This Is What Waits For Your Daughters When Republicans Win.

Uncategorized 1 Minute

https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-texas-wants-citizens-enforce-180528590.html

Republicans have zero respect for the rule of law. This new Texas law bans abortion when a fetal heartbeat can be detected – about 6 weeks into gestation. That is before many women even know that they are pregnant. The law of the land established by SCOTUS in Roe Vs. Wade and other cases is that such bans are Unconstitutional until about 24 weeks.

But wait, there is more. As a gimmick to avoid following the law, the state will not enforce the ban. Instead, it leaves the enforcement to private law suits by ANYBODY and will pay a $10,000 bounty to ANYONE who successfully sues anyone who provides, helps, counsels or encourages an abortion after 6 weeks.

I would like to say that you can not make this stuff up, but this is reality. This is how anti-woman, anti-science (heartbeat, really?) Republicans really are.

Published by Paul Murphy

Published

55 thoughts on “This Is What Waits For Your Daughters When Republicans Win.”

  1. Then don’t let your daughter live in Texas.

    The problem with Roe isn’t how it was decided but that it was decided.

    When life begins should be determined by the legislative branch. The exact same solution as Roe, had it been reached in Congress or the State legislatures, would n be acceptable to me, but if Roe falls it will be because the decision was outside the scope of the judiciary.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Then don’t let your daughter live in Texas.”

      Glib answer which only confirms that you think women are second class citizens.

      What has now happened in Texas (and several other theocratic states) only confirms that the Constitutional issue HAS to be settled by the Court. You always are whining about the tyranny of the majority but in a clear cut case of that happening with respect to women’s most personal rights – Meh.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        1. “Do you want kids to be able to off their parents when they become a burden?”

          WHIFF! A swing and a miss. Adam was discussing when life BEGINS from a moral and ethical point of view. From a legal point of view that range is narrow. It has to be between 0 and 24 weeks. After 24 weeks the choice is taken away by the law.

          He is not suggesting in any way that your parents and grandparents could be viewed as having not yet begun to live so they could be “offed” with legal impunity.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Really?

            If parents get to decide when their child is alive, then why shouldn’t the children decide when the parents are no longer alive?

            When human life exists to the extent that society protects it cannot be left to the individual to decide on the convenience of the moment. It is up to us as a people to set that bar, and our Constitution vests such decisions with the legislative branch.

            Like

          2. “If parents get to decide when their child is alive, then why shouldn’t the children decide when the parents are no longer alive?”

            Uh, that is a nonsense leap. There is no possible analogy that makes any sense. And, it is not about being alive, it is about the beginning of being a person – morally and legally.

            “The Constitution vests such decisions with the legislative branch.”

            Uh, no, it doesn’t. It does not address the question of when personhood begins nor who gets to decide in any way. Such undefined areas are the natural realm of the courts. It is a basic Constitutional question – do women have dominion over their own bodies or don’t they – that legislatures cannot decide. You, know to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. Not necessarily. BUT doctor assisted suicide for older people who NOW they are a burden and have lowered quality of life is something I believe Libertarians are supportive of.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Assisted suicide is a person’s choice, not someone else’s.

            What Paul advocated was leaving the decision to the individual parents as to when life begins. That is no standard at all.

            Like

          2. “That is no standard at all.”

            That was my point. Tere should be no standard dictated by the courts or legislatures. It is a CHOICE a woman, and when available, her partner, to make.

            Abortion should remain rare, safe and legal.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. How is that different from “Euthanizing burdensome elders should remain rare, safe and legal.”

            Or “shooting noisy neighbors should remain rare, safe and legal.”

            In suicide, the person who owns the life is making the choice. In abortion, and the other examples. the person being inconveneinced makes the choice.

            Like

          4. …: the person who owns the life is making the choice.”

            The PARENT owns the life until such time that the fetus is viable outside the womb. until that point, it is tantamount to a parasite.

            Like

          5. “What Paul advocated was leaving the decision to the individual parents as to when life begins. That is no standard at all.”

