed" to aid our country while laws interfering with the right to an abortion are designed to damage it.
 
calamity said:
Depends on your POV. I see the Roe V Wade decision to be "designed" to aid our country while laws interfering with the right to an abortion are designed to damage it.
Click to expand...

Which is just daft. A country that kills its children has no future.
 
Paleocon said:
Which is just daft. A country that kills its children has no future.
Click to expand...

A country which forces people who do not want children or can't afford them or doesn't have the maturity to raise them is doomed. Voluntarily aborting those pregnancies, even if the numbers are in the hundred of thousands, is far less damaging. If you don't believe me, go walk the streets where the nation's unwanted, ill-raised children live, preferably at night. Report back what you find.
 
Paleocon said:
Which is just daft. A country that kills its children has no future.
Click to expand...

Yes, better to let them be born before starving them. This is not pro life. It's pro birth. There is a huge difference.
 
danarhea said:
Yes, better to let them be born before starving them. This is not pro life. It's pro birth. There is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

At no point have I or anyone else (except those who support murdering invalids like Terry Schiavo) said anything about starving anyone.

Please try another red herring.
 
Paleocon said:
At no point have I or anyone else (except those who support murdering invalids like Terry Schiavo) said anything about starving anyone.

Please try another red herring.
Click to expand...

You guys never come out and say it. You just come out in favor of eliminating food stamps so that children cannot eat. It's really dishonest to claim that you are pro life while doing crap like that.
 
danarhea said:
You guys never come out and say it. You just come out in favor of eliminating food stamps so that children cannot eat. It's really dishonest to claim that you are pro life while doing crap like that.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem.
 
danarhea said:
Another win for the Constitution of the United States. The purpose in the restrictive law was not to protect womens' health, as the lawmakers claimed, but to make abortion, which is a perfectly legal procedure, impossible in the State of Louisiana.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Awesome!
So what Arkansas was rejected
US Supreme Court Rejects Arkansas Bid to Revive Abortion Law - ABC News

Then North Dakota was rejected
U.S. top court declines to revive North Dakota abortion limits - Yahoo News

and now this dishonest law is thrown out.

THats what happens when a law is based on dishonest claims of safety but yet the medical community doesn't support it. Its as transparent as glass that these bills are based on subjective opinions, morals and are nothing more than an attempt to back door abortion take away peoples rights.
 
digsbe said:
Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice. They set up boards of medicine, define legality and standards behind how one can use various healthcare licenses, and set standards of care. I think it's well within a state's right to make abortion providers have admitting privileges under the umbrella of patient safety. Even if it's a proxy behind trying to ban abortion I think it violates the state's rights to regulate healthcare, they set standards all the time for other things. Heck, this is little to nothing compared to how they regulate controlled substance medications haha.
Click to expand...

But the state has no right to violate individual rights, the medical community does not support them nor are these bills based on medical standards or safety.
 
digsbe said:
Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice. They set up boards of medicine, define legality and standards behind how one can use various healthcare licenses, and set standards of care. I think it's well within a state's right to make abortion providers have admitting privileges under the umbrella of patient safety. Even if it's a proxy behind trying to ban abortion I think it violates the state's rights to regulate healthcare, they set standards all the time for other things. Heck, this is little to nothing compared to how they regulate controlled substance medications haha.
Click to expand...

Right. And it wouldn't violate anyone's rights if I were the governor of louisiana and I made it to where you had to sign a document real quick in order to purchase or sell a firearm and I put that document in a locked vault and threw the key away?
 
digsbe said:
My stance is more so the proximity to an ER facility, as stated before. From a regulatory and safety standpoint that makes perfect sense to me. Would you be fine with a law that says abortion facilities must be within 30 miles of a qualified ER/hospital in the event of an emergency during the procedure?

My belief is hardly delusional when you contrast it to other areas that the state can regulate when it comes to medical care and saying there is precedence for allowing this type of thing.
Click to expand...

Medical procedures are already regulated, abortion falls under that and has its class of procedure. It already meets the guidelines backed by the medical community. SPECIAL rules for abortion are not needed and they are not about safety. That fact is proven because these states are trying to change ALL procedures in that class JUST abortion. Its grossly dishonesty ignorant.
 
AGENT J said:
Medical procedures are already regulated, abortion falls under that and has its class of procedure. It already meets the guidelines backed by the medical community. SPECIAL rules for abortion are not needed and they are not about safety. That fact is proven because these states are trying to change ALL procedures in that class JUST abortion. Its grossly dishonesty ignorant.
Click to expand...

All these guys have to do to convince me is to answer a few questions:

1) What medical complication arises that necessitates this rule?
2) How often does that complication arise?
3) How is this complication mitigated by being within 30 miles of a hospital? Remember that this is one-way, so an ambulance would have to potentially travel 60 miles to bring the patient to the hospital. That's not exactly "internal hemorrhaging and needs immediate surgery" kind of response time.
 
digsbe said:
This doesn't ban abortion, it sets standards for performing them which is well within a state's rights to regulate medicine and advance patient safety. I support first trimester abortion, but I think that the state's should be allowed to do this type of thing as it should fall legally within their scope to do so.

