SCOTUS To Review Law Forcing Pro-Life Centers To Promote Abortion
In 2015, California passed a law forcing privately funded pro-life pregnancy centers to promote taxpayer-funded abortions, threatening crippling fines for noncompliance. That edict is now under review by the Supreme Court.
The Monday announcement that SCOTUS will hear pro-lifers’ challenge to the so-called “Reproductive FACT Act” comes just two weeks after a California superior court judge granted an injunction against the law on grounds that it violates the state’s Declaration of Rights.
Now, a long-fought battle to keep the Golden State from forcing its pro-life citizens to choose between obeying conscience or the law of the land is on its way to Washington DC for a final decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra .
“By God’s grace, we now have an opportunity to secure a win for free speech and freedom of conscience at the Supreme Court,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing NIFLA in the case, wrote in an email alert Monday morning. “And a victory could protect pro-life pregnancy centers nationwide from becoming forced mouthpieces for Big Abortion’s message of death.”
Refer Customers to Your Moral Enemy
The law, which was pushed through on a strictly party-line vote from state Democrats and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, withstood the scrutiny of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last October. The Ninth Circuit, however, has a reputation as the nation’s most-reversed court, with as many as 86 percent of its cases overturned by the Supreme Court in a single year.
While it has only been enforced in one jurisdiction— the City of Los Angeles —the law has since served as a template for a 2017 mandate in Hawaii , which would likely be affected by the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision. In July, a judge in Illinois placed a statewide preliminary injunction on a 2016 law that would have forced medical professionals—including pro-life doctors, nurses, and pregnancy center personnel—to refer patients to abortion businesses.
“California’s threat to pro-life pregnancy care centers and medical clinics counts among the most flagrant violations of constitutional religious and free speech rights in the nation,” Thomas Glessner, J.D., president of NIFLA, said in a statement Monday. “The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will reverberate nationwide, to similar unconstitutional laws in Illinois and Hawaii.”
Targeting more than 100 state-licensed medical facilities that offer free ultrasounds—none of which receive any government funding—California’s law orders the pro-life organizations to prominently post and distribute this notice: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”
The penalty for noncompliance is $1,000 for a first-time offense, and $500 for subsequent offenses. Meanwhile, pregnancy centers that do not offer free medical services such as ultrasounds must post the following disclaimer “conspicuously at the entrance to the facility” “in no less than 48-point type”: “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”
Yeah, It’s a Politically Motivated Gag Order
Originally introduced by state Assemblyman David Chiu—a Democrat who targeted pregnancy centers in San Francisco before moving to the statehouse—the law pro-lifers have tagged as a “Bully Bill” was backed by abortion activist group NARAL Pro-Choice California, whose director has stated openly that she would ban pro-lifers’ free speech directly if given the chance.
Similar laws forcing pregnancy centers to post signage denigrating their own services have been struck down in New York City and Baltimore , as well as Austin (TX) and Montgomery County (MD), which eventually was ordered to pay pregnancy centers $330,000 in attorney’s fees .
“It’s time our nation and its leaders stop carrying the water for Big Abortion,” said Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, which serves nearly 100 affiliated local pregnancy centers in California and 2,400 overall. “We’re praying this will be a turning point in our struggle to make sure every woman has the chance to choose life for her child. No woman should ever feel so alone or coerced—either by a person, circumstance or an unjust law such as this—that she resorts to abortion.”
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/15/scotus-review-law-forcing-pro-life-centers-promote-abortion/
Tags
Who is online
82 visitors
"A long-fought battle to keep the Golden State from forcing its pro-life citizens to choose between obeying conscience or the law of the land is on its way to Washington DC for a final decision.
How is anyone's conscience being threatened? If someone doesn't like abortion, they are free to not have one. No one is forcing them to have an abortion. It seems it's the pro-life citizens that like to push their "conscience" onto others though.
So, it would be fair to post a sign in a "Planned Parenthood" center saying think it over - get an ultra sound - and leaving a phone number?
Sure, why not? It's called an informed decision. Ultimately, it's the woman's choice and she should be free to make that choice without coercion or biased influence.
Good, I'll wait for the legislation from the CA legislature
You go right ahead and do that.
Not only that but a state law mandating your sign with steep civil fines for non compliance.
How is it forcing anyone to go against their conscience? It doesn't force these clinics to perform abortions. All it does is require them to post the facts.
“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”
The state of CA has no right (as you will soon see) to impose its ideology on abortion on private self funding institutions, which seek to promote "life" as the choice.
You know who has no right? Those pro-life health centers that LIE and don't give complete HEALTH information to women in crisis! If they can't give HONEST COMPLETE INFORMATION, go do something else. Nobody should have the right to screw up a woman's life by passing along false information!
Obey the LAW or are pro-lifers above the law? Women should know ALL their options. Look what happened with the illegal girl in Texas, stall, stall and stall some more.
They must either inform women of all of their reproductive options, including abortion, or they must publicly admit that they are a religious group with a conservative agenda to force the women to carry the child to term. These facilities cannot receive any government funding because of the separation of church and state.
Agreed.
Liberals are so good at demanding coerced speech they control by law from the mouths of those who would dare to disagree with them.
Actually, conservatives have a lock on coercive speech. 12 states run by the GOP require doctors to LIE to their female patients.
Your statement is illogical. How do you coerce the speech of others when we have free speech rights? We also privacy rights to make our own medical decisions without state or religious interference.
I'll care about a man's view on abortion when they get pregnant and not a minute before.
Those shacks of shite tell several State mandated lies to women seeking medical advise.
.
More about the lies and ongoing war on women in the linked article.
Did you miss the part that this law applies to privately funded organizations??
Like I said before, are they passing themselves off as a private religious organization or are they trying to pass themselves off as a public service org or a medical clinic?
