• 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!

Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional [W:167:202:330]

Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

AGENT J said:
1.) again you are free to have that opinion but the fact is, abortion is legally not murder
2.) you mean the DEFINITIONS is what makes it not murder? correct because its not murder. Just like the definition of what a planet is doesnt make it a cat.
3.) yes, it does :shrug:

the very definition you posted proves you wrong.

no matter what you believe the fact remains abortion is legally not murder.
Click to expand...

Ok, it is the killing of a human being, you call it what you want, legal murder is still murder. It is a decision that you will have to live with your entire life and will have to reconcile someday. Good luck on that one because you are going to need it. Projections are that over 50 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade, you must be so proud.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Fenton said:
We all knew it was going to be challeneged and sent up to the Supreme Court where the law will be upheld through a 5 -4 decision.

The Texas legislation took all of that into acccount and some Lib Judge can't do anything about that.

Its not even note worthy.
Click to expand...

That liberal judge...nominated to the Texas supreme court by a republican governor, nominated to current position by a republican president(Bush in both cases), upon the recommendation of 2 republicans. There is zero evidence he is anything but a conservative.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Conservative said:
1.)Ok, it is the killing of a human being
2.) you call it what you want
3.) legal murder is still murder.
4.) It is a decision that you will have to live with your entire life and will have to reconcile someday.
5.) Good luck on that one because you are going to need it.
6.) Projections are that over 50 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade, you must be so proud.
Click to expand...

1.) well depending on how early it happens scientist and biologists etc would even debate that. But the ZEF is without a doubt human(adj) life. And since abortion is typically done before viability yes the ZEF most times does not survive.
But abortion itself is still not killing, its the ending of pregnancy, hence late term abortions where the fetus lives.

2.) no i dont call it what "i" want i simply call it what it factually is, i dont make up stuff based on opinions when theirs facts i can use

3.) no such thing

4.) 100% false since i cant have one, nothing to reconcile at all. ANd there are millions that feel obligated by their morals and driven by responsibility to have an abortion, THey disagree also. NOW, be clear, im not say they are right and you are wrong im simply pointing out your morals are not better than theirs and vice versa.

5.) nope wont need it at all, im very happy with my acceptance of facts and my stance

6.) proud? thats cute that you want to try failed deflections and hyperbole and appeals to emotion but again, its simply doesnt work because i live in reality.

im not proud of all the gun deaths, i still support the 2nd
im not proud of all the auto accidents i still dont want cars banned
etc etc etc etc

I simply recognize that their are TWO lives in the discussion that should BOTH have legal and human rights IMO and a solution needs to be somewhere int he middle regardless of what my own morals are. I understand mine shouldn't be forced on others.

Banning abortion for all reasons of most reasons does NOT do that
Having abortions unlimited or mostly unlimited does NOT do that

SO im happy its somewhere int he middle and if it was up to me id try to make it even closer

What am im VERY proud about is that if i had a decision to make i could make it and so could you, thats awesome, thats american, thats freedom and what having rights is all about.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

What exactly ARE the new restrictions Texas was putting in?

I mean, I heard one side saying "the bastards are trying to underhandedly prevent some abortions by making it difficult to get them".
And the other side saying "We're trying to protect people from dangerous abortion procedures" (or something along those lines).

But I didn't pay much attention at the time...
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

johndylan1 said:
I would understand your decision, however I would rather punish the guilty, save the innocent, and have compassion upon the victim.
Click to expand...

That is not as clean cut as it sounds. How a person might define who is guilty, who is innocent, who is the victim, who deserves punishment and what defines something as punishment is not necessarily as you see it and is at the heart of the conflict over this issue.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

johndylan1 said:
At this point with regard to ACA, I'd prefer mass civil disobedience, refusing to fill medical lines on IRS forms. Can we have an AMEN!?
Click to expand...

No, but I hope an "I don't give a crap about your preferences" will be sufficient
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Conservative said:
My belief and my God tell me that life begins at conception which means the killing of a human fetus and to me and by all definition that is murder. Because the law doesn't say that doesn't mean that it isn't murder. Nobody can claim that it isn't murder to take the life of a human fetus except the Federal Govt.
Click to expand...

