Floating abortion clinic proposed in Gulf to bypass bans | AP News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  4 weeks ago  •  140 comments

By:   AP NEWS

Floating abortion clinic proposed in Gulf to bypass bans | AP News
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A California doctor is proposing a floating abortion clinic in the Gulf of Mexico as a way to maintain access for people in southern states where abortion bans have been enacted.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A California doctor is proposing a floating abortion clinic in the Gulf of Mexico as a way to maintain access for people in southern states where abortion bans have been enacted.

The idea is to provide a clinic aboard a ship in federal waters, and out of reach of state laws, that would offer first trimester surgical abortions, contraception and other care, said Dr. Meg Autry, an obstetrician and gynecologist and a professor at the University of California San Francisco.

"There's been an assault on reproductive rights in our country and I'm a lifelong advocate for reproductive health and choice. We have to create options and be thoughtful and creative to help people in restrictive states get the health care they deserve," she told The Associated Press.

Autry said the idea is only in the fundraising stage through the non-profit, "PRROWESS" — short for "Protecting Reproductive Rights Of Women Endangered by State Statutes."

The proposal comes as abortion access in the southern United States has been swiftly curtailed after the U.S. Supreme Court turned the issue of abortion back to the states.

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas have had abortion bans take effect. A Florida law, which is in effect after a legal back-and-forth, prohibits abortions after 15 weeks, with exceptions if the procedure is necessary to save a life, prevent serious injury or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality.

Autry said their legal team believes there is a swath of federal water where licensed providers could safely and legally provide abortions out of reach of state laws. For women in southern states with abortion bans, going to the coast and boarding a boat may be closer and easier than trying to travel to a state where abortion remains legal, she said.

"This is closer and faster access for some people, particularly for working people that live in the southernmost part of these states," she said.

Autry said they are still trying to work out many of the details such as where the boat will launch and how women would get to the ship.

All contents © copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

Those backward hick states are bound to pass laws making it a felony to board a boat that goes to the health-care ship. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1    4 weeks ago

That would be similar to the laws some of them are proposing to make it illegal for their state residents to travel to a free state to have an abortion.

If the Supreme Court were to uphold any of those oppressive laws the freedom we enjoy in this country would be over.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1    4 weeks ago

Prescient Buzz!

Many of the legislators who ban abortions are doing so based on personal beliefs.   They seek to control their constituents and force them to behave per their beliefs.

IMO of course.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.2    4 weeks ago
Many of the legislators who ban abortions are doing so based on personal beliefs.   They seek to control their constituents and force them to behave per their beliefs.

I have lived in those states nearly all of my life.

In my experience, you have that backwards.  

The legislators seek to get re-elected.  That's all.  As a result, they will pretend to adopt whatever personal beliefs they think will align most closely with the highest number of likely voters.  

It is also pertinent that significant numbers of women are strongly opposed to abortion.  They are not behaving per the beliefs of elected officials.  Quite the reverse.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.1    4 weeks ago
significant numbers of women are strongly opposed to abortion

No where near a majority.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.1    4 weeks ago

I will rephrase to incorporate the tie between legislators and the voters who elect them.

Those who seek to ban abortions are doing so based on personal beliefs.   They seek to control the people writ large and force them to behave per their beliefs.

Bottom line:  this is about beliefs (e.g. the level of personhood / soul-bearing post conception).    Personhood is clearly not even remotely close to a legal consideration in the first trimester.   What remains is the religious belief of a human being (a soul) which must be protected even at the zygote stage.

Medically, we would typically be concerned with viability and the feeling of pain (late second trimester for viability;  likely a few weeks earlier for pain) as the point where abortion is significant, so that offers no support for banning first (and to a lesser degree second) trimester abortions.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @1.2.2    4 weeks ago
No where near a majority.

Probably not, but that isn't going to keep candidates from getting primaried.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.2    4 weeks ago
Many of the legislators who ban abortions are doing so based on personal beliefs.

They are all based on "personal beliefs", since there is no scientific basis for outlawing abortions.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.3    4 weeks ago

hose who seek to ban abortions are doing so based on personal beliefs.   

Yes, and the grass is green. The number one reason politicians vote for anything is to get reelected. Finishing a distant second is they vote their personal beliefs on each and every topic.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.5    4 weeks ago
 since there is no scientific basis for outlawing abortions.

If you think there is a "scientific reason" to permit abortions, you don't understand what the word means. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.5    4 weeks ago

Which is my point.   The banning of abortions in the first trimester (and even the first part of the second trimester) does not seem to be based on objective factors.   I do not consider religious beliefs or emotional beliefs to be objective.

One can make a biological case for banning abortions in the late second trimester and certainly in the third trimester.    And that case would have the strength of yielding plenty of time for a woman to detect that she is pregnant and optionally end the pregnancy well before this biological line is crossed.

In result, unplanned pregnancies as well as those from rape/incest and the detection of malformed embryos/fetuses can be handled.    There is of course a point where a pregnancy is too advanced.   Right now we all agree that a pregnancy that goes full term and yields birth is without question too late.   Pushing that back to the late second trimester can be supported with a biological argument.   Pushing the line further back loses objectivity and becomes purely religious/emotional.  IMO.

And of course in the rare cases where an advanced pregnancy has gone wrong and the mother's life is in danger there should be no laws preventing a legal abortion to save the life of the mother.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.7    4 weeks ago

Ectopic pregnancy.

Next? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    4 weeks ago

Personal beliefs as opposed to objective reasoning based on sound facts.

Since you evidently need me to spell this out for you.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.9    4 weeks ago

As if that had something to do with anything. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.10    4 weeks ago
ersonal beliefs as opposed to objective reasoning based on sound facts.

Lol   Keep kidding  yourself all your beliefs  are based on "objective reasoning."  Its subjective choice  you rationalize to yourself as objective. 

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.12    4 weeks ago

You are trolling, Sean.   I will explain why.    I did not claim that all my beliefs are based on objective reasoning.   You are making this personal while introducing a strawman. 

Further, do you actually hold that objective reasoning based on sound facts does not exist?

If so, there is no point trying to reason with you.   If not, you contradict your complaint.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.2.14  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.4    4 weeks ago

“…that isn't going to keep candidates from getting primaried.”

The litmus test…a test obfuscated at best by the last three SCOTUS nominees (despite their testimony) and now front and center for every candidate for every office.

Fifty plus years after the original and continually approved decision by the overwhelming majority. 

Let those hoping to gain office explain their position and let the voters decide. And let those elected give thanks to the gerrymandering that also grants them a pass. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
1.2.15  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.3    4 weeks ago
Personhood is clearly not even remotely close to a legal consideration in the first trimester.

Why do you believe this to be true? From what I've seen of the abortion issue, personhood is at the center of the legal consideration, regardless of what point the pregnancy is at. If it were not, there really wouldn't be this battle going on. That is why I'm asking for a clarification of your statement. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.13    4 weeks ago

As long you agree your position on abortion is ultimately based on your personal beliefs just like everyone else's, than we agree. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.11    4 weeks ago

Are you seriously trying to argue that ectopic pregnancies do NOT qualify as a "scientific reason" to permit abortions? 

Ectopic Pregnancy and Abortion Laws: What to Know (healthline.com)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.15    4 weeks ago
Why do you believe this to be true?

Legal consideration vs. religious/emotional consideration.

Those against abortion even in the first trimester claim that this is a human being (not just human life) at conception.   (Of course people vary but you get the drift.)   They would like personhood to be legally defined at conception.   But legal personhood is currently nowhere close to conception.  Legally, personhood is upon birth with strong arguments that this be pushed back to viability.  

But this,as I noted, is nowhere close to the first trimester.

Hopefully that clears things up.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.5    4 weeks ago

nce there is no scientific basis for outlawing abortions.

To hopefully short circuit what could be an wearying attempt at explaining simple concepts, I've attached a guide prepared by the University of California Berkley to help teachers explain basic terms to grammar schoolers. Here's an excerpt on what science is:

When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is , but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

To cite "science" as as providing an answer to this issue is simply ignorant..  To make it as simple as possible, science just tells us what an abortion is. That's it. It doesn't claim that its good, bad or indifferent. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.16    4 weeks ago
As long you agree your position on abortion is ultimately based on your personal beliefs just like everyone else's, than we agree. 

I distinguished personal beliefs from objective reasoning.   That is akin, given the context of my comment, to distinguishing subjective reasoning from objective reasoning.  The two are different and both exist.

Do you hold that all reasoning is subjective or do you recognize the existence of objective reasoning (especially when explicitly emphasized as being based on sound facts) and that it is quite different from subjective reasoning?

My further comments are pending your answer.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.17    4 weeks ago
opic pregnancies do NOT qualify as a "scientific reason" to permit abortions?

That's a moral question.  All science does is tell you what an ectopic pregnancy is.  

And since surgery to remove ectopic pregnancies have always been and remain perfectly  legal, it's not even a moral reason to permit legalized abortions. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.20    4 weeks ago
you hold that all reasoning is subjective or do you recognize the existence of objective reasoning

Lay out your reasoning on abortion and it will include subjective and objective reasoning, just like those who think differently than you. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.22    4 weeks ago

Apparently you do not understand subjective vs. objective reasoning.   Objective reasoning is not reasoning conducted by a mind that is devoid of subjectivity.   It is a reasoning process that uses techniques to mitigate subjectivity (bias, emotion, 'feelings', etc.) and maximize critical thinking.

Look it up Sean.   I need not explain this to you;  the meaning of these terms is rather well-established.   

Lay out your reasoning ...

@1.2.8

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.18    4 weeks ago
ut legal personhood is currently nowhere close to conception. 

That's not true. It depends on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions do, in fact, specifically  define an unborn child as a human being at any stage of development.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.24    4 weeks ago

Cite the law that defines an unborn child in the first trimester as a legal person.

If anything I expect you to deliver a rare exception vs. the norm because if a first trimester embryo/fetus is a legal person then all abortions are legally murder.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.8    4 weeks ago

The banning of abortions in the first trimester (and even the first part of the second trimester) does not seem to be based on objective factors. 

Of course it is. Abortion terminates a human life. That's objectively true. 

ne can make a biological case for banning abortions in the late second trimester and certainly in the third trimeste

The only objectively consistent standard is banning all abortions.  Selectively choosing a stage of development where abortion  is permitted, but at the next isn't, is inherently subjective. It's the same developing human life you are killing, whether it's 15  days  post fertilization  or 15 years. 

  Pushing the line further back loses objectivity and becomes purely religious/emotional.  IMO.

Exactly, it's your moral opinion based on selectively chosen factors that you give more weight to than others.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.21    4 weeks ago
All science does is tell you what an ectopic pregnancy is. 

Medical science (applied) tells us that an ectopic pregnancy is fatal for the woman.   Need I explain this further?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.28  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.26    4 weeks ago
Of course it is. Abortion terminates a human life. That's objectively true. 

Should people who dont agree with you be forced to agree with you? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.28    4 weeks ago
Should people who dont agree with you be forced to agree with you? 

Not at all.

All are free to 'think' a woman who is pregnant isn't carrying a child.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
1.2.30  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.18    4 weeks ago
Hopefully that clears things up.

Yes. I understand what you intended to convey better now. Thanks. One observation, however. The personhood of the unborn appears to be situational, legally. Regardless of the stage of development, someone who, in the commission of a crime, causes the termination of a pregnancy is charged with murder. That can only happen if the developing life in the womb is considered a person. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the rationality of this. If a woman is on her way to an abortion procedure but is accosted in such a manner that the pregnancy is terminated, the criminal will still be charged with murder, in spite of the pending abortion.

Religious/emotional considerations aside, this makes no logical sense. The mother can terminate because what is inside her is not considered a person, legally, but the criminal can be charged with murder because the child (or whatever term suits you) is considered a person, legally. It seems to me that none of it is due to objective fact but rather, desired outcomes by individuals. That is, what is growing in the mother is whatever it's needed to be for the desired outcome. I'm not sure this would be any better than religious/emotional considerations. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.25    4 weeks ago

Here's two before I'm out of the As.   

Alabama : an unborn child, child or person” as “[a] human being, specifically including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.”

Arizona:  " an unborn child at every stage of development all rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents.."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.28    4 weeks ago
hould people who dont agree with you be forced to agree with you? 

Not at all. I'm just stating an objective fact.  The moral weight you apply to that fact is, of course, subjective. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.33  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.27    4 weeks ago

Medical science (applied) tells us that an ectopic pregnancy is fatal for the woman.  

No shit. What point do you think you've made?

Most people give that fact significant subjective weight when figuring out the moral calculus involved which is why (since you apparently missed it) surgery to remove ectopic pregnancies have always been and remain perfectly  legal. It really has nothing to do with a discussion about legalized abortion post Dobbs. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.26    4 weeks ago
Abortion terminates a human life. That's objectively true. 

A human life form vs a human being.   The morning after pill ends a human life form too.   What is the objective factor that determines it should be against the law to flush out a zygote?    A zygote is a human life form that is profoundly different from a human being.   Both are technically human life forms but we typically use the phrase 'human life' to mean the 'life of a human being'.   You are trying to apply 'life of a human being' to a zygote.

At the instant of fertilization we have a zygote.   It is technically the most basic human life form.   What, objectively, determines that it should be against the law to terminate the zygote?   If you say human life again then you are simply reflecting moral / emotional factors while equating a zygote to a the human life

The only objectively consistent standard is banning all abortions. 

According to what, specifically?   All I see is you making a declaration.   And where does 'objectively consistent' come from?   You introduced that as a criterion, not me.   Further, using your example, one can immediately see another 'objectively consistent' standard as allowing all abortions.   Another 'objectively consistent' standard is to allow each woman to decide for herself.   

Exactly, it's your moral opinion based on selectively chosen factors that you give more weight to than others.  

I stated my opinion that the situation becomes more complicated (gray) as we push the line back to more advanced pregnancies because we leave a realm of pure biology and enter into a gray emotional territory.    That is not my 'moral' opinion, it is my observation that the closer a fetus gets to being fully formed the more emotions will play on the question of abortion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.35  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.32    4 weeks ago

So, we can only conclude that you oppose any abortion at any time for any reason. Not rape victims, not incest victims, not 10 year olds, not to save the life of the mother, not because of tremendous fetal deformities (such as missing 3/4 of the brain), can any abortion occur, because they always end "human life". Correct? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.31    4 weeks ago

In Alabama and Arizona will a woman be tried for murder if she takes the morning-after pill?

You are implying that it is the norm in the USA that personhood is already granted to a zygote and beyond.

That would mean that all abortions (regardless of Roe v. Wade) would be murders.  

Wow, what an oversight for all these years.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.37  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.33    4 weeks ago
No shit. What point do you think you've made?

I quoted you to make the context clear.   Did you read that?:

Sean @1.2.22All science does is tell you what an ectopic pregnancy is. 
TiG @1.2.27Medical science (applied) tells us that an ectopic pregnancy is fatal for the woman.   Need I explain this further?

Science tells us not only what an ectopic pregnancy is but that it will kill the woman.   That is the objective factor that would favor allowing this particular type of abortion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.30    4 weeks ago
The personhood of the unborn appears to be situational, legally. Regardless of the stage of development, someone who, in the commission of a crime, causes the termination of a pregnancy is charged with murder. That can only happen if the developing life in the womb is considered a person.

Aggressive attorneys in conservative jurisdictions.   I contrast those exceptions with the fact that abortions were routinely legal in the USA for about half a century and in all this time the personhood of zygotes, embryos and fetuses never caused women and doctors to be indicted for murder.    Either law enforcement is entirely incompetent or the law, defacto, does not consider the unborn to be human beings.

Nothing is ever 100% pure, there are always exceptions.   The legal norm has been that ending the life of an unborn is not murder.    If it were murder then Roe v. Wade legalized murder and any state that allows even the morning-after pill is legalizing murder.  

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the rationality of this. If a woman is on her way to an abortion procedure but is accosted in such a manner that the pregnancy is terminated, the criminal will still be charged with murder, in spite of the pending abortion.

Life is not simplistic and free of inconsistencies.   Yes that is inconsistent.   So focus on the norm.

It seems to me that none of it is due to objective fact but rather, desired outcomes by individuals.

I described a way of looking at this objectively @1.2.8.    In short (and focusing on the 1st trimester) biology objectively tells us that the zygote / embryo / fetus has no nervous system, no brain, no functioning vital organs.   There is, in short, no way that this entity could survive outside of the uterus as an individual (I am not talking about surviving in a test tube).   This is not based on emotion, religion, etc.  

Compare the zygote to a third trimester fetus.   Objectively, what is the difference to you?   Yes both are forms of human life but in terms of personhood, what causes you to NOT consider a zygote to be a human being with legal rights as a person?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.39  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.21    4 weeks ago

  That's a moral question. 

Nope. 

All science does is tell you what an ectopic pregnancy is.  

Yet legislatures are ignoring science, this is what Ohio is proposing:

House Bill 413 | The Ohio Legislature

Sec. 2904.35. A physician who does all of the following is
 not subject to criminal prosecution, damages in any civil
 action, or professional disciplinary action, for a violation of
 this chapter:
 (A) Using reasonable medical judgment, believes it is
 highly probable that the pregnant woman will die from a certain
 fatal condition before her unborn child is viable;
 (B) Performs a surgery, before the unborn child is viable,
 for the sole purpose of treating the pregnant woman's fatal
condition;
 (C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the
 unborn child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps
 include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic
 pregnancy into the woman's uterus.

There is NO surgical procedure to 'reimplant an ectopic pregnancy'. They're trying to mandate fabricated bullshit.

Who here thinks that Ohio will be the ONLY state to push for this crazy shit? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2.40  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.1    4 weeks ago
The legislators seek to get re-elected.  That's all.  As a result, they will pretend to adopt whatever personal beliefs they think will align most closely with the highest number of likely voters.   It is also pertinent that significant numbers of women are strongly opposed to abortion.  They are not behaving per the beliefs of elected officials.  Quite the reverse.

If that is true, then please explain this poll:

TEXAS ABORTION RESTRICTIONS

78% of Texas voters think abortion should be allowed in some form, UT poll shows

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.39    4 weeks ago
Nope. 

Lol.  The uninformed conclusive declaration without any support.  

here thinks that Ohio will be the ONLY state to push for this crazy shit

Lol. How dishonest.  Ohio isn't pushing or proposing anything. That's an old bill from 2019 proposed by a legislator that went absolutely nowhere. It wasn't even voted on. 

You understand any  legislator in America can file a bill saying anything, right? 

Ohio actually passed an abortion bill in 2022 that allows surgery to remove ectopic pregnancies. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.42  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.40    4 weeks ago

gee, seems like it's rule by the minority now...

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
1.2.43  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.26    4 weeks ago
Abortion terminates a human life.

No. Abortion terminates a POTENTIAL human life.  You give more rights to a POTENTIAL human life than an ACTUAL human life.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.44  devangelical  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @1.2.43    4 weeks ago

... because thumpers consider a woman seeking an abortion already valueless to them.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
1.2.45  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  devangelical @1.2.44    4 weeks ago

They seem to consider any woman who is not subservient to them to be valueless to them.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.2.46  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.40    4 weeks ago
If that is true, then please explain this poll:

I'm not sure why you think it disagrees with my assertion.  A 54% majority of respondents opposed the idea that "a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice".  Fewer than 40% of respondents supported that view. 

21% of respondents who identified themselves as "extremely liberal" agreed with some level of abortion restriction, including 8% who said it should never be permitted under any circumstances.

That said, I'm skeptical about the poll.

It's the Texas Tribune.  That's like Texas' version of Daily Kos.

It's a University of Texas poll.  That's Texas' version of Cal Berkeley.

Predictably, there is a wonderfully convenient lack of information about how the poll was conducted.  No mention of who was polled, what questions were asked, or how many people actually identified themselves into what categories.

There is no indication as to why we should think all of these respondents are actually "voters".  It seems spectacularly unlikely.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.47  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.41    4 weeks ago
Lol.  The uninformed conclusive declaration without any support.  

The perfect reply to your uninformed unsupported declaration.

Lol. How dishonest.  Ohio isn't pushing or proposing anything. That's an old bill from 2019 proposed by a legislator that went absolutely nowhere. It wasn't even voted on.  You understand any  legislator in America can file a bill saying anything, right? 

A third of the GOP Representatives in Ohio co-sponsored that bill. 

Ohio actually passed an abortion bill in 2022 that allows surgery to remove ectopic pregnancies.

Actually, the bill was passed in 2019 and even though it cites 'serious risks' including among other things pre-eclampsia, it does NOT mention ectopic pregnancies.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.48  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.2.47    4 weeks ago

 third of the GOP Representatives in Ohio co-sponsored that bill. 

I'm glad you admit that you misrepresented what happened and that bill went nowhere, was never voted on and is not being pushed by Ohio like you falsely claimed

. it cites 'serious risks' in

You understand that ectopic pregnancies are a serious risk to  the mother, right? Does that need to be explained too? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.49  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.48    4 weeks ago
I'm glad you admit that you misrepresented what happened and that bill went nowhere, was never voted on and is not being pushed by Ohio like you falsely claimed

Nope. The Ohio GOP WAS pushing it, proof of that is that 1/3 of the Ohio GOP House co-sponsored it. 

You understand that ectopic pregnancies are a serious risk to  the mother, right?

Yes.

Does that need to be explained too? 

No. 

AGAIN, even though the 2019 bill cites 'serious risks' including among other things pre-eclampsia, it does NOT mention ectopic pregnancies. YOU stated that the bill: 

allows surgery to remove ectopic pregnancies.

YOU misrepresented what the bill 'allows'. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.50  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.1    4 weeks ago

292546160_5867185269959762_5774816124213518315_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Scwu9HNb5KwAX-n0Jqw&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8ehTZI39GuO4vRgoDuzzY-0Q4AdypOsVS9qIpnHFFdaQ&oe=62D438D6

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    4 weeks ago

It is ridiculous solutions this bizarre are seriously being considered for American women to get the healthcare they desperately need due to stupid laws instituted by ignorant superstitious politicians...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

Oh goody....this will allow those late term abortions, which the pro abortion crowd doesn't appear to have a problem with

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3    4 weeks ago
Oh goody....this will allow those late term abortions, which the pro abortion crowd doesn't appear to have a problem with

Per the article:

The idea is to provide a clinic aboard a ship in federal waters, and out of reach of state laws, that would offer first trimester surgical abortions, contraception and other care, said Dr. Meg Autry, an obstetrician and gynecologist and a professor at the University of California San Francisco.

Leaping to the extreme negative instead of recognizing the positive;  this is vastly superior to backroom abortions.    If women cannot get proper medical care for unwanted pregnancies they will, as history shows, resort to medically inferior means.

Outlawing abortion is akin to outlawing alcoholic beverages (prohibition).    People will still behave as people and the law just forces them to go underground.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    4 weeks ago

Contraception is legal, cheap, and likely to remain so, in spite of the paranoid fears of some. I am not against first trimester abortion. Again I ask, why is abortion the standard go to solution for an unwanted pregnancy, instead of greater emphasis on birth control?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
3.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
Contraception is legal, cheap, and likely to remain so, in spite of the paranoid fears of some.

1) You haven't been paying attention, and;

2) They are not 100% effective. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
Again I ask, why is abortion the standard go to solution for an unwanted pregnancy, instead of greater emphasis on birth control?

You just changed the topic from late-term abortion to contraception.

Of course people should be using contraception.   But people are not always responsible.   Clearly.   I truly doubt a woman would choose to get pregnant and have an abortion (and I am not talking about  morning-after pill but an actual surgical abortion) rather than use contraception.   Obviously contraception is much easier for her.

One can wonder why people are sometimes irresponsible with raging hormones, emotions, etc. but the musing is pointless.   They do behave irresponsibly and women wind up with unwanted pregnancies.

Further, women can get pregnant even with contraception.   And then we have rape/incest.   

Outlawing first-trimester abortion is irrational and dangerous.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
3.2  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3    4 weeks ago
pro abortion

When was the last time you heard anyone PROMOTING or even bragging about getting an abortion? Enough with the trigger words. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.3  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @3    4 weeks ago
the pro abortion crowd

there is no such thing as "the pro-abortion crowd". There are only women who believe that they should be in charge of their own internal organs and men who support their choice.

However, there is a rather sizable anti-fascist crowd. The USA has even fought in a couple of world wars to put a stop to fascism, yet it is raising its evil head again right here in America's heartland. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
4  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

Sounds like a California doctor is attempting to crowd fund a megayacht.  There does seem to be several megayachts on the market, at present, so maybe this California doctor can pick one up at a bargain price. 

The doctor part is vitally important.  Abortions performed by anyone other than a doctor have been and remain illegal.  Roe v. Wade only established a right (?) for only doctors to choose to perform abortions as a commercial activity.  No one else has that right (?).  And forcing doctors to perform abortions would take away that right to choose.

Democrats' portrayal of Roe v. Wade as 'a woman's right to choose' totally depends upon doctors choosing to perform abortions as a commercial activity.  So, the reality is that Roe v. Wade established a doctor's right to choose and not a woman's right choose.  Without doctors, abortions are illegal.

Democrats' abortion politics is consistent with the party's shift toward free market, trickle down ideas that began to take hold in the 1960s and became firmly entrenched in the 1990s.  Free market, trickle down ideas are really about expanding rights for selected elite groups and not about expanding rights for ordinary people.  Central planning depends upon coercing and controlling selected elite groups in society so that a benefit can trickle down to ordinary people.  Democrats have adopted a top-down approach that requires preventing Atlas Shrugging.  Democrats have abandoned a bottom-up approach to governing.

Democrats' idea of a 'woman's right to choose' totally and completely depends upon doctors performing abortions.  So, it's consistent with Democrats' third way politics to hail expanding rights for doctors as a necessary benefit for ordinary people.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
4.1  Gsquared  replied to  Nerm_L @4    4 weeks ago

That's bat-shit crazy.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
4.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Gsquared @4.1    4 weeks ago
That's bat-shit crazy.  

Really?  Only doctors are allowed to legally perform abortions.  No one else is allowed to legally perform abortions.  And that's the only thing that Democrats want to codify in law.

A 'woman's right to choose' totally and completely depends upon doctors choosing to perform abortions.  Roe v. Wade really did establish a doctor's choice to perform abortions as a right(?).   The politics of abortion hasn't really been about about the rights of women; it's been about the rights of doctors.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
4.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
Really?

Yes, really.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
4.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.2    4 weeks ago
Yes, really.

Why has anti-abortion efforts focused attention on closing clinics and prohibiting doctors performing abortions?  Legal abortion depends entirely upon doctors having a right to choose to perform abortions.  Really.

Women can choose to seek abortion by alternate means.  But only abortions performed by doctors are legal.  Establishing a right for doctors to choose to perform abortions really was an expedient way to limit women's choices by prohibiting those alternate means.

A woman's right to choose depends entirely upon doctors having a right to choose.  That's the undeniable reality.  The anti-abortion effort really has been attempting to take away the doctor's choice.

Doctors are prohibited from engaging in a variety of commercial (and medical related) activities.  So, there really is precedent for limiting doctors' right to choose.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4    4 weeks ago
Sounds like a California doctor is attempting to crowd fund a megayacht. 

Another stupid conspiracy theory.

And forcing doctors to perform abortions would take away that right to choose.

Most states have laws allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions based on their beliefs.   You have this backwards.   

Women should have the right to legally obtain an abortion from a surgeon willing to perform the procedure rather than be forced into less safe alternate means.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
4.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.2    4 weeks ago
Most states have laws allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions based on their beliefs.   You have this backwards.   

Backwards how?  The cited state laws are protecting the doctor's 'right to choose' that was established by Roe v. Wade.  Forcing doctors to perform abortions would take away their 'right to choose', wouldn't it?

Women should have the right to legally obtain an abortion from a surgeon willing to perform the procedure rather than be forced into less safe alternate means.

Legally obtaining an abortion depends entirely upon doctors choosing to perform abortions.  Anyone other than a doctor performing abortions has been and remains illegal.  Those 'alternate means' were illegal before and after Roe v. Wade.  The idea was that expanding the rights of doctors was an expedient means to avoid those 'alternate means'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

I doubt anyone cares about your ridiculous argument that abortion politics is about the doctors and not women.

I certainly do not and you simply repeating your argument does not accomplish anything.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
4.2.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.2    4 weeks ago
I doubt anyone cares about your ridiculous argument that abortion politics is about the doctors and not women. I certainly do not and you simply repeating your argument does not accomplish anything.

How does anyone obtain a legal abortion without a doctor preforming the procedure?  Everything about abortion politics hinges on doctors choosing to perform abortions.  Denying that reality won't make it go away.

Abortions performed by someone other than a doctor is an 'alternate means' that is being used to evoke fear.  Democrats' political fearmongering about 'alternate means' protects the doctor's 'right to choose'.  If doctors do not have a 'right to choose' then legal abortion would not be available.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5  Mark in Wyoming     4 weeks ago

Have to admit , i think this is one of the more creative ways i have heard to address the issue , though i dont quite see how it would be financially possible with what it would need to have happen .

 meaning , it would cost a crap ton of money that most wont be able to afford .

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5    4 weeks ago

I think that there are groups who are willing to pick up the tab for this. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    4 weeks ago

Oh i dont doubt it perrie , but how much does a boat big enough to do this cost? daily operating costs to keep that boat afloat and operational ?

the needed staffing with not only the staff to run the boat , but the medical staff needed ?

And those are things just off the top of my head .

 But , like i said it is creative .

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

The practical logistics of this idea were my first thoughts as well.

Since there really isn't that much of a demand for abortions in the USA, I suggest a converted oil rig as a full-scale hospital for oil workers and the fishing and shipping industries that also provides women's health services. A hospital in the middle of the Gulf might even show a profit. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  cjcold @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

was just thinking,( i know , dangerous, especially since i am unsupervised )

 Could always make something like this  part of a cruise line package ... they already got the boats , AND MOST  of the staff.... ever been on a drilling platform ? not exactly a destination type place if i was asked .

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1.4  cjcold  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.3    4 weeks ago

I have a T-shirt that says "DON'T BLAME ME! I WAS UNSUPERVISED"!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6  Drinker of the Wry    4 weeks ago

One thing is very clear, if there is a demand in this country, a marketplace will be created and buyers and sellers will find a way whether it is for goods or services.  We couldn't stop alcohol with Prohibition, gambling by restricting it to Vegas, our war on drugs was a failure and there are plenty of illegal firearms. Abortion won't be any different, patients will drive across state lines or take a little cruise or order mifepristone and misoprostol off of the internet fore home delivery.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
6.1  charger 383  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6    4 weeks ago

Very true, Prohibition did not work, caused more resentment and disrespect for the government and groups that profited by selling prohibited alcohol gained power and are still strong.

Prohibition was a total failure just like banning abortion will be.  People are free to not drink alcohol, but not tell other free people they can't.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
7  evilgenius    4 weeks ago

Now Texas law makers are threating criminal prosecution to companies that pay for or reimburse employees for travel out of state for an abortion.

To the extent that Sidley is facilitating abortions performed in violation of article 4512.1 , it is exposing itself and each of its partners to felony criminal prosecution and disbarment.

This also has to apply to anyone assisting travel to a floating hospital ship.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.1  charger 383  replied to  evilgenius @7    4 weeks ago

That won't stand up 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
7.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  charger 383 @7.1    4 weeks ago
That won't stand up 

There's a House lawmaker from Texas introducing a bill in Congress to mirror the Texas abortion bill. It may not stand up now, but the only way to truly defeat these power tripping populists is to defeat them during elections before they actually do harm the country. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
7.1.2  afrayedknot  replied to  evilgenius @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

‘…before they actually do harm the country.”

It could and should be argued that that has been accomplished.

Somehow in today’s lexicon, being labeled as ‘progressive’ has become a pejorative…totally ignoring what it means to be regressive.

Do we choose to move forward…fully knowing the hard work that that entails and being willing to adapt as required? Or do we choose to cling to the past…fully accepting the disenfranchisement and dysfunction that effects the least amongst us?

We can hope to be better with the former…we are destined to continue to spiral with the latter. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
7.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  afrayedknot @7.1.2    4 weeks ago
It could and should be argued that that has been accomplished.

battered around the edges maybe, but the system has held.

Somehow in today’s lexicon, being labeled as ‘progressive’ has become a pejorative…

Progressives are pushing their own populist movement. Neither party can govern a country of 300+ million people from the fringes. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2  TᵢG  replied to  evilgenius @7    4 weeks ago
Now Texas law makers are threating criminal prosecution to companies that pay for or reimburse employees for travel out of state for an abortion.

Clearly this is about them controlling women.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
7.2.1  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @7.2    4 weeks ago
Clearly this is about them controlling women.

There is no logic that works here other than controlling women's sexuality. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  evilgenius @7.2.1    4 weeks ago

Some will argue that this is about protecting the unborn but it still is a draconian measure.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
7.2.3  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.2    4 weeks ago
Some will argue that this is about protecting the unborn but it still is a draconian measure.

Those that make that argument almost always oppose the ideas and legislation that have proven to lower abortion. Instead of lifting up women and empowering them to make good decisions they'd rather punish them for having sex (or being raped). Speaking of draconian some state lawmakers want to make abortion punishable by the death penalty.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.2.4  charger 383  replied to  TᵢG @7.2    4 weeks ago

That is interfering with interstate commerce and will not hold up 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  charger 383 @7.2.4    4 weeks ago

Not so sure;  we are dealing in a time where the SCotUS actually struck down Roe v Wade ... who knows where this will all go.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.2.6  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.5    4 weeks ago

ooooh, I can hardly wait to drive up to my first thumper pro-life check point...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
8  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

It appears the story about the alleged rape of a 10 year old girl might not be true.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
8.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Greg Jones @8    4 weeks ago
It appears the story about the alleged rape of a 10 year old girl might not be true.

It was a big lie. The rape of a 10-year-old would have immediately triggered a criminal investigation in the state of Ohio. Under the law, any physician is considered a mandate reporter and would be required to tell the local child welfare or law enforcement of suspected physical, sexual or emotional abuse of someone under 18. No criminal investigation has been found that matches the story.

The widely shared story is facing increased skepticism and hasn't been verified by even left-leaning fact-checkers

.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.1.1  JBB  replied to  MonsterMash @8.1    4 weeks ago

The identity of such a young victim should be protected. This is especially true in the current environment.  Her identity should not be made public just to satisfy the prurient curiosities of deniers.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @8.1.1    4 weeks ago
The identity of such a young victim should be protected.

Absolutely.

This is especially true in the current environment. 

Oh, for sure. Some folks have even been threatening members of SCOTUS!

Her identity should not be made public just to satisfy the prurient curiosities of deniers.

Her name shouldn't be released, but confirmation of the story should be easy to get without her name.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Ender  replied to  MonsterMash @8.1    4 weeks ago

I thought that too. I would think any 10 year old being pregnant would have people looking into it.

Or maybe I have watched too much Law and Order SVU.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @8.1.3    4 weeks ago

Usually what ends up happening around here is there are "rumors" of such having happened , but nothing is released until the perp is either arrested ( and even then the victims name is not released ) or they have gone through a trial and been convicted , and even then nothing is usually said until sentencing .

Victims names are NEVER released , but there is always ways to verify that a case is open and being investigated .

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
8.1.5  MonsterMash  replied to  JBB @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

No one is asking for the name of the ALLEGED victim; The point is the rape of a minor wasn't reported to the police as required by law. The story hasn't been verified by even left-leaning fact-checkers.

Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, said she took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio," the piece began. "Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant."

No other details about the girl’s situation were mentioned in the story, and Bernard, who went on the record, was the only source for that anecdote.

Numerous outlets attempted to contact Bernard about the story with no success. It was later discovered that Bernard is an abortion activist who has sued the state of Indiana to stop abortion regulation.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  MonsterMash @8.1.5    4 weeks ago

The Ohio AG, besides confirming there was no police report of a 10 year girl being raped (as an abuse doctor is legally required to) said she could have had an abortion under the Ohio law.

It would be nice if the media outlets and public figures like the President that hyped this story apologized for misleading he country. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.6    4 weeks ago

I wonder what the law in Indiana is about reporting a 10 year old that is pregnant , obviously she was too young to give consent , for anything really, and even If it didnt happen in Indianas jurisdiction ,  they would have likely done some sort of investigation and handed what they found over to the proper jurisdictions authorities .

If there is a law requiring reporting , sounds to me like a couple drs may be getting charged for failing to do so , and if false , looks like their lic to practice is in jepardy of being lost for good for making a false statement   .

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.7    4 weeks ago

Good question. It would make sense she has a duty to report even an out of state rape.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
8.2  JaneDoe  replied to  Greg Jones @8    4 weeks ago

If this story turns out not to be true it’s only more proof that our media is a bunch of bumbling idiots who just run with a headline instead of doing their actual job of verifying the facts! Truth in the media, has sadly become a relic of the past.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
9  MonsterMash    4 weeks ago

A doctor said she had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant. BS, the exact date of conception is impossible to pinpoint.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
9.2  cjcold  replied to  MonsterMash @9    4 weeks ago

Unless the patient told the Dr. the date of the rape.

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
9.2.1  Brucelina  replied to  cjcold @9.2    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10  Ed-NavDoc    4 weeks ago

With the lunatic leftist liberal protesters that have no problem burning and blowing up abortion clinics, does anyone really thing they would have any problem attacking, damaging, or sinking a boat out on the open ocean?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.1  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10    4 weeks ago

That is an interestingly dishonest take on abortion clinic bombings...

So, you think pro-choice liberals are who has been blowing them up?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
10.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  JBB @10.1    4 weeks ago

It must be pro-choice liberals who were murdering abortion doctors, too.  Just insane.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @10.1.1    4 weeks ago

dontcha know, those commie libs will do anything to make trump look bad. /s

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
10.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10    4 weeks ago
does anyone really thing they would have any problem attacking, damaging, or sinking a boat out on the open

feathers will fly, and grow in a oh that is well, i guess. i would have a problem believing there are ones who would be attacking, damaging, and or sinking these Row vs, wading into these troubled waters over concern for our mothers, sisters, and daughters, set on sale, cause out on bail, 3 sheets to the wind em up toy that tears tears right out of i sockets., t

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
10.2.1  pat wilson  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.2    4 weeks ago

You are an artist !!!!!! Awesome

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
10.3  pat wilson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10    4 weeks ago
With the lunatic leftist liberal protesters that have no problem burning and blowing up abortion clinics

When did this happen ? I hope you're not claiming false flags a la alex jones.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.3.1  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @10.3    4 weeks ago

he probably means those fake medical clinics that thumpers operate to offer 1 option or a guilt trip to the most vulnerable of patients. sorry, I can't remember when the last one "blew up", which makes me sad.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  pat wilson @10.3    4 weeks ago

Google the far left extremist group named "Jane's Revenge". It is happening.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.3.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @10.3.1    4 weeks ago

That is what he means. He thinks crisis pregnancy centers are abortion clinics.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
10.3.4  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  devangelical @10.3.1    4 weeks ago

Yep.  He's talking about those fake medical clinics, i.e., crisis pregnancy centers that give fake information and cause delay after delay in help until a woman is past the time period for getting an abortion and trapped into giving birth (forced birthers), and not actual abortion clinics.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.3.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.3.2    4 weeks ago

Jane's Revenge is an American militant,[1][2][3] extremist,[4][5][6] pro-abortion rights group that has claimed responsibility for several acts of firebombing, vandalism, and arson, targeting crisis pregnancy centers and a Congressional office.[6] It was formed in May 2022 after a leak of the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which would overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion rights.[7]