We don't give two shits if its private or public, you should not be able to lie and give false and incomplete HEALTH information to a woman in crisis.
So basically pro lifers want people ignorant of their right to choose?! Way to keep it classy conservatives!
This bill would enact the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, which would require a licensed covered facility, as defined, to disseminate a notice to all clients, as specified, stating, among other things, that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.
Ignorance is a mainstay of the conservative political-social platform. You cannot exercise your individual rights if you don't know what they are or how the government is meant to function.
You think its ok for a self proclaimed 'health center' to lie and give out false and incomplete information to women trying to get help? Hell no!
There are too many women, especially in red states, that actually believe in some of these made up consequences (i.e. breast cancer).
It is what progressives do best.
Let me ask a question to all you pro Abortionists out there, I do not say pro-choicers I mean pro Abortionists....
I am Pro-Choice.
And I find this law an absolute imposition on women right not to choose if that is her choice...
Quote from the article;
In July, a judge in Illinois placed a statewide preliminary injunction on a 2016 law that would have forced medical professionals—including pro-life doctors, nurses, and pregnancy center personnel— to refer patients to abortion businesses.
What right do you pro abortionists have to force a woman to an abortion clinic? Shouldn't one assume that a woman makes a choice when she chooses her doctor? Besides I've yet to find a woman that doesn't know that abortions are legal in this country for now, and that all she has to do is ask if that is something she wished to consider.
You don't want women to undergo forced vaginal inspections, yet you are willing to force her to re-make a choice she has already made in a place that pushes abortion....
What happens to individual choice?
If your going to have a baby you need to undergo forced government counseling?
Talk about Fascism! Talk about not having any right to choice!
That is why I call you pro abortionists, it's all about the abortion, not the choice.
I'd say that if you're going to pretend to be a healthcare provider than you need to let the patient know about all her options.
I agree, but forcing her to go to an abortion clinic for such information under the force of law? (that is what Illinois is trying to do)
Bit harsh don't you think?
I'm 70+ and I've still yet to find a female that didn't know about the abortion option. Or that it is her choice and it's legal.
Why the need for a law to force what she already knows? and any Doctor worth his salt (if he really cared for his patient) would gladly explain or refer on for....
My understanding is that it's just a referral if she decides she wants it. A real medical practice makes such referrals all the time.
So it's really more of a question of false advertising and that's been a continuing problem with these anti-abortion cult fronts, as well as with Catholic-owned hospitals.
Note that the nutty anti-abortion site you cited didn't list the name of the bill or provide the text, which made it easier for them to misrepresent what the bill does. It's Illinois SB 1564. Here's an example of why the bill was necessary:
.
Note that a woman in Ireland died not long ago from a similar Catholic-based failure to treat.
Two things here, I would find a new religion, and then a new doctor....
The problem is that in many parts of the country the only real option is a Catholic-owned hospital.
I don't think there are any "pro-abortionists" here or anywhere else for that matter. No person who is pro-choice is advocating that anyone who doesn't want an abortion should be forced to get one. All this law does is require a notice posted, it doesn't require anyone to take advantage of the offer or force any clinic to perform abortions. It just requires the following to be posted:
“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”
Nothing after that deserves an answer.
Calling someone a "pro-abortionist" is not only disingenuous, its also an ad hom attack. Specify who is "pro-abortion" exactly!
Everyone who would force prolife groups to put up notices where abortions can be done is pro abortion. Fortunately a judge has stayed this obscene defiance of the first Amendment free speech and religious liberty clauses in both Illinois and California.
Wrong! Providing information about where abortions are performed is just that, the provision of information. That allows one to make an informed decision. But some proliferation groups seem to want to limit that decision through the withholding of information.
"Anti-choice" (not to be equated with pro-life) is a more valid and applicable term, as there are those who actively try to eliminate or significantly reduce a woman's right to choose, most notably through law. I don't see anyone going out and forcing or requiring women to have an abortion.
Birth control methods are great and should be encouraged, as well as comprehensive sex ed for kids. But as you said, it's not (unfortunately) 100% effective. And most women cite contraceptive failure as the reason for obtaining an abortion. Therefore abortion should always remain an option for a woman to choose, if she wishes. And utilizing abortion is taking responsibility. But the bottom line is, whatever ones stance on abortion, if you don't like abortion, then you are free to not have one. We do not and should not make that call for anyone else.
So if we oppose murder that should also be labeled anti-choice. the only difference is that thanks to the leftist SCOTUS, we have made abortion a legal form of murder
Murder is not a legal choice. Abortion is. And are you saying the SCOTUS bench of 1973, which legalized abortion, was liberal (not that it matters anyway)?
E.A As usual you seem to have NO clue, See assassination, and WAR!
I see you can't actually refute anything I said.
E.A A Vacuum is already Vacuous, Nothing to " remove "
The court of the early 70s was extremely liberal
I murder of any kind is a moral choice. Currently our corrupt Supreme Court has decided that abortion is a legal homicide.
There were only two conservatives on that court, White and Rehnquist.
I see you proved my point.
They're liberal because they didn't rule how you wanted, right. Oh well, too bad. Get over it. Abortion isn't murder no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise and it's a woman's legal right and totally none of your business! Deal with it!
they were liberal because they had a history of leftist opinions that departed from the Constitution.
Murder which is the taking of innocent life remains murder whether society recognizes it or not. Hitler justified murders and yet even you leftists acknowledged that what he did was murder even though legal in Germany
Of course it's my business. First as a citizen and secondly as a minister of God. As a citizen I like all citizens am responsible for the level of morality or immorality that we tolerate in our society
As a minister I am accountable to God for speaking out against immorality. Nothing that you say will ever silence me from my moral and civic obligations.
