The Conservative War On Women

I have a problem with the practicing Witchcraft part. They should clearly be practicing Starcraft instead.

Maq wrote:
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/T4pQAv4.jpg)

So... do I put you down as "for" or "against"?

LarryC wrote:
I have a problem with the practicing Witchcraft part. They should clearly be practicing Starcraft instead.

I've known a few Wiccans in my time. Let's just say that Wicca seems to encourage spreading the love.

Yonder wrote:
So... do I put you down as "for" or "against"?

Dang it, you got to my joke before me.

Lesbian Witches Destroy Capitalism

A Sy-Fy Original Movie

Demyx wrote:
Lesbian Witches Destroy Capitalism

A Sy-Fy Original Movie

I'd watch it.

What natural disaster can we horn onto a lesbian term for that movie?

Queernami? Hurrigayne?

Lesbnado

Anyone else really bugged by the lone lower case "I" in CAPiTALISM?

KingGorilla wrote:
What natural disaster can we horn onto a lesbian term for that movie?

Queernami? Hurrigayne?

Home Depocalypse.

Volgayno.

Hot Flash Flood
Octopussy
Biclone
Suenami
Straponomics
Gayle Force
Perpetual Monster Storm

Maq wrote:
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/T4pQAv4.jpg)

Hmmmm...looks like I've got some stuff to do...

Thanks for the checklist, Mr. Robertson.

"I didn't say those things, it was Pat Roberston! I just happen to agree."
- Pat Robertson

Arise! With good news!

Federal Judge Declares Texas Anti-Abortion Law Unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled that new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature are unconstitutional and should not take effect as planned on Tuesday.

District Judge Lee Yeakel issued his decision Monday following a three-day trial over whether the state can restrict when, where and how women obtain abortions in Texas.

Tanglebones wrote:
Arise! With good news!

Federal Judge Declares Texas Anti-Abortion Law Unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled that new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature are unconstitutional and should not take effect as planned on Tuesday.

District Judge Lee Yeakel issued his decision Monday following a three-day trial over whether the state can restrict when, where and how women obtain abortions in Texas.

And a GWB-nominee at that. Since the pro-life crowd can't call him an activist judge, I guess they'll cry about betrayal.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Arise! With good news!

Federal Judge Declares Texas Anti-Abortion Law Unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled that new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature are unconstitutional and should not take effect as planned on Tuesday.

District Judge Lee Yeakel issued his decision Monday following a three-day trial over whether the state can restrict when, where and how women obtain abortions in Texas.

And a GWB-nominee at that. Since the pro-life crowd can't call him an activist judge, I guess they'll cry about betrayal.

They'll dub him a RINO, because as has been made clear recently, real Republicans don't care about silly things like constitutionality.

Note that this was only one restriction that was struck down (the one requiring hospital admitting privileges), and the decision will certainly be appealed to a more conservative higher court. Lots of other stuff still going into effect.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court has reinstated most of Texas' new abortion restrictions.

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling Thursday evening, three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel said one provision serves no medical purpose.

The panel says that the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital can take effect while a lawsuit moves forward.

The Texas attorney general's office argued that the law is a constitutional use of the Legislature's authority.

Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers had argued that the regulations did not protect women and would shut down a third of the abortion clinics in Texas.

Some opinions from a doctor I follow on twitter:

@DrJaneChi wrote:
I DONT EVEN KNOW Y'ALL HOW CAN THEY DO THIS
I really. Just. Y'all. I am GUTTED. What will the poorest, most powerless people in Texas DO.

And the providers, who've put everything on the line for years to help those powerless people. They're supposed to just shut down & go away
They know clinics can't afford to pay bills & stay solvent without performing services. They're counting on it.

Admitting privileges=a rel'ship w a hospital that allows a Dr to care for patients there. Granted at hospital's discretion.
Drs apply for admitting privileges when they plan to care for patients at the hospital regularly, which is also why hospitals grant them.

Hospitals grant privileges bc they make $ from hospitalized ppl. They have no reason to grant privs to a Dr whose pts aren't hospitalized.
So abortion providers don't need privileges, because abortion is so safe that patients are basically never hospitalized...
...And hospitals won't grant privileges, bc abortion is so safe that abortion providers won't bring them any patients.
Bc privileges are discretionary & granted by committees, hospitals won't say yes to a controversial figure like an abortion provider.

The admitting privileges req is a huge weapon in the antichoice arsenal bc it sounds very reasonable but is almost impossible to meet.
So yes, the antis are counting on the clinics to go out of business while they're shut down, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.

...

Huge swaths of Texas are about to become places where poor ppl buy unlabeled pills in secret & a "friend" can "help you" if you're pregnant.

Realistically speaking how much of the country actually has access to abortion these days?
A lot of rural areas must be screwed with no clinics and transportation costs for the poor. IIRC many states are already down to very few providers, and one state has 1 part time clinic.

