The Trump Presidency

goldfly said:
I look forward to you saying quit acting on emotion next time

After you wanting laws to tell a doctor what they can and can’t do for their patient

This is settled law and you are trying to find some activist judges to change it to the way you feel.
Click to expand...

It's not emotion to say you don't support killing an infant

I want laws to tell doctors they cannot kill their patients, correct.

40 week abortion isn't settled law here, or essentially any where in the world.

Otherwise, great points
 
Julio3000 said:
It’s funny that your’re saying this, because it indicates that you’re not actually familiar with the bill in question.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter what it says or what it's intent is

or the facts on why late term "abortions" happen

it's what he feels is right
 
sturg33 said:
Go on...

(And I suspect you're not willing to criticize it either. Simply amazing)
Click to expand...

I’m saying, as a simple factual matter, you’re mischaracterizing the contents of the bill (and, for that matter, the governor’s comments).

So tell me, what procedure that was not previously legal in Virginia, would the bill allow?
 
Julio3000 said:
I’m saying, as a simple factual matter, you’re mischaracterizing the contents of the bill (and, for that matter, the governor’s comments).

So tell me, what procedure that was not previously legal in Virginia, would the bill allow?
Click to expand...

Removing the physician consent from 3 to 1.

And putting no limit on when an abortion can be administered.

There are some other.smaller things I believe
 
Wow, a Libertarian adamant the government dictating medical procedures.

Taking you serious at your word of all lives are special
Assisted suicide, end of life decisions --- your stance on those?
Do you favor people needlessly suffering ?

Why do you have to wait for (R) poll numbers to plummet to become mobilized ?
We haven't heard this much about abortion since --- probably the Iraq War

This discussion is not about morality or medical it is about politics
and energizing the base

you conveniently never answer questions but the children that suffered in Puerto Rico and the deaths reported in the past months from detainment .
Or the children that missed school lunches over your celebrated shutdown...
Or is it just the dramatic wedge issue

Dont worry at this point and your history you really aren't expected to fill in those blanks
............................

Long story short -- your concerns ring hollow
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
Wow, a Libertarian adamant the government dictating medical procedures.

Taking you serious at your word of all lives are special
Assisted suicide, end of life decisions --- your stance on those?
Do you favor people needlessly suffering ?

Why do you have to wait for (R) poll numbers to plummet to become mobilized ?
We haven't heard this much about abortion since --- probably the Iraq War

This discussion is not about morality or medical it is about politics
and energizing the base
Click to expand...

If the baby says he doesn't want to live, then by all means, abort it.

Your false equivalency is so bad. The 40 week old baby has no say here. I don't support the mother or a doctor killing him. Do you?

Lol energizing the base. I'm not the one who said on video that my bill would allow a 40 week baby to be murdered. I'm not the governor who then went on video to say, we'll deliver the baby and then make a decision.

That was your team. You guys are owning it. I'm surprised you can't say something like "yeah that's too much and i dont support that. I'm glad that bill failed."

But you just can't.

89% of the country is against third trimester abortions. The Democratic base is currently defending infanticide. Unless Tran was a GOP plant, the only people who energized anything was your team.

Embrace the crazy.
 
sturg33 said:
Removing the physician consent from 3 to 1.

And putting no limit on when an abortion can be administered.

There are some other.smaller things I believe
Click to expand...

Those limits are already established by Virginia law and this bill doesn’t change that one way or another. So, I repeat, what procedure that was previously outlawed is allowed by this bill? I get that you’re generally making a moral argument against abortion, and that’s fine, but I’m asking you a factual question based on your query about how you were misrepresenting the substance of the bill.
 
Julio3000 said:
Those limits are already established by Virginia law and this bill doesn’t change that one way or another. So, I repeat, what procedure that was previously outlawed is allowed by this bill? I get that you’re generally making a moral argument against abortion, and that’s fine, but I’m asking you a factual question based on your query about how you were misrepresenting the substance of the bill.
Click to expand...