In other words, yes they were liberal because they ruled in a way you didn't like. Too bad for you. And no, abortion is not murder , no matter how often you say otherwise. And the law clearly contradicts you in this regard. And no, it is none of your business regardless and morality is subjective. So get off your sanctimonious high horse! You don't like abortion? Then you are free to not have one. But you don't get to tell others what they can do nor push your idea of morality or ignorance of actual law onto others!
Unfortunately, some ministers seem not want to live in a secular republic. The SCOTUS ruled as it did because it's not only the fetus that has rights, the mother has rights as well. When you have a conflict of two separate and equal rights, you need compromise, not a religious strongpoint. Roe v Wade is that compromise, and it has stood for over 40 yrs. You have a right to protest it, but lying by omission is still a lie. I would imagine that truly religious people would not purposely bear false witness, but evidently, I am wrong. Sad.
there is no Constitutional right to murder
I told no lie. why do you make that false accusation
Luckily, abortion is not murder. Nor did I say you were a liar, I said that religious, tax payer supported, anti-abortion clinics are lying by not informing patients of all their options.
But there is a constitutional right to an abortion. Therefore, abortion is not murder.
The SCOTUS has been conservative for the last 41 years.
Lets see, the supreme Court has been conservative for the last 41 years....
That means 1976.
Chief Justice: Warren Burger, swing conservative
Justice: Rehnquist, conservative
Justice: Powell, "swing" liberal
Justice: Stewart, "swing" conservative
Justice: Blackmun, "swing" liberal
Justice: White, liberal
Justice: Stevens, "swing" liberal
Justice: Marshall, liberal
Justice: Brennan, liberal
The 1976 Court was a liberal court and this continued with the retirement of Stewart in '77 and his replacement with O'Connor another "swing" liberal.
Tells me one of two things, you either haven't a clue about what your talking, or your view is so ideologically slanted that you consider White and Blackmun as conservatives.
Why are you lying??? You put this in as a quote, but you removed a very key part to the quote.
Basically the law states that if the patient asks about it, the doctors must answer truthfully and advise their patient where they can obtain more info.
Liberals are so good at demanding coerced speech they control by law from the mouths of those who would dare to disagree with them.
How many times do you plan to spam the same reply?
Revoke the tax exempt status of religious organizations that support these sham businesses. Pit their greed against their warped version of morality. Don't forget to stop at the heap some guilt on the emotionally distressed booth on the way out.
Revoke the tax exempt status of all religions in the US. Other people should have to pay religion's share of taxes.
Who told you that lie?
If churches and other religious groups get tax exemptions then their share of taxes is passed on to others. Their share of the tax bill just doesn't disappear when they get an exemption.
Churches have no tax liability because of their exemption, unlike other landowners who do pay property taxes. Churches should also be forced to pay income taxes.
Being forced to pay property taxes is not a violation of your freedom of religion because the government is not obligated to pay for or subsidize a place for you to pray. The government subsidizing your taxes is a violation of the separation of church and state because non-members are forced to pay the churches share of property taxes. If you want a church then you pay the taxes assessed to the land where the church sits.
That is exactly what James Madison argued against in Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.
The SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, or the 16th Amendment would have been repealed long ago.
The Bible tells believers to give to Ceasar what is Caesars. Jesus wasn't a fan of money or wealth, but you should already know that.
The irony here is that many churches are extremely wealthy. Not exactly Christ-like, but that is the reality. In addition, we do subsidize churches. When they pay no property taxes, someone must make up the loss. Snowplows don't raise their blades in front of the church, fire depts respond when churches need them, etc. We pay for that, churches do not, therefore, your religion is subsidized, and without such subsidies, many churches would close.
Not even close to the same thing. PP pays no taxes AND is directly subsidized by collected tax dollars. So it's a double tap with PP.
your argument holds no water and if you think it does, you are arguing against PP since by your own definition it is subsidized much greater than than churches are since NO church I am aware of gets direct funding from the fed like PP
Wrong. Planned parenthood pays property taxes, in fact, the State of Ohio is going after one of the clinics that is delinquent in paying.
www.operationrescue.org/archives/ohio-planned-parenthoods-property-tax-not-paid-in-5-years-as-cond…
Wrong .... do they pay federal income tax? No? So that's a double tap and churches still receive no direct federal tax funding like PP does. They are 100% self funded by their membership.
PP? Not so much.
Planned Parenthood is a 501c organization, so it does not pay income tax, but they do pay property taxes. Since churches pay neither, they are receiving a double tap as well. Furthermore, states and the federal government gives churches money for tuition, textbooks and busing of students to religious schools.
I really fail to see your point unless your point is basically based on a bigotry towards religion/churches. If you think the tax exempt status for churches is bad then sound logic would dictate that you would think it's bad for PP as well.
They both provide a service and do good works for the people they serve so there's really no difference there. I really don't understand why you apparently feel subsidizing one is okay and the other is not. I see no unbiased, rational reason one would feel that way.
I agree. Either both should receive funding or not. They should not be treated differently. My point is that, if these religious clinics receive taxpayer monies, then they should be expected to tell the whole truth, which is what this is about after all.
From a funding standpoint i prefer that organizations like churches AND PP are fully self funded by the people they serve and/or folks who believe in their mission. Then the populous doesn't get into pissing matches like now with one side bitching about the other getting this break or that tax.
There is no reason PP couldn't be self funded like churches are. Give them all the same tax breaks if appropriate, let them self fund and no one has a reason to bitch. They probably still will bitch but there you go.
As I pointed out, churches do get federal and state help. I am sure those churches would bitch as well if they lost it. I would prefer to see the government support organizations dedicated to doing good, like PP and churches. What most people are arguing about is the definition of good.
That's chicken feed compared to the break PP is getting in direct federal funding.
So how is achieving a consensus on that working out so far? Nah, the best answer is to let all people make their own choice on what to donate their money to. Not a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy, festering with special interest money, favors and lies.
I can go along with that, but you know it will never happen. People have their favorites, and politicians love to bribe them.
Yeah and honestly, i think some people just like to hear themselves bitch.
This place is a great example of that.
You want to hear bitching, you should listen to my female schnauzer!
There is nothing sham about a reproductive clinic that keads to reproduction. Many people look for services to maintain their health and that of their baby during their pregnancy. Others look for available services and programs for themselves and their baby after birth. Others look to carry to term and give up the baby to adoption and are getting those services. These women don’t need to be bombarded with signage about how they can kill their Babies 👶 instead. The state has no right to mandate this and the Supreme Court will agree.
Abortion is also part of the reproductive decision. Therefore, information and the choice on it should be available. And no babies are killed in an abortion.
Are you sincerely claiming that Planned Parenthood locations have signs bombarding women about having an abortion? I want pics of these signs.
Planned Parenthood assists many women with adoption.
Telling the truth is a not a violation of your religious rights. Christians are required to tell the truth unless the 10 commandants were edited while I wasn't looking.
No babies are killed during abortions? Really? They sure look like nothing other than human boys and girls. No one has the right to coerce or compel what pro human life places have to say to engage in speech they don’t agree with.
The bottom line is that we will not comply with that law under any circumstances and now we don’t have to with the judicial action. The Supreme Court will soon tell us that you can never tell us what to say in pro life pregnancy centers ever again.
Yes, really! Did I stutter? And an embryo or fetus looks more like a piece of uncooked shrimp. Sex cant even be determined until at least 16 weeks. So you can't say if it looks like a boy or girl. An embryo in the early stages of pregnancy looks quite similar to the embryos of cats, dogs, or pigs. As for being compelled regarding their speech, your statement is only true if such an organization is private.
Let us know how not complying with a law works out for you, especially if you're caught with noncompliance.
Why is telling the truth that they are a religious organization a violation of their religious rights?
Almost 50% of implanted embryos die in the first few weeks.
Abortion is a forced unnatural miscarriage. Any other type of forced unnatural miscarriage (for example: trying to murder a pregnant woman and only killing the unborn baby) is punishable by jail time or even execution.
The difference is in whom makes the choice. Women are free to choose for themselves regarding abortion. Anyone who causes harm to the woman, including fetal demise, is taking away her choice. And fetal homicide charges are not always automatically applied to an aggressor.
deception and lies. conservative xtian family values.
1.) An unborn baby is a fetus. Please use the correct medical terminology. A fetus is not legally a person and has no rights. It gains the full rights of a human when it is living independently of the mother's body, which is medically possible after the 25th-28th week of gestation.
2.) Before the Roe decision abortion was not punished as murder and you cant change that basic fact.
3.)The reason why a murder charge is brought when a pregnant woman is killed or when the fetus dies because of a crime is that the person took the choice away from the mother to terminate the pregnancy. Only the mother has that right to end her pregnancy. When the pregnancy is terminated against her will the charge is murder. Getting a capital charge for killing a fetus if the mother wasn't also killed would be very difficult.
It is not limited to just Christian fundies. All of the Abrahamic religions are known for their religious deceptions, despite the 9th Commandment.
That's your belief. It's a religious belief. Religious beliefs are equal, and equal to no religious beliefs. America is a secular nation. One religion cannot legislate and impose their beliefs upon others. Abortion is a legal health choice for women as decided by the SCOTUS decades ago.
You cannot murder the unborn. That is legally illogical, despite your religious beliefs. A fetus is biologically a parasite and has no rights of its own until it is living independently of the mother's body. That is a settled legal fact and no amount of prayer will change it.
You are a man (I think) so you will never have to make this decision. It is her body and her choice, despite what your religion believes. Your religion has no legal rights in the actions of its parishioners and cannot force a woman to carry a baby to term. The most that they can do is to expel her from the congregation.
If that helps you sleep at night.
Double duh to ya! So you admit it is an unborn baby If it can survive outside the womb, it has ceased to be a fetus and has become a baby. Late stage abortion amounts to murder.
Up until about 12 weeks, before which is when 92% of all abortions are performed, they are more the size and shape of a kidney bean. Or did your parents tell you a fertilized egg looks like a very teensy tiny baby boy or girl? Is that how they told you the stork was able to carry you to them?
E.A so 8% of Six Million would be what?
Unborn baby is an oxymoron. It's a baby once born, and an embryo/fetus before it's born. And abortion is not legally defined as murder. So the unborn cannot be "murdered." Especially since abortion is a woman's legal right and murder is not. Whether one finds abortion morally questionable or not is a matter of opinion, but of no relevance to the law or established individual rights.
Its a simple fact.
The medical dictionaries says differently
The left with their usual combination of deception and ignorance uses the word fetus in an attempt to avoid recognizing the human being in the womb. However science and medicine betray them when you look at the medical defintion of Fetus
Medical Dictionary
Fetus: In humans, the unborn young from the end ofthe eighth week after conception to the momentof birth.
From the University of Maryland Medical Center they describe the fetal development stages and at the 5 week period forward refer to it as a baby.
I like facts.
tell that to the medical community
The left with their usual combination of deception and ignorance uses the word fetus in an attempt to avoid recognizing the human being in the womb. However science and medicine betray them when you look at the medical defintion of Fetus
Medical Dictionary
Fetus: In humans, the unborn young from the end ofthe eighth week after conception to the momentof birth.
From the University of Maryland Medical Center they describe the fetal development stages and at the 5 week period forward refer to it as a baby.