I agree something can be morally wrong, but not legally wrong. Something can be murder from a Biblical perspective, but not a legal perspective. Divorce, for example, is morally wrong (and, could be considered a form of murder), but not legally wrong.

I do want to point out that God may have told you in prayer that life begins at conception; but he did not tell everyone that in his Word (the Bible). To rephrase, the idea that life begins at conception is a biblical interpretation not a biblical proclamation. No where in the Bible does it say life begins at conception.

To bring full circle to my divorce / abortion illustration, divorce is actually explicitly forbidden (as is abortion) in the Bible; but the Bible does not explicitly define life as beginning at conception (though the inception of marriage is quite clear...and, Jesus unique way, extends beyond legal and social convention... but that is another discussion).

I use divorce and abortion in common as I believe they are fundamentally the same thing: man putting asunder what the Lord has brought together. Each are complicated; each are legal, yet morally wrong; therefore each are matters between man and God rahter than man and government; and each are forgivable sins.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

upsideguy said:
I agree something can be morally wrong, but not legally wrong. Something can be murder from a Biblical perspective, but not a legal perspective. Divorce, for example, is morally wrong (and, could be considered a form of murder), but not legally wrong.

I do want to point out that God may have told you in prayer that life begins at conception; but he did not tell everyone that in his Word (the Bible). To rephrase, the idea that life begins at conception is a biblical interpretation not a biblical proclamation. No where in the Bible does it say life begins at conception.

To bring full circle to my divorce / abortion illustration, divorce is actually explicitly forbidden (as is abortion) in the Bible; but the Bible does not explicitly define life as beginning at conception (though the inception of marriage is quite clear...and, Jesus unique way, extends beyond legal and social convention... but that is another discussion).

I use divorce and abortion in common as I believe they are fundamentally the same thing: man putting asunder what the Lord has brought together. Each are complicated; each are legal, yet morally wrong; therefore each are matters between man and God rahter than man and government; and each are forgivable sins.
Click to expand...

Point taken which is why I have normally stayed away from the topic as I do believe both have to be reconciled someday in the future between the individual and God. It is up to God to forgive, not me. I do believe life begins at conception and although you are right there is nothing in the Bible that I am aware of stating that, I do believe a living being has been created. Maybe I am wrong but that is what I believe.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

The Mark said:
What exactly ARE the new restrictions Texas was putting in?

I mean, I heard one side saying "the bastards are trying to underhandedly prevent some abortions by making it difficult to get them".
And the other side saying "We're trying to protect people from dangerous abortion procedures" (or something along those lines).

But I didn't pay much attention at the time...
Click to expand...

well the cliff notes are, the regulations they wanted to legislate were going to be based on feelings and morals, not medical requirements, procedures or protocols which are ALREADY in place. They want to use a nearly 20 year old regulation that isnt NOT followed by the medical community.

Basically it would effect the majority of women who get medical abortions and it has the potential to shut down 30% of those clinics.

The other restriction they want is no abortions after 20 weeks which im personally OK with if its a soft ban. Meaning unlimited abortion until 20 weeks then after case by case. but typically this loses in court because its lower than RvW.

ALso they want all clinics to be surgically facilities which again is not a requirement by the medical community but those last two things arent even in the lawsuit from my understanding.

The bill is clearly about restricting medical care based on opinions, subjective morals and feelings since the medical community doesnt require it.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

For those who are interested, the ruling can be found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/201...al-Politics/Graphics/2013-10-28_PPvAbbott.pdf

The ruling articulates the court's narrow purpose (to determine whether the State law's provisions "are consistent with the Constitution of the United States under existing Supreme Court precedent"), the three relevant established principles that govern the court's decision (1. woman's right to terminate pregnancy prior to fetal viability; 2. a law that "imposes an undue burden on a woman's decision before fetal viability" is not constitutional; and, 3. After fetal viability, a state can regulate abortion except when it comes to the preservation of the life and health of the mother), and the undue burden test (whether a state has a rational basis for enacting a provision of law and, if that requirement is met, evaluation of the state's purpose in enacting the law).

