And they try again...

[*bfine32*]

(01-29-2017, 03:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/AbortionMap_Factsheet_2013.pdf

Pretty sure everyone else understood I was talking about the "One of these things in not like the other" concept requiring more that two items. But as usual you are a little slow on the uptake. 

As to the point of your misguided link: 100% of the world men earn more money than women. So we should roll with the majority?

[GMDino]

(01-29-2017, 03:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure everyone else understood I was talking about the "One of these things in not like the other" concept requiring more that two items. But as usual you are a little slow on the uptake. 

As to the point of your misguided link: 100% of the world men earn more money than women. So we should roll with the majority?

Pretty sure a personal attack isn't a good response.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-29-2017, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, both things are not like the other when you only compare two things.

Correct. I compared two things and even you admit they aren't the same.

Quote:It's OK, I don't expect you to grasp the concept and/or admit it was a terribly failed attempt at condescension. Fortunately, the vast majority of the world does understand the concept.

Condescension is an attitude. A feeling I believe you are inferior to me. As such, it cannot be a success or failure. Rather, it is an idea I believe or don't believe. 

Quote:As to the condom, it does help prevent the conception of a child but does absolutely nothing to kill one.

Not according to your god.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-29-2017, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Outlawing abortion is not intervention. Legalizing it was.

Marijuana is a plant that has been used since before Christ, but wasn't illegal in the US until the 20th century. Something isn't illegal until deemed so by a government actions, e.g. intervention.

Everything is inherently "legal" until a law is passed outlawing it. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-29-2017, 03:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure everyone else understood I was talking about the "One of these things in not like the other" concept requiring more that two items. But as usual you are a little slow on the uptake. 

As to the point of your misguided link: 100% of the world men earn more money than women. So we should roll with the majority?

(01-29-2017, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, both things are not like the other when you only compare two things.

Oh, the irony of you calling someone else slow because they don't understand it takes more than two items to discern two items are different. 

[GMDino]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/arkansas-anti-abortion-law_us_58939063e4b09bd304ba41ff?section=women&

Quote:New Arkansas Law Lets Men Block Wives’ Abortions
Even in cases of spousal rape.



WASHINGTON― A new law in Arkansas bans most second trimester abortions and allows a woman’s husband to sue the doctor for civil damages or “injunctive relief,” which would block the woman from having the procedure. 

The “Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act,” signed into law last week by Gov. Asa Hutchinson ®, bans dilation and evacuation procedures, in which the physician removes the fetus from the womb with surgical tools. D&E procedures are the safest and most common way women can end their pregnancies after 14 weeks of gestation, according to the American Medical Association.

A clause buried in the legislation states that the husband of a woman seeking an abortion, if he is the baby’s father, can file a civil lawsuit against the physician for monetary damages or injunctive relief ― a court order that would prevent the doctor from going ahead with the procedure. The woman’s parents or legal guardians can also sue, if she is a minor. The law states that the husband cannot sue the doctor for money in cases of “criminal conduct” against his wife ― namely, spousal rape ― but he could still sue to block her from having the abortion. 

State Rep. Andy Mayberry ®, who co-sponsored the bill, told The Daily Beast, “We’ve tried to account for all the worst case scenarios.” 

“They created a whole new right ― the right of a husband or family member to sue a doctor on behalf of an adult patient,” said Holly Dickson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas. “I cannot begin to tell you what the intent was, but we have raised concerns about that provision and the entire rest of the bill, which is unconstitutional.” 

The ACLU of Arkansas plans to challenge the abortion law in court before it goes into effect this summer. Six other states have passed nearly identical laws, and in all four states where the law was challenged ― Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia ― it was struck down by the courts. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade protects a woman’s right to have an abortion up until the fetus would be viable outside the womb, around 22 weeks of pregnancy. 

[GMDino]

http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/oklahoma-anti-abortion-lawmaker-says-women-are-hosts.html

Quote:Oklahoma Anti-Abortion Lawmaker Says Women Are Merely ‘Hosts’

By Lisa Ryan

Representative Justin Humphrey. Photo: Oklahoma State Legislature
On Tuesday, the Oklahoma state legislature will hold a hearing on a bill that would require a woman seeking an abortion to first get written permission from her male sexual partner. In an interview, the Republican lawmaker who authored the bill explained that a woman’s body, well, simply isn’t her own. Instead, a woman’s body is merely a “host.”


The Intercept has a detailed report about the bill, known as HB 1441, as well as another bill that would block women from aborting fetuses with genetic anomalies, called HB 1559. In a surprising move (as Oklahoma has passed 20 strict abortion regulations since 2011), the latter failed to pass last Wednesday while the former was tabled without comment. However, by Thursday, both measures were put back on House Public Health Committee’s agenda, with a vote slated for February 14.


In an interview with the Intercept, Representative Justin Humphrey explained why he decided to author HB1441. His first intention with the bill, he said, was to ensure men would have to pay child support from the beginning. He also wanted to give men a say in the decision of whether a woman gets an abortion or not, because women tend to make these decisions with the mistaken with belief that their bodies are their own, he said.

Per the Intercept:

Quote:“I understand that they feel like that is their body,” he said of women. “I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant,” he explained. “So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.”

[*bfine32*]

(02-03-2017, 12:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/arkansas-anti-abortion-law_us_58939063e4b09bd304ba41ff?section=women&

Now we are starting to move in the right directon. Step one should be that all parties agree to terminate the child's life.

The question then becomes what are the requirements if the father objects.

I say he must provide proof that he can provide for the child financially and has an extended support group.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2017, 03:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now we are starting to move in the right directon. Step one should be that all parties agree to terminate the child's life.

The question then becomes what are the requirements if the father objects.

I say he must provide proof that he can provide for the child financially and has an extended support group.

Men could start by proving they could "host" a fetus. If not, maybe they should practice responsible abstinence. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2017, 10:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Men could start by proving they could "host" a fetus. If not, maybe they should practice responsible abstinence. 

Why would proving you could host a fetus trump proving you can rear a child?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2017, 11:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why would proving you could host a fetus trump proving you can rear a child?

Wouldn't keeping it alive fall under the larger umbrella of rearing it?

[CKwi88]

(02-14-2017, 10:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Men could start by proving they could "host" a fetus. If not, maybe they should practice responsible abstinence. 

This is what gets me on abortion. No matter how horrible it must be to have an abortion, to me it isn't much worse than forcing a woman against her will to carry a pregnancy to term. 

Maybe one day science will advance enough where doctors can transfer the fetus to a pro-birth man. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2017, 11:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Wouldn't keeping it alive fall under the larger umbrella of rearing it?

Surprisingly you answered the question with a question, but as to yours:


Nope. Just because you are not allowed to terminate something, does not mean you raise it. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2017, 11:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Surprisingly you answered the question with a question, but as to yours:


Nope. Just because you are not allowed to terminate something, does not mean you raise it. 

In order to raise it, you damn sure better be able to keep it alive. Keeping it alive is kinda a pre-requisite. 

You started a thread today with a series of questions. Your continued hypocrisy is noted (again) and it is as you say, "petty."

As I already explained if you were able to correctly answer my question, the obviously self-evident answer is, "Yes."

[GMDino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/22/not-a-scintilla-of-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-planned-parenthood-federal-judge-blocks-texas-defunding-effortar-medicaid-funds-to-the-organization/?utm_term=.3bc3ecbf8e56&wpisrc=nl_mix&wpmm=1

Quote:A federal judge on Tuesday ruled Texas officials cannot cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, allowing the organization to continue providing reimbursed services — at least temporarily — to the 12,500 Texas Medicaid patients who rely on it.