They already mandate that in most states anyone who gets a controlled substance filled has their name permanently added and tracked on a registry that only physicians and pharmacists can access. In some states they also mandate that before a controlled substance can be prescribed and dispensed both the prescriber and pharmacist must check that person's records. If the government can track you like that and mandate providers to check you on the database before performing a healthcare service why not mandate that abortion providers have to have admitting privileges in the event of an emergency? The alternative means they recommend the patient to go to ER and then have them admitted.
Click to expand...

my reading of this is that the actions of the state medical board are trying to be justified by the facade of medical safety when in reality the purpose of the bill was to restrict abortion. The courts must look beyond the stated reason especially when the facade is rather obvious and the given reasons are nothing more than a patent pretext to interfere with a federally mandated right
 
I don't know what to make of an article that includes the ridiculous and false statement "the high court legalized abortion in 1973." Of course Roe v. Wade did no such thing. Abortion with more or less restrictions was already legal in more than 80% of the states.

What the Court did was the same thing it always has done in substantive due process decisions, for example the infamous Lochner v. New York in 1905: It misused the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to impose a policy a majority of the justices personally liked, by concocting a new "right" out of thin air. Last June's edict in Obergefell was another substantive due process masterpiece.

The notion that there is a fundamental right to abortion which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees does not pass the laugh test. Even the Court itself, ever since Casey in 1992, has not been willing to call abortion a fundamental right, as the majority in Roe had claimed it was. It no longer reviews abortion laws under the same demanding standard it applies to laws that involve fundamental rights. And the Court has made clear in its decisions for decades now that only fundamental rights are protected against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Roe v. Wade is one of the Court's all-time turkeys, and the Court should have overruled it outright in Casey in 1992 as many observers expected it to at the time. It is not too late. If it were overruled by a future court, and regulating abortion left to the states as it always should have been, I suspect many states--if not most--would now choose to allow abortion on demand, or with very few restrictions. The notion that only Roe stands between women and the dark ages of coat hangers in back alleys is leftist propaganda meant to gull the weak-minded.
 
digsbe said:
Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice. They set up boards of medicine, define legality and standards behind how one can use various healthcare licenses, and set standards of care. I think it's well within a state's right to make abortion providers have admitting privileges under the umbrella of patient safety. Even if it's a proxy behind trying to ban abortion I think it violates the state's rights to regulate healthcare, they set standards all the time for other things. Heck, this is little to nothing compared to how they regulate controlled substance medications haha.
Click to expand...

So why would you consider defending the practice when it is ONLY used as a roadblock to an actual medical procedure?

It's discriminatory, not based on medical risks.
 
digsbe said:
This doesn't ban abortion, it sets standards for performing them which is well within a state's rights to regulate medicine and advance patient safety. I support first trimester abortion, but I think that the state's should be allowed to do this type of thing as it should fall legally within their scope to do so.

They already mandate that in most states anyone who gets a controlled substance filled has their name permanently added and tracked on a registry that only physicians and pharmacists can access. In some states they also mandate that before a controlled substance can be prescribed and dispensed both the prescriber and pharmacist must check that person's records. If the government can track you like that and mandate providers to check you on the database before performing a healthcare service why not mandate that abortion providers have to have admitting privileges in the event of an emergency? The alternative means they recommend the patient to go to ER and then have them admitted.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why you are attempting to justify this while not mentioning that similar legislation isnt in force or proposed for things like vasectomies, plastic surgery, etc? The state even allows midwife at-home births :doh
 
digsbe said:
It's still not "impossible"
Click to expand...

It's not 'impossible.' It's hypocritical and attempts to use state force against women when the federal govt has set protections to the contrary.
 
digsbe said:
But if an ER say is 75 miles away and it's going to take 2-3 hours to receive care is that not dangerous? If anything the proximity requirement to a hospital makes the most sense to me.
Click to expand...

I know! Imagine when a birth goes wrong and not even a doctor is present? Or required! Such is the case with home births attended by midwives. Gee....you'd think if this type of legislation was about protecting lives, THIS would have the more stringent requirements they attempted to impose on abortion. Yet...they didnt.

Because the legislation regarding abortion wasnt about protecting life or health...it was about imposing other people's will illegally on women.
 
danarhea said:
Then you don't believe in America's judicial system. That makes you anti-American.
Click to expand...

We've covered this ground before. Correct, he is not interested in the Constitution. He prefers a governing system called the Catholic Confessional State. This is his stated position.
 
Paleocon said:
Which is just daft. A country that kills its children has no future.
Click to expand...

A country that treats its women with no respect for their lives and futures and as 2nd class citizens has no future...that anyone wants to be part of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom