(10-18-2023, 09:17 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I never said good people can not sometimes do bad things. I'm not even passing any particular moral judgement on the people in this situation. Just that it was carried out poorly. You claimed no one gave you a solution, I pointed out that my post had an implied solution that would require legislation. That would include the onus of the politicians drawing up and passing guidelines that would result in that solution.

(10-17-2023, 11:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sure, they tried to help, just because it didn't work out as planned isn't all on them.

Quote:If you don't believe that good people can sometimes do bad things then you must hold yourselves to some very high ground. I'm sure you never tried to do the right thing and it backfired on you and ended up making things worse.

Quote:As i said there was no guidelines and laws here to direct these types of incidences, and that lead to inactivity on what to do and how to deal with this.

The onus is on the politicians for not providing the guidelines for these situations.

(10-18-2023, 03:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I agree legislation is required, but it doesn't do anything to help the situation now.
I don't know of anything that can be done now that would help other than increase Dr visits and try to get them in a different confinement situation. 

The problem is are you willing to forego the inalienable rights of the Drug Addicts by allowing them to be involuntarily committed? 

(10-18-2023, 04:43 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: They flat out ignored her and her medical needs AND the medical needs of the fetus they were supposed to be protecting by jailing her. That's literally all the opposite of trying to help.


I doubt there were any good people involved in this scenario. The mother was no Saint, but she still deserves to be treated like a human - not a breeding sow to give birth only when convenient to the people in charge of her. It's not about moral high grounds, it's about basic human decency and apparently, Southern Hospitality ends when a woman's life and that of her unborn child are in danger.


So now we need legislation telling people to not let folks die for no reason in a jail shower? How ***** stupid are people that they deny care to a person who is clearly in need of it and then shrug and say 'what were we supposed to do?'

I can't believe that the party of protecting life needs actual guidelines on how to protect life. It's almost as if they're spewing bullshit.

(10-19-2023, 02:04 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yep you right, Party full of NAZI's vs Party of hindsight Perfects. GTFOH

It's not BS, they had no idea what to do with her and she was not the only person there, couldn't release her or put her in involuntary commitment, no system or anything in place to do. In many cases when people don't know what to do, they end up doing nothing cause no one wants to be responsible. 

Yes they should have gotten her some medical attention, but they didn't, and you weren't there but you sure are fast to judge them, and as usual, you offer very little to the conversation other than Damn Party of Nazi's.

Quote:[color=var(--neutral-foreground-rest)]Lubbock County becomes latest to approve “abortion travel ban” while Amarillo City Council balks[/color]

[color=var(--neutral-foreground-rest)]Story by Jayme Lozano Carver  • 22h[/color]



[img]http:://thebengalsboard.com/[/img]
[color=var(--neutral-foreground-rest)][/url][url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lubbock-county-becomes-latest-to-approve-abortion-travel-ban-while-amarillo-city-council-balks/ar-AA1iIGFs?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=9cdb495899d04f2fbee79ceee5c16838&ei=8&fullscreen=true#image=2]


Downtown Lubbock on July 6, 2023. Credit: Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune© Provided by The Texas Tribune[/color]



Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

LUBBOCK — Three county commissioners approved an ordinance Monday that would bar pregnant Texas women from traveling through the unincorporated area of Lubbock County for an abortion in another state. But the effort pushed by anti-abortion activists hit a road block in Amarillo Tuesday, after the city council said they would not immediately vote on a similar rule.

The Lubbock commissioners – Jason Corley, Terence Kovar and Jordan Rackler – voted for the ordinance, which can only be enforced by private citizens who file lawsuits against people assisting pregnant Texans seeking an abortion. Commissioner Gilbert Flores, and County Judge Curtis Parrish abstained from voting.

Lubbock County is now the largest county to weigh in on the policy pushed by anti-abortion activists. It joins three other rural counties — Goliad, Mitchell and Cochran — in Texas that have already passed similar ordinances, despite the state already having one of the most restrictive bans on abortion in the U.S.

Meanwhile, several members of the Amarillo City Council said they opposed abortion, but questioned the legality of proposed rule and said they would not rush to put it in place just because other local governments have.

“There’s some issues there that I would like to see changed,” said Amarillo council member Don Tipps. “There’s several other cities that have adopted this, and good for them, but what we want to do is what’s best for y’all.”

The ordinance is being backed by the same organizers who started the “sanctuary city” ordinance movement before Roe v. Wade was eventually overturned. In 2021, Lubbock, the county seat, was the largest city to pass a “sanctuary city for the unborn” ordinance.

Much like that ordinance, the travel ban would be enforced through private lawsuits filed against the people who “knowingly transport any individual for the purpose of providing or obtaining an elective abortion, regardless of where the elective abortion will occur.” It would not punish the pregnant woman.

Parrish, the Lubbock County judge, wanted to postpone a vote until March 2024, to give the commissioner’s court more time to look at the legal purpose of the ordinance and what the physical impact would be to the county and taxpayers.

“We are a pro-life county, but we shouldn’t need a piece of paper that says you can’t drive on our roads,” Parrish said.


Legal scholars have said these so-called abortion travel bans have questionable enforcement mechanisms, making them more like a ceremonial declaration than a legally binding statute. In an opinion following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote “May a state bar a resident of that state from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.”

More than 100 people attended the commissioners court meeting, where there was tense back-and-forth between the elected representatives.

Commissioner Corley questioned whether his fellow commissioner, Flores, read the ordinance that was given to them last Wednesday. Corley and Parrish, who appeared to support the sentiment of the ordinance but wanted more time to look it over, also disagreed about when a vote can take place.


Anti-abortion activists from New Mexico and other parts of Texas have framed the ordinance as something to prevent “abortion trafficking,” with one meeting attendee implying to commissioners that pregnant women were being “transported” to other states against their will.

The idea of abortion trafficking is one that is also being spread by some Texas lawmakers. In an August letter addressed to Texas city and county officials, signed by members of the Texas Legislature, including Lubbock state Reps. Dustin Burrows and Carl Tepper, and state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, lawmakers claim that women are being abused and traumatized by “abortion trafficking.” The letter gives no specific examples of such trafficking.

Before the vote, Neal Burt, civil chief for the Lubbock County District Attorney’s office, asked commissioners for additional time to look over the ordinance. He expressed concern about the language and recommended amendments to it, as the county was already embroiled in a federal lawsuit in which his boss, District Attorney Sunshine Stanek was named, along with several other county attorneys. In that suit, abortion rights organizations are seeking legal protection to continue fundraising and paying for out-of-state abortion expenses.

“Words matter when we’re looking at criminal laws, as we are in that case, and the enforcement,” Burt explained.

However, Corley moved forward with a vote.

Commissioner Flores — the oldest member of the court at 77 years old — explained his civil rights were violated in the 1950s and 1960s, and how he doesn’t want to put women in a similar position by enacting the ordinance.

“Do I want the authority to tell women what to do and violate their rights? I have a difficult time with that,” said Flores, who also said it would go against his oath of office. “I have to obey the constitution of the United States of America, and I have to respect women’s rights.”

(10-25-2023, 07:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lubbock-county-becomes-latest-to-approve-abortion-travel-ban-while-amarillo-city-council-balks/ar-AA1iIGFs?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=9cdb495899d04f2fbee79ceee5c16838&ei=8

(10-26-2023, 09:03 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I completely agree with the right of the states to come up with their own abortion laws, but a travel ban is completely insane and unconstitutional imo.

There has to be compromise on this issue.

I believe abortion should be legal up to 16 weeks and then case by case basis for medical, rape, incest, etc., after that.  Is that exactly what I want, no, but I believe it is a good compromise to no abortion or abortion is legal at any time.  I also believe this fits with a majority of the country.

(10-26-2023, 09:03 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I completely agree with the right of the states to come up with their own abortion laws, but a travel ban is completely insane and unconstitutional imo.

There has to be compromise on this issue.

I believe abortion should be legal up to 16 weeks and then case by case basis for medical, rape, incest, etc., after that.  Is that exactly what I want, no, but I believe it is a good compromise to no abortion or abortion is legal at any time.  I also believe this fits with a majority of the country.

(10-26-2023, 09:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: Agree, but right after the ruling to overturn there were those who said there was "now way" states would ban traveling to other states to get abortions where it is legal. 

A "state's issue" was simply the sugar coating on the crap cake that was being served to get the ruling they wanted.  Now those state have slowly (but surely) continued to try and punish people if they go to OTHER states.

It's wrong and it won't stop with just this.  

The right is ready for a good old theocracy and will continue to do everything in their power to make it happen.

(11-05-2023, 03:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: I mean who would have thought that this would happen? 

Wow. Mike Johnson on Fox News Sunday doesn't rule out voting against access to contraception but then says "I really don't remember any of those measures" when asked about his past votes against reproductive health care pic.twitter.com/4pDl3BGGD3

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 5, 2023

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

(11-07-2023, 11:07 PM)pally Wrote: Ohio's Issue 1, a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights including abortion, is being projected to pass easily

(11-07-2023, 11:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Guess this is what happens when you send it back to the states rather than have a nation-wide ban.

(11-07-2023, 11:42 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: That’s the idea, is it not?

(11-07-2023, 11:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm pretty sure if conservatives knew red states would vote to protect abortion rights they wouldn't have spent so much time saying that it was right to let states decide.

So yes, I agree that is the idea...I'm skeptical the GOP is going to decide that the people have spoken and let it be.

(11-08-2023, 12:22 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Eh, speaking for one, the people of the state have spoken. Regardless of what the results were, I think that’s a good thing.

I don’t doubt for a second that you’re right about the GOP letting that dog lie.