Fetal homicide laws can vary from state to state and are based on intentional harm committed against the woman. Application of the law is based on gestational age, the circumstances of the harm committed, and whether a prosecutor pushed for such a charge.
Wrong! Look up the definition of a fetus. It's defined as a fetus until birth!
I said it's a fetus until birth. So medical science does not contradict me.
Is that a serious question, or do you clearly not understand how the law works?
Abortion rates have been steadily dropping since the 1990's. At last CDC count for 2013 it was at 660k annual. So 8% of that would be 52k which occur prior to 22 weeks, a full 14 weeks before full term, with exceptions only to save the life of the mother.
E.A False statement. recorded abortions have, but things like RU486 means, that a LOT more are happening, with NO records to show for it.
But even , with you figure of what was it " would be 52k " so those " People/Citizens/someones Child " have no rights, while those killed by a Gun do?
END!!
The unborn do not have rights, and certainly none which trumps the rights of the woman in question.
It lives, it breaths, it eats, all it's organs, including the brain, are functioning, but you need to call it a fetus so you can sleep at night after you kill it, sick, but, whatever floats your boat.
A bacterium also lives, eats, breathes, ect. What's your point ? And fetus is the correct term. Not my problem if you do not understand or accept that. And yes, I sleep very well, thank you.
A fetus is a fetus and abortion is not murder. Evidently you feel that excessive emotionalism is a good tactic for you. It doesn't impress the rest of us, it merely demonstrates your immaturity.
Wrong on the brain.
5 Stages of Human Brain Development
Posted In Blog
Throughout the lifetime of the human brain it continues to undergo changes.
Let’s review each of the five stages of human brain growth:
Stage 1: 0 to 10 months
Stage 2: birth to 6 years
Stage 3: 7 to 22 years
Stage 4: 23 to 65 years
Stage 5: older than 65 years
Not true, the zygote/fetus/embryo doesn't have any rights until the law gives them rights which occurs at viability, usually at 22 weeks. That is when they become "people/citizens/someones child" according to the law. Until then they are bound by the rights of the mother who can choose to carry to term or not up until viability. There are over 30,000 annual gun deaths and over 2 million annual deaths by auto accidents, but all the anti-abortionists can complain about are the 540k zygotes the size and shape of kidney beans that are terminated and the 50k fetuses terminated prior to viability. Forget about reasonable gun safety laws, they just want to impose their will on the wombs of others. Just admit it, you're not really pro-life, you're pro-birth, you don't give a crap about a child after it's born. Approximately 3.1 million children die from hunger each year. Poor nutrition caused nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five in 2011, why not go save those children who are born already instead of spending your time trying to force women to give birth?
And there is your problem. You some 3hiw have the idea that rights, especially the right to life in this instance, come from the government. They do not. Our rights, again, especially the right to life, come from God or as the Declaration of Independence says, our creator.
Just remember one thing if nothing else. If government gives you your rights, it can also take them away.
This is a perfect example of the argument I was having with Shepboy about why atheists are forced to debate the existence of God unlike having to debate the existence of Homer Simpson. You claim that YOUR God somehow supersedes MY creator because I happen to believe what created me was an amazing evolutionary process stemming from a tear in the fabric of dark matter exploding matter into this universe that some refer to as the "big bang" which has no expectations for us and doesn't care a whit about us because it's not a sentient "creator". But no, for the religious they must force others to accept their version of "creator" which has expectations and apparently has decided when we should be given "rights". The first 5 commandments are all about forcing others to obey ONLY your God and to take a day off once a week. They have nothing to do with being a good person or morality on any level.
So to say that YOUR God supersedes the constitution of the United States is unconstitutional. You say "If government gives you your rights, it can also take them away." and the answer in a civil society is "Yes!". It's why when the declaration of independence was written they still had slaves that they didn't consider "equal". They claimed they believed in equality, but only for white males because at the time they believed their God had determined only white males were Gods chosen people with rights, women and minorities be damned.
With civil laws we have attempted to, as our founders desired, make a "more perfect Union". We have grown and debated laws and rights and have come a long way from those days. To claim that somehow the government doesn't get to determine our laws and we have to abide by a "higher law", one determined by a God, then we have to decide which God, because there are thousands of Gods with thousands of different beliefs, customs and rules. If you claim YOUR God is the one that must be chosen, then you're establishing YOUR religion as the government religion in contradiction to the constitution.
The only actual final arbiters of the law are our supreme court justices as our constitution determined. They have agreed that a fetus is not a "person" before viability and thus abortion up until that point is the right of the mother. If you don't agree, then don't get an abortion, it's that simple. You follow your personal God's desires all you want up until the point your God demands you force your religion on others. The world has a long history of forced conversion which is what the founders were trying to avoid by creating the establishment clause in our constitution, if you don't like it you're allowed to move to any theocracy you wish, there are many around the world, but we are not one of them.
So I assume you killed no babies during your pubescent years and thereafter, murdering those millions of potential humans in the end of your tube sock? If you believe you can call a zygote or a fetus a "baby" then I can call sperm a "baby", it's one of the developmental stages of birth and is considered living, squirming organisms. If you can reason that sperm are not babies and you're not a mass murderer, then I can reason that a zygote or even a fetus up to the point of viability isn't a baby. There's no "Too bad" about it, it's the law of the land that confirms no "babies" are murdered in any legal abortions.