            Actually, it was Adam who advocated that. I merely pointed out that this choice for parents is constrained by law to a very narrow window 0-24 weeks of gestation. After that the legal standard – viability – is determinative. You do a Hell of a job of whaling away at straw men.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “How is that different from “Euthanizing burdensome elders should remain rare, safe and legal.”

            Elders are persons under the law. Zygotes are not. You are simply begging the question with that question.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Mr Murphy: Gun control = pro rapist = pro victim death = race control. Lets also discuss the illegal appropriation of taxpayer money by POTUS Obama in regards to paying insurance companies. I could quote more, but before you talk about the R’s, suggest you take a look at the criminal protecting, minority hating parole board, our current Gov who refused to leave his position after that scandal, same goes for the Democrat Lt. Gov. and Atty General. How about the Atty General’s refusal to only follow the laws he wants?

    Like

    Reply

    2. This thread is about abortion policy in Texas. Gun control and VA parole board actions are another topic if you care to start a different thread.

      Thank you.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  3. I might have some sympathy for the hair pulling and teeth gnashing in this story if Roe v. Wade were constitutionally valid. But it isn’t, so I don’t.

    The citizen enforcement provisions of SB 8 may lead to some undesirable unintended consequences. I’m OK with that. Texas can deal with them as they emerge.

    I believe human life begins at conception and there is no “right to choose” to end it.

    Like

    Reply

        1. Glib answer? Sure. But it is the essence of the issue. You can do what you want with your body but you have no right to use the power of the state to force your beliefs on others who might actually have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy due to rape, accident or genetic defect.

          It is a tautology that a fertilized human egg is a “human life.” The legal question – is it a “person” with the same rights as other persons? Our law says . . . No. Even the law in Texas.

          But, if you insist it is a person legally, persons do not have a right to compel other persons to risk their health or suffer the slightest pain on their behalf. If you are dying of a rare disease and a drop of my blood could save you, you have no right to demand it. It would be my CHOICE whether to keep you alive or let you die.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. RE: “you have no right to use the power of the state to force your beliefs on others”

          My franchise as a citizen certainly gives me that right, as well as various ways to exercise it.

          I can think of lots of ways to rationalize abortion, but none for which a positive basis in law can be crafted. Killing the child cannot in any way be defined as a good.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “My franchise as a citizen certainly gives me that right, as well as various ways to exercise it.”

            None of them legal. The idea that you have some right to force other people to act on your screwy beliefs is absurd. That you seem so cocksure that you do is actually a little disturbing as in . . . Just how disturbed are you?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Killing the child cannot in any way be defined as a good.”

            You do not get to use your personal screwy definitions as a basis for the law. A fertilized egg, a zygote or a fetus is not a “child.” Not in our country.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “None of them legal.”

            Voting is legal.

            RE: “A fertilized egg, a zygote or a fetus is not a ‘child.'”

            It most certainly is in the sense that it has parents.

            Like

          5. RE: “You are using the word ‘child’ to mean a person with rights.”

            No. I am saying that a zygote and a fetus are children in both the common and the technical sense.

            Like

          6. …”the common and the technical sense.”

            Yours maybe. What makes you think you or anyone else should have dominion over what a woman does with HER body? Free to choose what I tell you you can choose?

            Like

          7. The “sense” that matters is the legal sense and that is because we are discussing a woman’s right to choose to end a pregnancy. Since you say there is no such right, you are saying that a fertilized egg is a child in the legal sense.

            That again raises the question you dodged. Should a woman (and the pharmacist) be punished for murder if she takes a morning-after pill? If not, why not?

            Liked by 1 person

          8. RE: “The ‘sense’ that matters is the legal sense and that is because we are discussing a woman’s right to choose to end a pregnancy.”

            The only reason it matters is because you want it to.

            My thinking is straightforward: Abortion ends a human life. No one has a positive right to do that.

            Instead of shifting the turf you should try explaining why you think a woman has a positive right to kill her child.

            Like

          9. “Abortion ends a human life.”
            So does a miscarriage, which is nature’s, or God’s, evolved method of selecting which pregnancy is viable with regards to survivability.

