Texas legislator fillibusters against abortion bill davesdatahut: Someone build a pedestal in the hall of greatness for this legislator from Texas....sticking up for the idea that the government has no business being in the business of childbirth. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57590966/texas-senator-wendy-davis-filibusters-against-abortion-bill/  the real slim DEEPy: well, where does tthe constitution grant the government the power to regulate domestic issues . its not proper to discredit a politician for being more concerned about the legality than the ideology. (Edited by the real slim DEEPy)  OCD_OCD: Personally, I see no problem with passing a law that states that it will be illegal to get an abortion past 20 weeks, barring health issues. If you are pregnant and want an abortion, then get one, but don't wait. 20 weeks is long enough to figure out what you want to do. Longer than that is unconscionable. the real slim DEEPy: 20 weeks is actually greater than the supreme courts minimum of 12 weeks, it is constitutional, according to scotus OCD_OCD: 20 weeks is five months pregnant. That is a fetus that is viable outside the womb. That is murder, without doubt. Women need to bear the responsibility for making a decision prior to that time. To do otherwise is vile unless it is known that the fetus will be born with abnormalities incompatible with life or there is a very real physical danger to the mother. Abortion in the third trimester or until shortly before birth is vile and inhuman. davesdatahut: I guess I should modify my statement about government getting out of the business of a woman's personal decision on childbirth. The standard of fetal viability is a reasonable one. At that point in a pregnancy, a woman should have had plenty of time to know if she wants the child or not. If she waits that long and still is uncertain, then she should complete the pregnancy and then decide whether to put the child up for adoption. Any abortions after the point of viability should be based on a doctor's certification that the mother's health is in danger if she continues the pregnancy. What made the legislator in Texas a hero is that she opposed a vindictive bill that would have used the ruse of surgical center certification to prevent women from having access to abortion providers. OCD_OCD: No, it is not a ruse to close down abortion clinics in Texas. Abortion is legal in Texas and will continue to be legal in Texas. It (hopefully) will NOT be legal for a woman to have an abortion after she is 5 months pregnant unless the fetus or the life of the mother is in danger. Why should a woman over 5 months pregnant NOT have doctor certification that her fetus or her life is endangered when they go for a 20+ week abortion? I do not believe she is a hero. I think she was looking for something to put her in the headlines and she got it. The bill is reasonable and there is no reason for it not to pass, along with the doctor certification over 5+ months gestation. OCD_OCD: Nothing will prevent any women from having access to abortion providers up until 5 months. The state will not PAY for an abortion after 5 months unless there is certification, which is completely reasonable. I do not want to have tax dollars spent on women who sit on their decision for 5+ months and then decide that they want to kill a viable baby without a health reason to do so. That's sick. davesdatahut: Ok, I'm confused here. Wasn't the key question under this law was the push to require abortion providers to become certified as surgical centers, as a way to shut some of them down? The 20-weeks thing wasn't the issue I was talking about. OCD_OCD: Having abortion providers become certified as surgical centers is a way of keeping abuses like the sick Dr. Kermit Gosnell from happening. Having basic health and safety regulations is a way to prevent the sub-human health care atrocities that was happening to the children and women in that clinic. That clinic was no better than a filthy, back-street alley abortion and probably less sanitary. Regulating abortion clinics so that their premises and their doctors are providing the best care for women that are getting abortions is not a travesty. It is HELPING them. Gosnell's abortion abattoir is not the only slice and dice abortion clinic. It is not an anomaly and that is what the law is trying to do is to stop these filthy back-street abortion clinics from killing more women. davesdatahut: Gosnell, presumably, was the exception, as opposed to the rule. There should be no objection to making sure abortion providers have the cleanest, most professional and safe operations possible. But, in the context of the anti-abortion sentiment within the Texas Legislature, require them to become surgical centers is an obvious attempt to address the issue with a sledgehammer and restrict access to abortion providers. I am curious as to whether the legislature also would require, say, an office that does arthroscopic procedures to clear the same hurdles. OCD_OCD: There are 43 states in the US, including Washington DC, that require what they call Ambulatory Surgery Centers to be licensed. The fact that Texas wants to do the same thing is a red herring. To allow, or restrict women to go to clinics that are unregulated and that do not meet the guidelines commiserate with the danger of the procedure, is wrong. There will probably be fewer abortion clinics in Texas. That's true. The reason for that is that some of these abortion clinics are filthy, shady and someplace I wouldn't take my dog to. Women will be allowed to get abortions at safer, clean and regulated clinics with doctors with medical licenses from somewhere other than Haiti or Mexico. (Edited by OCD_OCD) OCD_OCD: If you were female, and someone was going to do this to you, would you want it done in a clinical setting or merely in some chop shop storefront? "Risks The risks of dilation and evacuation (D&E) include: Injury to the uterine lining or cervix. A hole in the wall of the uterus (uterine perforation, rare), which most commonly happens during cervical dilation. Bleeding is usually minimal, and no repair is necessary. If bleeding is a concern, a laparoscopy (a procedure that uses a lighted viewing instrument) can be used to see whether it has stopped. Infection. Bacteria can enter the uterus during the procedure and cause an infection. This is more likely if an untreated disease, such as a sexually transmitted disease (STD), is present before the procedure. Antibiotics given during and after the D&E procedure will reduce this risk. Moderate to severe bleeding (hemorrhage), which is sometimes caused by: Injury to the uterine lining or cervix. Uterine perforation. Uterine rupture. In rare cases, a uterine incision scar tears open when a medicine is used to induce contractions. Tissue remaining in the uterus (retained products of conception). This usually causes recurring cramping abdominal pain and bleeding within a week of the procedure. Sometimes prolonged bleeding does not occur until several weeks later. Risks are higher for surgical abortions done in the second trimester of pregnancy than for those done in the first trimester, particularly if they are done after 16 weeks of pregnancy. Other rare complications include: Tissue remaining in the uterus (retained products of conception). Cramping abdominal pain and bleeding recur within a week of the procedure. Sometimes prolonged bleeding does not occur until several weeks later. Blood clots. If the uterus doesn't contract to pass all the tissue, the cervical opening can become blocked, preventing blood from leaving the uterus. The uterus becomes enlarged and tender, often with abdominal pain, cramping, and nausea. A repeat vacuum aspiration and medicine to stop bleeding are used to treat retained products of conception or blood clots. OCD_OCD: Should women who have health care insurance have access to better medical care than those that don't? Should women who don't have the resources to have a D&C or D&E (which is even more dangerous) done by a licensed physician be forced to go to an unregulated chop shop? As a female, my answer would be "NO"!. (Edited by OCD_OCD) davesdatahut: I have no dispute whatsoever with making sure clinics are safe and regulated, and that women do not need to go to the back alley and emerge maimed, or worse. So if this legislation is so good, why is there such opposition to it. And why did a woman try to filibuster it to death? OCD_OCD: I dunno, Dave. She's using the media tactic of not telling the entire story. She will (and has) received lots of press and attention because she's constantly haranguing about the closure of abortion clinics through regulation and that is not the case at all. Those clinics that cannot pass the standards for appropriate care will be gone. And to that, I say good riddance. No one should want any woman to be forced to go, or be unaware that they are going to, a sub-par clinic for a procedure that is not as simple as popping a pimple. OCD_OCD: Good grief. Now the protesters are saying that they hope anyone who votes for this bill has their daughters raped. One little girl is holding a sign that says "If I wanted government in my womb, I'd F*** a senator" http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/03/pro-abortion-mom-makes-child-hold-stay-out-of-my-womb-sign-with-f-bomb/ This is sick. (Edited by OCD_OCD) davesdatahut: Oh dear, the fanatics are outta the woodwork. I only wish, in these types of situations, that we could have three rooms. One for the nuts on the far right. One for the nuts on the far left. One for the rest. Two of them should be locked from the outside. One should be where things are resolved. Guess which should be locked. davesdatahut: That's a confusing mix. Give it a try. Toss in some guilt. The kooks on either end respond well to that. OCD_OCD: I don't know that I'd be much good at tackling, but I'll bet I could trip the crap out of them and you can pile on. | Politics Chat Room 51 People Chatting Similar Conversations |