The Court found that the admitting privileges language had no rational basis. Moreover, it concluded that even if there were a rational basis, the effect of the law (by which the state's purpose is judged) would have resulted in 24 counties lacking an abortion provider "because those providers do not have admitting privileges and are unlikely to get them." In short, the court found that the provision presented the kind of obstacle that runs counter to existing constitutional law.

IMO, unless Texas can demonstrate that the Court's judgment is erroneous and/or offer a framework to assure that the 24 counties can offer abortion services, the decision will likely stand following completion of all the legal appeals, whether or not the case makes it to the Supreme Court.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

A federal appeals court, of 3 women no less, threw out the ruling.

Federal appeals court reinstates key restriction in Texas abortion law - CBS News

A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that most of Texas' tough new abortion restrictions can take effect immediately - a decision that means as least 12 clinics won't be able to perform the procedure starting as soon as Friday.

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital can take effect while a lawsuit challenging the restrictions moves forward. The panel issued the ruling three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel said the provision serves no medical purpose.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

danarhea said:
Once more, extremist ideology has been defeated in the courts. This will most likely move up to the Supreme Court, where I expect 2 things will happen.

1) SCOTUS will uphold the ruling, saying the Texas law places an undue burden on women.

2) Some here will call Justice Roberts a RINO. Never mind that he will have upheld the Constitution, and left ideology out of his decision.

Of course, for some of the "smaller government crowd, they really do want big government when it suits their own desires to force their own religious beliefs on others.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

The three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit disagreed with both the rational basis and undue burden findings of Yeakel.

“The State offered more than a ‘conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis’ for requiring abortion physicians to have hospital admission privileges,” Judge Priscilla Owen wrote on behalf of the panel. “The district court’s conclusion that a State has no rational basis for requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital is but one step removed from repudiating the longstanding recognition by the Supreme Court that a State may constitutionally require that only a physician may perform an abortion.”
Click to expand...
Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Bulk of New Texas Abortion Law

Ahh... I'll just let that sink in for ya, there's more judicial smack down on Yeakel's fail if you have the honest desire to understand why this happened.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

danarhea said:
2) Some here will call Justice Roberts a RINO. Never mind that he will have upheld the Constitution, and left ideology out of his decision.
Click to expand...

Nope. Worthless sack of ****, but not RINO.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

MrVicchio said:
Obviously these "judges" are winger-bagger fringe nut cases that are activist make policy from the bench and this should be ignored as they hate women.

;P
Click to expand...

But of course!
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

IMO, the Appeals Court's decision likely will be reversed.

The Washington Post reported:

In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the new provision “may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions.” However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate” a law that serves a valid purpose, “one not designed to strike at the right itself.”

Appeals court ruling means one-third of Texas’ abortion clinics can’t perform procedure - The Washington Post

The issue at hand is that "incidental" refers to a minor impact. If the effect of the law would be the closure of 1/3 of the State's abortion clinics, one is talking about not an incidental but a significant impact. During the brief period during which the law will be in effect, it will become evident whether the impact is incidental or significant. Given the data concerning licensing and possible barriers to obtaining licenses at hospitals within the law's 30 mile requirement, my guess is that odds favor a significant impact. Consequently, the law would go beyond what the Supreme Court has found permissible.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Those dirty rotten tea baggers and their war on wom... wait a minute.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Tigger said:
Nope. Worthless sack of ****, but not RINO.
Click to expand...

Is there anyone who you do not consider a worthless sack of ****?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

donsutherland1 said:
IMO, the Appeals Court's decision likely will be reversed.

The Washington Post reported:

In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the new provision “may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions.” However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate” a law that serves a valid purpose, “one not designed to strike at the right itself.”