My wife and I found out she was pregnant and went in for an ultrasound and the doctor told us that it may be a cluster pregnancy based on the examination. The doctor said it could become life threatening and that we'd need to see a different clinic if we wanted to terminate the pregnancy. My wife was going through severe hyperemesis and couldn't even keep water down. We had to put her on a feeding tube for over two months but we chose to wait and see if the cluster changed and developed into a healthy fetus. It did and we now have a beautiful 8 year old daughter. But I was very glad that we had that option if the cluster hadn't improved where we weren't forced by the government to carry a dead mass of cells to full term while my wife was suffering. That is one of the many reasons I support a woman's right to choose up until viability as the law states. Until you go through something like that I really don't think you have any right to ridicule and vilify those who support choice.
No, ok medically when is the Beginning of Mitosis in action, and what does that mean?
According to the Medical/manufacturers advice when can RU486 be taken, and can one be taken say a Month afterwards?
Privately operated and privately funded crisis pregnancy centers provide services I mentioned about and are not in any way obligated to tell their visitors how or where to go get an abortion. Judges have stayed enforcement of the oppressive laws and there is no way the Supreme Court is going to enforce compelled speech.
E.A FALSE see Numerous Court cases, where the Court said it was " Living entity" and compensation/punishment was paid/attributed on that merit!
How many babies have you adopted? How many of your potential children have been abort by a lover or spouse?
8% of 6 million is obviously 48K.
Late-stage murder is very rare and only happens to save the life of the mother, so repealing Roe' wouldn't change that fact. The limit of abortion by choice is now approximately 20 weeks.
You or anyone else don't get to make medical decisions of other people because of what you claim that your sky fairy demands.
A fetus doesn't breathe air or eat. Didn't you take biology? What do you think the umbilical cord does?
The criminal is charged with a crime because only the mother has the legal right to terminate a pregnancy. If anyone else terminates the pregnancy the charge is murder.
It is typically religious to claim that telling the truth is a violation of their religious rights because the cornerstone of religion is lying to people. If as the minister was forced to tell the truth, there would be nobody in the pews on Sunday morning.
But you and all the other pro abortion type keep telling us that it is not a human being but only a blob of cells or a fetus. How can you now say it would be murder if by definition murder is the unlawful death of a human being.
Which is it? A fetus? A blob of cells? A human baby?
You only damage your credibility when you use disingenuous terms like pro abortion.
Then they should also tell women abortion is an option if they so choose, right?
Nobody is pro-abortion. You are anti-choice and forced birth because conservatives don't give a fig about the life of that fetus once it takes its first breath. People are pro-choice because we feel that the only person who has the right to make that decision is the mother?
What happened to conservatives supporting personal freedom, or does that only apply to the Klan, Neo-Nazis and the 2nd Amendment?
I stopped reading your emotional hyperbole after that point.
The legal charge isn't about death. It is about who can legally terminate the pregnancy. Your emotions prohibit you from thinking rationally.
I already addressed that in a previous post, 6.3.1.2 above. We're you paying attention? Did you even bother to familiarize yourself with fetal homicide laws? It looks like you did not.
Excellent!
I used to try to find a "moment of personhood", until I realized that (as your post demonstrates so well) there is no such moment. There is continuous development for about twenty years, then five decades of stability, before finally reaching adulthood. (Hey! What do you want me to say? I'm 70!)
Conception is the start point, but considering how many blastocysts don't implant, there's a good argument for ignoring everything before implantation.
There are a ton of events during gestation, but I don’t see why any particular moment is more significant than any other.
Birth is a very significant moment... for the mother especially, and the community in general. For the newborn? Not so much. Sure, it breathes and gets a lot more sensorial input... but its dependency is the same as before birth.
Then there dozens of other milestones over the years. There is no identifiable "moment of personhood". Any choice we make is arbitrary.
Nope! I am pro-choice. I absolutely think a woman should be able to choose whether or not she is to be a mother. The difference between you and me is the timing of when that choice is made. The time to make it is before she crawls into the sack. After that well she threw the dice.
You ruin your credibility when you blatantly duck and refuse to answer a simple question.
And if she was taking birth control but it failed for various reasons? No birth control is 100% effective and the choice to have sex is not the same as the choice to have children, despite your beliefs. You don't get to make medical decisions for others with your twisted sense of morality. KIndly keep your beliefs out of the private lives of other people!
Refusing to inform that abortion is an option is. It is lying by omission. Why is it that religion wants to violate the very code of ethics that your savior claims to defend of the followers? Do you see where you have lost the moral high ground in your arguments?
It's a BS question, and one which you're really not interested in. It also show's your lack of understanding of the issue. BTW, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Do, you first!
Wrong! That's not how the law works! Clearly you have no understanding of the law.
What woman in America doesn’t know abortion is an option. There is nothing acceptable in compelling pro life people who work to save human life and provide services to the mother and her baby 👶 🍼 to provide in any way info about abortion. It would be like the state forcing privately funded churches ⛪ to provide information to the nearest satanic temple or atheist outreach center.
All those living in states where abortion clinics have been shut down.
Irrelevant. If they're not providing all the information and actively hiding information, then they're lying.
You may want to educate yourself on that concept before you inform the SCOTUS on how to rule
I said that? Where and when did i say that? It is you and your kind that is desperately attempting to not only supersede your views over those if thise that do believe in a Supreme being but to utterly destroy It in the process.
Total BS!
Good. Then you should have no problem if a woman chooses to have an abortion because she doesn't want to be a mother.
What difference does that make?
Your idea of "choice" seems quite restrictive. Fortunately, women have a choice after they "crawl in the sack."
It would be like states forcing Dr's to read a false statement to women claiming a relationship between abortion and breast cancer that doesn't exist.
Nope. A fetus is defined as being in utero from 8 weeks until birth.
Only at birth, and not before.
Late stage abortions are generally not allowed or legal except due to medical issues.
Except it's not "baby murder." There are no babies in an abortion. Murdering babies is illegal. Abortion is not. The term "baby murder" is just an attempt to attach an emotional appeal.