I guess I am just wondering how much of the country is already lost.

realityhack wrote:
Realistically speaking how much of the country actually has access to abortion these days?

Anyone with a coat hanger in their closet?

Bad joke? Inappropriate? If so, I sincerely apologize. I'm not tuned into the subtleties of abortion humor. I'm pro-choice and eat eggs.

I think that's the sad reality of where we've come backtracked in the last twenty years, FSeven. There was an article posted somewhere that was an interview with someone who used medicine obtained from other countries to perform illegal abortions.

Back to realityhack's question -- I'm curious, too. Michigan is certainly no bastion of progressive thought, and the closest Planned Parenthood to me is just over an hour walk.

Someone should start a "get out of Tehran" program to provide transportation costs to young women. Or to relocate them entirely.

Seth wrote:
I think that's the sad reality of where we've come backtracked in the last twenty years, FSeven. There was an article posted somewhere that was an interview with someone who used medicine obtained from other countries to perform illegal abortions.

I haven't pored through the first 100+ pages of this thread so I apologize if I'm rehashing something, but I've always wondered how the party of small government justifies legislation that tells you what you can do with your body. That's the complete antithesis of small government. There is not a better example one could come up with for an intrusive government. I mean, anti-abortion legislation puts government in your body.

Has anyone come across a conservative rationalizing this?

Seth wrote:
Michigan is certainly no bastion of progressive thought, and the closest Planned Parenthood to me is just over an hour walk.

Do they provide abortion services on the premises?

FSeven wrote:
I mean, anti-abortion legislation puts government in your body.

Has anyone come across a conservative rationalizing this?

Because of the belief that fertilized eggs are people with souls and legal rights. They believe in a government that protects citizens from being murdered, and that's what they see abortion as being.

Taking this line of thought to the logical extreme, legalized abortion is the act of the government defining a class of people which can be murdered at any time for no reason with no repercussions.

JUST LIKE IN NAZI GERMANY.

So yeah, what you see as small government they see as the biggest big government could possibly be.

Hypatian wrote:
Seth wrote:
Michigan is certainly no bastion of progressive thought, and the closest Planned Parenthood to me is just over an hour walk.

Do they provide abortion services on the premises?

Honestly I don't know - I assumed all planned parenthood clinics did!

FSeven wrote:
Seth wrote:
I think that's the sad reality of where we've come backtracked in the last twenty years, FSeven. There was an article posted somewhere that was an interview with someone who used medicine obtained from other countries to perform illegal abortions.

I haven't pored through the first 100+ pages of this thread so I apologize if I'm rehashing something, but I've always wondered how the party of small government justifies legislation that tells you what you can do with your body. That's the complete antithesis of small government. There is not a better example one could come up with for an intrusive government. I mean, anti-abortion legislation puts government in your body.

Has anyone come across a conservative rationalizing this?

The "do whatever you want to your body" line becomes less bright and less fine once you factor in that the baby can/should be considered a person, too.

You could also circle back to the "conservatives just want to punish sluts" line of reasoning, but I find that people who grapple with the question honestly in regards to it taking a life are not exactly rare unicorns or something.

FSeven wrote:
realityhack wrote:
Realistically speaking how much of the country actually has access to abortion these days?

Anyone with a coat hanger in their closet?

Bad joke? Inappropriate? If so, I sincerely apologize. I'm not tuned into the subtleties of abortion humor. I'm pro-choice and eat eggs.

DUDE! D=

Looking at PP's clinic finder, it looks like there are 25 PP locations in Michigan. Four of them provide abortion services. (One in Ann Arbor, one in Detroit, one in Flint, one in Kalamazoo.) So each Michigan PP clinic that provides abortion services covers (presuming even distribution of locations, which would be optimal) ~24k square miles. Again assuming some sort of perfect distribution, that would make the maximum distance anyone would have to travel to a PP clinic for an abortion ~88 miles.

In Texas, there are 48 centers, and nine of them provide abortion services. (One in Austin, one in Dallas, one in Ft. Worth, one in Houston, one in Lubbock, three in San Antonio, one in Waco.) So each Texas PP clinic that provides abortion services covers (presuming perfect locations, which is clearly not the case since three are in San Antonio) ~30k square miles. So perfect distribution would make the maximum distance ~98 miles.

Edit: The number "3" for total centers in Texas was incorrect. One third of clinics are expected to close, which would leave three PP centers that provide abortion services.

Three clinics means with perfect locations ~90k square miles each, with a maximum distance of ~168 miles to the nearest PP clinic that provides abortion services. (Assuming, again, unrealistic perfect distributions.)

For more precision, take a look at this declaration that was part of the trial. At the end, it includes a table broken down by county of expected demand and availability to meet demand (note that the counties here are the ones where services are provided, not the counties the patients come from, since not all counties have clinics.) There are a pair of maps, one showing the estimated number of patients expected to have to travel >100 miles due to the admitting privileges restriction. The other showing how much farther patients will have to travel due to the change.