            Medical science has also evolved to the point where we can keep fetuses and born children “alive” via sophisticated, expensive and probably painful technology for varying lengths of time.

            Similarly, we prize a society that supports the sanctity of families. Yet, we debate on the morals of support for children born into dire circumstances.

            “It is the parent’s responsibility”, no argument there except when parents are absent, really or effectively. The child’s only recourse is the state in many circumstances. Conservatives object to interfering in family affairs post partum.

            If we deny or complicate a woman’s choice whether to bear children or not, it is immoral to ignore the “saved” child since we demanded its birth no matter the cause or circumstances.

            IMHANEO

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “My franchise as a citizen certainly gives me that right, as well as various ways to exercise it.”

            For someone who talks about individual rights all of the time, you sure do have a funny way of pretzeling yourself on this issue.

            Your liberty ends at the tip of my nose. You or Don has used that phrase before. Funny how it only applies when YOU think it appropriate.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. I am not “shifting the turf.” I am asking you to address the issue.

            Under our law, nobody has a right to kill a child.
            Under our law, a zygote is not a child.

            The legal sense is the only sense that matters in this discussion because Texas and other states want to take punitive action against people involved in terminating a pregnancy.

            Your unwillingness to answer the question posed shows that YOU do not believe what you are saying. You seem to know that a fertilized egg is not a child in the same way that a newborn baby is a child. If they were the same then the punishment for ending that human life should be the same. But you won’t say that.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. RE: “If they were the same then the punishment for ending that human life should be the same. But you won’t say that.”

            No, I won’t, because it is a foolish consistency.

            I don’t believe the law says a zygote is not a child. The law may say that killing a child is permissable up to a certain length of the child’s life, but that is not the same thing.

            I support the Texas law because it bans the killing of children. I can think of no good reason why the killing of children should be allowed. If you have one, let’s hear it.

            Like

          13. “No, I won’t, because it is a foolish consistency.”

            What a weasel! You won’t because your belief is based on nonsense. Fertilized eggs are NOT “children.” It is a heinous crime to kill children and should be punished severely.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “So taking a morning after pill is child murder and ought to be punished as such.”

            Mr. Rothman was not that specific. But if you want to argue with yourself in your own fantasy world, be my guest.

            Like

          2. It is not a fantasy. It is a question which follows logically from your claim that a fertilized egg is a “child.”

            I get why you want to dodge the question. If you say “Yes” your position becomes untenable morally and politically. If you say “No” then you admit that your premise is false.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “It is a question which follows logically from your claim that a fertilized egg is a ‘child.'”

            Maybe to you, hence your fantasy.

            Mr. Rothman asked whether I “object to birth control that may interfere with fertilization or conception.”

            I said, Yes, but gave no explanation because I have no idea how he connects birth control to abortion. Personally, I don’t.

            Like

          4. I don’t connect birth control to abortion, but you do if you object to the most effective methods because you consider them abortifacients. Or at least your stated objection to those that prevent conception post-fertilization.

            It is the ultimate control over women when society decides they cannot decide whether to bear a pregnancy to term or not. Essentially, the state would control the uterus of each woman.

            Liked by 2 people

        3. RE: “I don’t connect birth control to abortion, but you do if you object to the most effective methods because you consider them abortifacients.”

          Abortifacients are so-called because they cause abortion, the killing of a child.

          RE: “It is the ultimate control over women when society decides they cannot decide whether to bear a pregnancy to term or not.”

          You might have a point if men were allowed to commit homicide at will, but they aren’t.

          Like

          Reply

    3. …”if Roe v. Wade were constitutionally valid. But it isn’t, so I don’t.”

      The Supreme Court disagreed with you when they decided the case. And have continued to disagree with you since.

      Seeing as they are jurists who study the Constitution and know it and interpret better than you (in this particular case), you’re “isn’t” and “don’t” mean BUPKES.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. Next step is personhood legislation.

    Miscarriages could very well be prosecuted as they have been a few times in recent history. Forget birth control since many of the most effective are considered abortificants among the anti-abortion crowd.

    Handmaids’ Tales are coming.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a comment