The case stemmed from an effort by Texas officials to punish Planned Parenthood based on a heavily edited and controversial undercover video made by two antiabortion activists purporting to show that the organization illegally sells fetal tissue left over from abortions for scientific research.

U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks, in Austin, did not hold back in his 42-page opinion, writing that Texas officials lacked “even a scintilla of evidence” to conclude that Planned Parenthood committed wrongdoing and warranted termination from the Medicaid program.

“A secretly recorded video, fake names, a grand jury indictment, congressional investigations — these are the building blocks of a best-selling novel rather than a case concerning interplay of federal and state authority through the Medicaid program,” Sparks wrote in the ruling. “Yet, rather than a villain plotting to take over the world, the subject of this case is the State of Texas’s efforts to expel a group of health care providers from a social health care program for families and individuals with limited resources.”

The videos recorded in 2015 led to Republican attempts nationwide to defund Planned Parenthood. In December, a year after announcing plans to remove the organization from the Medicaid program, the inspector general for the Health and Human Services Commission in Texas handed Planned Parenthood a final termination notice. Planned Parenthood sued to continue to receive the Medicaid funds, and Sparks blocked the termination for one month while he weighed evidence.

Sparks ruled that cutting off funding would create “irreparable injury” by disrupting the health care of some of the state’s most vulnerable patients, eliminating 30 health centers across Texas from the Medicaid program, which serves the poor.
The decision made Texas at least the sixth state where federal courts have maintained Planned Parenthood eligibility for
Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services, the Associated Press reported. Similar efforts have been blocked in Arkansas, Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana.


Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said his office would appeal the ruling, claiming that the undercover videos “exposed a brazen willingness by Planned Parenthood officials to traffic in fetal body parts, as well as manipulate the timing and method of an abortion.”

“Even the remains of the most vicious criminals are treated with respect,” Paxton wrote in a statement. “But the children who never had a chance at life become so-called medical waste or, alternatively, a commodity to be bartered for. No taxpayer in Texas should have to subsidize this repugnant and illegal conduct. We should never lose sight of the fact that, as long as abortion is legal in the United States, the potential for these types of horrors will continue.”

The case will head to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, and without a successful appeal, the temporary block will stay in place at least until a full trial is concluded.

Lingering questions remain about the future of Planned Parenthood, as activists worry that Trump and emboldened Republicans in Congress will further restrict some abortion procedures and slash funding for Planned Parenthood.

Last month, Trump banned U.S. funding to international groups that perform abortions or even provide information about abortions. The newly confirmed health secretary, Tom Price, has supported cutting off federal funds from health-care plans that cover abortions. Last week, House Republicans passed a resolution that would allow states to divert federal money from Planned Parenthood to community health clinics.

[Planned Parenthood could be first casualty of Obamacare repeal efforts]

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, serves more than a third of the roughly 4 million Americans who receive benefits through the Title X program. In Texas, it offers Medicaid patients contraception and contraceptive counseling, breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening and treatment, sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing and treatment, pregnancy testing and counseling, as well as other services.

The court fight over the secretly recorded videos began in April 2015, when two individuals made site visits at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast headquarters, using fake names to portray themselves as a company interested in connecting Planned Parenthood health centers with research studies. The two people were actually antiabortion activists affiliated with the Center for Medical Progress. While touring the facilities, they recorded a series of undercover videos, supposedly showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing plans to sell aborted human fetal tissue and body parts.



Investigations in 13 states — including Texas — into the videos have resulted in no criminal charges. Planned Parenthood officials have said the videos were deceptively edited, and have denied any accusations that they sell fetal tissue. Attorneys for the provider said it receives reimbursements only for time, storage of tissue and the sterile equipment used in procedures from which tissue will be donated for research, the Dallas Morning News reported.


A grand jury indicted the activists, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt for tampering with government records by using fake driver’s licenses to conceal their identities. The charges were later dismissed.


At the same time, the grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of misusing fetal tissue.