Nope. A fetus is a fetus. "Unborn baby" is an oxymoron, as well as an attempt to anthropomorphize or attach emotional significance/appeals to a fetus.
That's a matter of opinion. Murder does not apply to the unborn.
I'll bet most people sleep just fine. I doubt appeals to emotion will have the desired effect on them.
BTW, how have you been Cos? Seems like I haven't seen you around in a while? Good Thanksgiving? I'm still trying to recover from a food coma. LOL
So tell me, if a man does not wish to have the responsibility of raising and/or financially supporting a child, when does he get to make that choice?
BTW, I noticed that you never asked me a question.
I guess you weren't paying attention then. Here it is again then, from several posts above: Is that a serious question, or do you clearly not understand how the law works?
He doesn't. The law makes that clear. You clearly confuse child bearing with child rearing.
Now go back and look again. That question was not directed at me now was it?
My mistake then.
You are not very smart.
Every word out of your mouth only proves your ignorance of the subject. When you are in a hole the first step to getting out is to stop digging deeper.
The conventions of war do not apply to US civil law in peacetime. Learn what genocide is and how it differs from abortions sought by the mother. A mother cannot logically commit genocide by voluntary abortion if you know what the definition of genocide is.
Morality is subjective and otherwise irrelevant to the terminology. Baby is the correct term at birth. Fetus is the correct term before birth. Some people prefer the scientifically accurate terms and do not need to resort to or fall for emotional appeals.
Except I'm not religious... Seems you don't like the unborn or the religious.
No problem, I don't consider many of them that religious either. Most of the unborn are none of my fucking business and it's these cults of moral crusaders on religion's extreme fringe that offend me. They're stepping over the line and I'm pushing back.
E.A Brilliant THANK YOU!!
That makes it all CRYSTAL clear!!!
Note:: ALL humans at some stage where " Unborn " so much for your humanist attire, Many Thanks again!!!
That's right EA, other peoples fetuses are none of your business, sorry, but that's the way it is! Donut?
He doesn't want one of your donuts and neither do it.
Everyone is involved, so it seems, in others' fetuses.
Nonsense, my cyber donuts are the best on the entire worldwide web!
LOL E.A BINGO!!!
Parthenogenesis is a BIG thing this days BUT I am sure that " Most Foetuses " are not from THAT Source, so since it " Normally takes TWO to Tango " How come MORONS do not understand, that more then ONE " Has a Vested Interest " Unless it come to the $$$$$$$ Money !!@!@!!
Bingo to you E.A.
Signing off. Have a good night!
E.A Ditto Mags till the " Next Battle " :-)
Have a safe trip, EA, over and out!
He makes the choice when he wants to. For most men, it as easy as walking away. Couldn't be simpler.
They know just fine. It's simply emotionalism, words like genocide, murder, baby, are all loaded words looking for a response, they never had any relation to the truth. It appears the evangelicals have taken many pages fro Goebbels book of useful propaganda. Just keep repeating lies, sooner or later, someone will believe them.
Over-the-top language is usually means there's no solid argument to be found... as here...
Why is it considered so coercive to ask a place calling itself a clinic to give complete and truthful information? If you have to lie, and yes, you can lie by omission, then how valuable is your service?
What you and the other pro-abortion people have failed is that the law applies to "privately" funded pro-life clinics and centers, and is unconstitutional
"In 2015, California passed a law forcing privately funded pro-life pregnancy centers to promote taxpayer-funded abortions, threatening crippling fines for noncompliance. That edict is now under review by the Supreme Court."
They still have Planned Parenthood, which gets a large amount of Federal funding.
Why can't you tell the truth?
Telling women all of their medical options is not promoting abortion. Trying to convince a woman to have an abortion, which is illegal, is promoting abortion.
But, when those "privately funded" clinics and, centers try to pass themselves off as publicly funded places doesn't that bring into question one of the "commandments" that they, as religious centers are suppose to follow? Or, are the commandments of the Bible only suggestions now?
Who is "pro abortion " exactly? That's a disingenuous term.
Are you implying that private clinics don't need to obey the law? Why would you go to one?
What does federal funding of PP have to do with anything?
Promote: verb -
Liberals love coercing people who disagree with them to promote their liberal points position against their free will. Every life that is actually born and every baby carried to term to be adopted after a visit to a crisis pregnancy center is hundreds of dollars lost revenue to planned Parenthood abortuaries and that has to be opposed even if it tramples on the free speech and free excercise 1st amendment rights of many Americans.
Since when it telling the truth a liberal viewpoint? Planned Parenthood does not and cannot coerce women into having an abortion, so drop the emotional nonsense.
Are you suggesting that Planned Parenthood coerces women into having abortions? If you do, then you must positively prove that claim. Your belief isn't proof.
the state of California is coercing women who run crisis pregnancy centers to put up notices promoting abortion in their premises when that goes against everything they believe in.
It seems more like they are requiring full information disclosure to women regarding their options. If that goes against someone's belief, then they need to find a different line of work that doesn't conflict with their beliefs.
Ask Cornhusher-for-Palin because he made the initial claim.
This is the problem with theistic religion and religious belief. Religious belief encourages and condones allowing people to intentionally confuse their beliefs with facts. Beliefs are subjective and emotionally driven. Facts are objective and empirical.
Unacceptable. These people are doing this work in many cases because of their religious beliefs. They are providing services with the intent that a baby be born. They provide assistance to mothers to be health wise for both, they provide ultra sounds so mothers can see their child. They provide for services for mother and child post birth. They provide contacts for those intending to give birth and then have the baby adopted out. It is unconstitutional to coerce a place opposed to abortion into putting up notices on how to get one. Right now thanks to a court no one has to.