You are correct and I appreciate the clarification.

This bill makes it substantially easier for a woman to have a very late abortion (3 to 1)... and I'm not familiar if "mental reasons" was there before but it is now and I think that hilariously stupid
 
The critique of bringing in the topic of abortion to this thread is odd. Of course it can be a part of this thread. States like NY will be doing things like this, in part, to have liberal state laws in place should Roe be overturned, a fear (not sure its justified) that Roe will be overturned if Trump appoints a replacement for Ginsburg.
 
sturg33 said:
You are correct and I appreciate the clarification.

This bill makes it substantially easier for a woman to have a very late abortion (3 to 1)... and I'm not familiar if "mental reasons" was there before but it is now and I think that hilariously stupid
Click to expand...

And fwiw I think that objection is reasonable within the parameters of the discussion, regardless of your or my personal feelings. My interest was in pointing out a factual error, and I appreciate your acknowledging the clarification.
 
This is tangential, but, just for the sake of curiously, I wonder if anyone here has volunteered to adopt a profoundly disabled child? If you’re genuinely committed to insisting that the state mandate that all pregnancies be brought to term, you’re surely cognizant of the fact that not everyone has the resources to sacrifice their earning potential in order to care for a special-needs child. Seems to me that if you’re willing to pass judgement on a woman who would terminate a pregnancy based on a diagnosis of serious birth defects, you’d be willing to put your money where your mouth is and adopt a special need kid. Certainly some folks do it. Can I get a show of hands here?
 
"...Virginia House Bill 2491 would roll back a number of requirements, including a 24-hour waiting period and a mandate that second-trimester abortions take place in a hospital. Always something of a long shot in the Republican-controlled state legislature, the bill may now be doomed by the national firestorm surrounding it.

The controversy has centered on a provision concerning third-trimester abortions. Under current Virginia law, in order for a patient to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester, three doctors must certify that continuing the pregnancy would likely cause the patient’s death or “substantially and irremediably impair” her mental or physical health. The new bill would reduce the number of doctors to one, and remove the “substantially and irremediably” qualifier — abortions would be allowed in cases where a mother’s mental or physical health is threatened, even if the damage might not be irreversible..."

Link
 
BedellBrave said:
"...Virginia House Bill 2491 would roll back a number of requirements, including a 24-hour waiting period and a mandate that second-trimester abortions take place in a hospital. Always something of a long shot in the Republican-controlled state legislature, the bill may now be doomed by the national firestorm surrounding it.

The controversy has centered on a provision concerning third-trimester abortions. Under current Virginia law, in order for a patient to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester, three doctors must certify that continuing the pregnancy would likely cause the patient’s death or “substantially and irremediably impair” her mental or physical health. The new bill would reduce the number of doctors to one, and remove the “substantially and irremediably” qualifier — abortions would be allowed in cases where a mother’s mental or physical health is threatened, even if the damage might not be irreversible..."

Link
Click to expand...

Sounds like if the pregnant women is having stress about becoming a mother that may provide leeway to get an abortion.

How does one evaluate mental health due to an impending child birth?
 
thethe said:
[Tw]1088898595653386240[/tw]

Drip drip drip
Click to expand...

there goes an eargasm

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-admi...ort-95000-claiming-its-now-much-lower-1314121

"As the secretary of state and county election officials scrubbed the voter rolls, they found that many of the voters listed on the original report were either citizens or had become citizens after they were issued driver’s licenses and identification cards."

also

"The errant report could have resulted in massive erasure of names from voting rolls, especially in larger communities. In Houston, the original report called for the removal of about 18,000 voters. The new report is only 40 percent of that number.

In Williamson County, an affluent suburb north of Austin, voting officials were told to remove 2,033 names, but it has since been cut in half, as those voters were identified as naturalized citizens.

In Waco, the entire list of 366 voters was tossed out because none of their citizenship statuses were actually in question."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top