And looking a bit deeper:

crisis pregnancy center  ( CPC ), sometimes called a  pregnancy resource center  ( PRC ), [1]  is a type of  nonprofit organization   established to persuade pregnant women against having an  abortion . [2] [3] [4] :  1  In addition, CPCs generally provide peer counseling related to pregnancy and childbirth, and may also offer other non-medical services such as financial assistance, child-rearing resources, and adoption referrals. [5] [6] [7]  CPCs that qualify as  medical clinics  may also provide pregnancy testing,  sonograms , and other services. [8]  However, CPCs have frequently been found to disseminate  false medical information  about the supposed  physical  and  mental health risks  of abortion, [9] [10] [11]  and sometimes about the effectiveness of  condoms  and the prevention of  sexually transmitted infections . [12]

Your comment was incorrect, Ed.  They're not attacking abortion clinics at all.  They're attacking centers that attempt to prevent women from getting abortion, lie to women about the risks of abortion (which are far lower than pregnancy and childbirth), and put women's lives at risk by lying to them about condoms preventing STIs.

It's right-wing activists bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.3.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3.5    4 weeks ago

Okay, I made a mistake and was wrong on this one and I hereby fully admit to doing so. Did not do my homework like I should have. I will have to try to be more careful in the future. My sincere apologies to all and to any I may have offended.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @10.3.4    4 weeks ago
"Yep.  He's talking about those fake medical clinics, i.e., crisis pregnancy centers that give fake information and cause delay after delay in help until a woman is past the time period for getting an abortion and trapped into giving birth (forced birthers), and not actual abortion clinics."
BINGO!
Also funded entirely by the far right extremists (which are the the majority these days) republicans

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.3.2    4 weeks ago
"Google the far left extremist group named "Jane's Revenge". It is happening."

Not by the left which is your go to excuse for the hateful right wingers.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.3.6    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.10  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @10.3.9    4 weeks ago

Good for Ed ... a stand-up guy!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.3.12  devangelical  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.3.6    4 weeks ago

LOL

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @10.3.12    4 weeks ago

An Australian woman was detained by a US border official who asked if she'd recently had an abortion

An Australian woman was detained by a US border official who asked if she'd recently had an abortion
Isabella Zavarise
Wed, July 13, 2022 at 1:24 AM
Madolline Gourley was traveling to Canada where she planned to house-sit.
  • A US border officer asked Gourley if she had recently had an abortion.

  • Gourley   told   The Guardian Australia she was treated like a criminal by US Customs and Border Protection.

An Australian woman traveling through the US was detained and interrogated by a US border official about whether she had recently had an abortion.

The Guardian Australia   reported   that Madolline Gourley was traveling from Australia to Canada, where she planned to house- and cat-sit in exchange for free accommodations. Gourley has a   travel blog   where she documents her cat-sitting excursions.

The 30-year-old   told   The Guardian she was treated like a criminal during her stop in Los Angeles on June 30, when border officials became suspicious about why she was traveling to Canada.

After being photographed, patted down, and interrogated twice, Gourley was asked whether she was pregnant. As she moved from one detention room to the next, she was asked again by an agent if she was pregnant. When she said she wasn't, she was asked whether she had had an abortion.

"I don't know if she had forgotten, or she wanted to work out if I was lying or something, " she told The Guardian Australia. "I said no, and she looked at me again and said, 'Have you recently had an abortion?'"

"I don't know the thought process behind that," Gourley said. "I just thought, 'What's the relevance of that to my situation?'"

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3.14  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.10    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
10.3.15  charger 383  replied to  Tessylo @10.3.13    4 weeks ago

Why Should US Border Officer ask a question like that?       

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3.16  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @10.3.15    4 weeks ago

Beats the hell out of me!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.3.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  charger 383 @10.3.15    4 weeks ago

This goes with the assumption that said incident even occurred. How do we know it wasn't just a invented fiction?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.3.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3.5    3 weeks ago

Please see post #10.3.6.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10    4 weeks ago

This is QAnon-level conspiracy theory, Ed.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.4.1  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.4    4 weeks ago

LOL

rachel maddow had a very informative segment on this idea last night.

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Participates
10.5  Freefaller  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10    4 weeks ago

Satire?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.5.1  devangelical  replied to  Freefaller @10.5    4 weeks ago

no, but you got the first letter of the correct answer right...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.6  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10    4 weeks ago
"With the lunatic leftist liberal protesters that have no problem burning and blowing up abortion clinics, does anyone really thing they would have any problem attacking, damaging, or sinking a boat out on the open ocean?"

Oh FFS.  

293564424_5878099468868342_7347029057613804424_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=J9ElEHqEq98AX9USr3l&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9B56iYTGzv6nDfI4facA_QJi9xPiboMW1oEDDe5xnkNA&oe=62D40618

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
11  Revillug    4 weeks ago

Elon Musk, are you listening?

(How about an abortion clinic in space?)

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
11.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Revillug @11    4 weeks ago

“(How about an abortion clinic in space?)”

The courts will deem re-entry an issue to be determined by the states. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
11.1.1  Revillug  replied to  afrayedknot @11.1    4 weeks ago

I'm sure it will work out.

Musk's flight crew is known for providing happy endings.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Revillug @11.1.1    4 weeks ago

But then again, Bezos' ship does bear a passing resemblance to a phallic symbol!

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
11.1.3  Revillug  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.1.2    4 weeks ago
Bezos' ship does bear a passing resemblance to a phallic symbol!

So do his cardboard boxes.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
11.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.1.2    4 weeks ago
does bear a passing resemblance to a phallic symbol!

with Peyronie's disease...............

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
12  Brucelina    4 weeks ago

If i have to swim into the gulf of Mexico to get an abortion I am kicking someone's ass.

 
 

Who is online

GregTx
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Revillug
shona1
Ender


45 visitors