In summarizing the video “for those not blessed with eight free hours to watch it,” Sparks wrote that the vast majority of the footage concerns conversations between Melissa Farrell, research director with Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, and the two antiabortion activists during the April 9, 2015 site visit, and consists of confusing and ambiguous dialogue that is open to interpretation.

Sparks said the court found the state’s inspector general had no evidence to support the allegation that the organization had a history of altering and a willingness to alter abortion procedures for research purposes.


“The Inspector General relied on an unauthenticated video and the advice of an orthopedic surgeon to conclude PPGC violated medical and ethical standards related to abortion procedures,” Sparks wrote. After reviewing the video in its entirety, and hearing the Inspector General’s testimony, the court found no evidence that the Planned Parenthood officials violated any medical or ethical standard.

Yvonne Gutierrez, executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, said the provider was thrilled with the court’s decision to stop the state from barring thousands of Texans from the provider, the Dallas Morning News reported.

“Attempting to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers in Texas is part of an extreme agenda to ban abortion, and politicians are willing to strip away access to birth control, cancer screenings, and other vital health care in the process.”

In a statement, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, also praised the decision, calling it a “victory for Texas women. For Texas families. For all Texans.”

“Thanks to this decision, Planned Parenthood patients can continue to get the care they need,” Richards said. “We will never back down and we will never stop fighting for our patients.”

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-22-2017, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/22/not-a-scintilla-of-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-planned-parenthood-federal-judge-blocks-texas-defunding-effortar-medicaid-funds-to-the-organization/?utm_term=.3bc3ecbf8e56&wpisrc=nl_mix&wpmm=1

I can't believe we are still wasting tax payers dollars on this fraud. They should hold those behind the edited videos finanacially responsible for the legal costs to the State if at all possible. 

[*PhilHos*]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's already illegal for tax money to go towards abortions, correct? So, in my mind, it should be: look at PP's financial records. If any tax money went towards abortions, then you stop funding them. If none didn't, you keep funding, but you also keep checking (unless PP stops doing abortions).

Ideally, I don't want any of my tax money going towards an organization that murders unborn children, however, that's my personal opinion and as long as my taxes aren't actually paying for abortions, I don't really have any legal justification. Although, now that I think about it, because my company gets some funding from state and federal grants, there are certain religious things we aren't allowed to do and while I'm fine with things like the funds can't go towards church services, there are some rules like I can't even have religious displays in the lobby (although we fall under the exception since we provide services in a church building). So if I was getting the same funding, but providing services out of an office building, I couldn't have any religious displays in the lobby. In that case, I say we do the same to PP. They can continue to get taxpayer funding, but they can't use it for abortions NOR are they allowed to promote abortions in their offices.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-24-2017, 12:55 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's already illegal for tax money to go towards abortions, correct? So, in my mind, it should be: look at PP's financial records. If any tax money went towards abortions, then you stop funding them. If none didn't, you keep funding, but you also keep checking (unless PP stops doing abortions).

Ideally, I don't want any of my tax money going towards an organization that murders unborn children, however, that's my personal opinion and as long as my taxes aren't actually paying for abortions, I don't really have any legal justification. Although, now that I think about it, because my company gets some funding from state and federal grants, there are certain religious things we aren't allowed to do and while I'm fine with things like the funds can't go towards church services, there are some rules like I can't even have religious displays in the lobby (although we fall under the exception since we provide services in a church building). So if I was getting the same funding, but providing services out of an office building, I couldn't have any religious displays in the lobby. In that case, I say we do the same to PP. They can continue to get taxpayer funding, but they can't use it for abortions NOR are they allowed to promote abortions in their offices.

You're correct tax payers dollars aren't allowed to fund abortions performed at Planned Parenthood. Abortion funding has to come from non-tax payer dollars and they must maintain accounting records to ensure the funds stay separate. I support this requirement so that tax payers who object to abortion know their tax dollars don't go to fund abortions. As to the rest, I don't know.