And, they try to shame them out of getting an abortion, if the woman wants to do that. They don't provide any kind of information on contraception, except "Don't have sex". Yet, they get mad enough to kill doctors who are trying to provide that kind of information.
That they lie to women to promote an agenda? Yes, it is unacceptable.
See my previous post!
That's nice. But see previous statement.
Why? It's called an informed decision. The choice rests with the woman. They're trying to limit that choice by proxy by omitting information about abortion.
.
These lying shacks of shite have been pulling this bait and switch crap on women since @ least the late 70's.
I was selling Yellow Page adds in Dallas from 74 to 80 and even back then the company was getting so many complaints from women who felt that they were being assaulted by clinics that would advertise that they offered abortion services but didn't.
The women going to those clinics, because of adds in our book, complained that they they were just getting bullied and mislead instead of receiving the help they were seeking.
Ma Bell had to come up with new headings that made very clear as to which services were being offered and the sales force got some extra training on how to spot the liars intent on misleading women and to make sure their adds went under the proper heading.
Your religious beliefs end when other people, especially people of other religions, become involved. Your religious beliefs do not negate the secular rights of others.
What medical treatment to these private religious clinics offer?
You're dating yourself.
Some things don't change I guess.
The others can go to to the likes of planned Parenthood and not try to impose their agenda on people who believe differently. They don’t need the help of the state to find their way to PP. The state measure that was blocked was all about control. It trying to control content at privately funded places.
The others can go to to the likes of planned Parenthood and not try to impose their agenda on people who believe differently. They don’t need the help of the state to find their way to PP. The state measure that was blocked was all about control. It trying to control content at privately funded places.
if s person truly wants an abortion they can figure out how to get to the local planned Parenthood abortuary. They don’t need the government coercing some pro life center to tell them where the abortion mill is.
if s person truly wants an abortion they can figure out how to get to the local planned Parenthood abortuary. They don’t need the government coercing some pro life center to tell them where the abortion mill is.
Why shouldn't they tell people where the clinics are, and how best to access them? I don't see anyone 'promoting abortion' like you do, but if they do, so fucking what? Abortion is LEGAL. Let me state that again: Abortion is LEGAL. One more time just for the thick skulled: Abortion is LEGAL. If you have a problem with that, then fight to get the law changed, simple. Contact your rep, write letters, make speeches about how abortion is murder, organize rallies, etc. We are a free country with freedom of speech and freedom to stand up and fight for what we believe in. Whining is not going to do a thing for your cause.
soul band-aids?
That's just plain stupid. An abortion is just a medical procedure. That's like saying if you perform an appendectomy, then your pro-appendectomy. No one is going around saying a woman should or must have an abortion.
If a woman asks about abortion as an option or how to arrange one, and a pro-life center withholds that information (or outright tries to dissuade her choice), then that is withholding information.
Too true Gordy.
Guess my whole carer with Ma Bell epitomizes the "left behind worker" of today's changing economy.
Spent 10 years in the construction side of the phone company, stringing and splicing cables for phones down in Dallas. "Land Lines" a dying industry.
Did another 25 or so in the Yellow Page side of the business and now I ask, 'When's the last time you looked in your local YP when you were ready to make a purchase?"
Dam good thing I left the work force when I did I guess. (smile)
HA! Very good BF.
Though I've been a widower for more than 20 years now your truism holds just a well for this old recluse.
Now, I know this guy
His name is Mick
Now, he don't care when he ain't got no chick
He do the shake
The rattlesnake shake
And I’m standing up for our free speech right not to be coerced into telling about or advertising something that goes against our religious beliefs that we are allowed free excercise thereof. Short of the state holding a gun to our heads via fascist like laws we simply will not do it no matter what you might do to us.
Exactly. This is about nothing more than the state regime and every single person supporting their law being control freaks. They want to use this form of content control to drive all non abortion providing centers out of business knowing that they will refuse and be closed down by their police state brown shirts when they can no longer pay the fine.
Your religious beliefs are fine, when they infringe on the law, or another persons civil rights, it's no longer legal. Your religious freedom ends where another persons rights begin. PERIOD.
So you know what every single woman knows and doesn't know? Really? LMAO!
Or, you could simply obey the law, sort of like "render unto Caesar what is Caesars." It's not that difficult to be honest.
Lots of agenda's here.... But I will say this. The religious right is on my porch at least once a week telling me I have to go to and donate to their church or else.. (Yea, I get the fire and brimstone types from time to time). But I have yet to have anyone, ever, come up to my door and tell me that I need to be pro-choice and give them money. So who has the agenda here? Exactly.
So if the Supreme Court sides with the courts that have blocked this law from going into effect, what the content control secular progressive fascists do next?
Gather up the unamerican dominionist leadership and their families, load them into a C130 and handcuff them together to a ship anchor, then drop the back door and go vertical 500 miles out over the Atlantic. With any luck they'll be swallowed by a whale.
To Review Law Forcing Pro-Life Centers To Promote Abortion
And if they don’t these centers will have to lease space for their facilities within Catholic and Protestant high schools, colleges, churches, and hospitals where it is against their religious beliefs to in any way enable abortion outside of life of the mother and make it a church state issue where the free excercise there of is much more clearly established.
These fake xtian pregnancy counseling services are nothing more than a clearing house for white babies, for sale by teavangelical churches to the highest bidder. Fortunately, most of the victims of this baby market are their ignorant members.
Links please. Evidence?
A personal family experience that I won't be sharing here. Essentially, payment of the mother's medical expenses and $20K to the church making the arrangements upon adoption. Thumpers = baby flesh peddlers.
I would give my opinion on abortion, but I don't think my opinion, or that of any other man, should count for anything. We need to let the ladies decide this issue fellas.
I agree. No vagina = no vote. Self righteous males can go pound sand.