Appeals court ruling means one-third of Texas’ abortion clinics can’t perform procedure - The Washington Post

The issue at hand is that "incidental" refers to a minor impact. If the effect of the law would be the closure of 1/3 of the State's abortion clinics, one is talking about not an incidental but a significant impact. During the brief period during which the law will be in effect, it will become evident whether the impact is incidental or significant. Given the data concerning licensing and possible barriers to obtaining licenses at hospitals within the law's 30 mile requirement, my guess is that odds favor a significant impact. Consequently, the law would go beyond what the Supreme Court has found permissible.
Click to expand...

Yep, its nonsensical to think otherwise especially since theres no medical/health support for that restrictions.

In the end I think and im hoping for the people of texas, common sense, accessible healthcare and educated legislation based on medical science will win.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

danarhea said:
Once more, extremist ideology has been defeated in the courts. This will most likely move up to the Supreme Court, where I expect 2 things will happen.

1) SCOTUS will uphold the ruling, saying the Texas law places an undue burden on women.

2) Some here will call Justice Roberts a RINO. Never mind that he will have upheld the Constitution, and left ideology out of his decision.

Of course, for some of the "smaller government crowd, they really do want big government when it suits their own desires to force their own religious beliefs on others.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, didn't I just read that yesterday the 5th court of appeals in new orleans reinstated the texas law of requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a near by hospital before they can perform the operation. Has another ruling been handed down since yesterday? If so, I have heard nothing on it.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Hmm...

I'm kinda on the fence here...

On the one hand, there's the decrease in available places to get an abortion.

But on the other hand, if the law was actually somehow improve safety...

I suppose the bit about doctors running these abortion places being required to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles away was so they could get a woman there rapidly if something went wrong? OR at least that would be the reason that seems most likely.


Frankly, if it actually IS a question of safety, I'd be tempted to agree with this recent ruling... You never know with the laws these days though, there always seems to be some ulterior motive...
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

The Mark said:
Hmm...

I'm kinda on the fence here...

On the one hand, there's the decrease in available places to get an abortion.

But on the other hand, if the law was actually somehow improve safety...

I suppose the bit about doctors running these abortion places being required to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles away was so they could get a woman there rapidly if something went wrong? OR at least that would be the reason that seems most likely.


Frankly, if it actually IS a question of safety, I'd be tempted to agree with this recent ruling... You never know with the laws these days though, there always seems to be some ulterior motive...
Click to expand...

No, it had nothing to do with safety and that's as patently dishonest as all the anti-abortionists themselves. The court found it to be phony. This was more about the obvious disregard for women and that's got a lot to do with the Texas mindset. Texans have demonstrated a level of hateful callousness that makes them immediately suspect of the worst.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

The Mark said:
Hmm...

I'm kinda on the fence here...

On the one hand, there's the decrease in available places to get an abortion.

But on the other hand, if the law was actually somehow improve safety...

I suppose the bit about doctors running these abortion places being required to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles away was so they could get a woman there rapidly if something went wrong? OR at least that would be the reason that seems most likely.


Frankly, if it actually IS a question of safety, I'd be tempted to agree with this recent ruling... You never know with the laws these days though, there always seems to be some ulterior motive...
Click to expand...

dont fall for the lies

safety is the smoke screen its not real its made up, its a complete lie. These clinics are already operating by the standards, rules, protocols and procedures the medical community have in place and many other places that conduct the same rated procedures dont have to have these EXTRA standards made up by legislation and not by safety studies or requirements from the medical community.

Its blatantly obvious that this is people trying to push there personal morals and restrict abortion only when its written to only effect abortion clinics and not any other healthcare facilities that do similar rated (risk level) procedures.

Its complete BS and it makes me laugh that people try to use that false guise

Now having said that if the medical community, the FDA and or medical/science suggested or showed this needed done Id be 100% for it.
But the fact remains its not.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Perotista said:
Wait a minute, didn't I just read that yesterday the 5th court of appeals in new orleans reinstated the texas law of requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a near by hospital before they can perform the operation. Has another ruling been handed down since yesterday? If so, I have heard nothing on it.
Click to expand...
As I already stated, this will go all the way to SCOTUS, where those provisions will be killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom