As of today there are no longer any clinics offering abortion services in the entirety of the Rio Grande Valley. The last one closed today. (dallasnews.com)

{texas}

153 ups - 35 downs = 118 votes

137 comments submitted at 04:54:57 on Mar 6, 2014 by maowsers93

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • -17 Points
  • 18:09:09, 6 March

So your logic here is that we need to kill the babies of poor people to prevent them from costing us money? It's good to see the left return to its roots: eugenics.

  • [-]
  • arthum
  • 22 Points
  • 18:34:12, 6 March

No, we should be providing proper sex education and free birth control so that effective family planning can be practiced and so that abortion doesn't even enter the equation, but good luck promoting that agenda in this state.

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • -11 Points
  • 18:41:53, 6 March

>but good luck promoting that agenda in this state.

Yeah, democracy sure is a bitch when you're in disagreement with the majority. Here's a suggestion: start a non-profit that fulfills the same role and fund it from money that is voluntarily given, not taken through taxes against the will of the majority of people in the state. If you're really that passionate about the issue do it yourself.

  • [-]
  • slo3
  • 11 Points
  • 18:57:33, 6 March

Sounds like a plan.
The problem with your argument is when the majority makes a decision that clear discriminates (in an illegal way) against a specific minority (in this case, women without health care).

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • -5 Points
  • 19:19:17, 6 March

>The problem with your argument is when the majority makes a decision that clear discriminates (in an illegal way) against a specific minority (in this case, women without health care).

And the problem with that argument is that this isn't discrimination. It's regulation of a medical procedure. No women are being prevented from having abortions. They're just required to have them at a facility the government deems capable of safely carrying out the procedure. Are you arguing that any regulation of a medical procedure is discrimination?

  • [-]
  • ahubbs
  • 11 Points
  • 19:23:45, 6 March

>And the problem with that argument is that this isn't discrimination. It's regulation of a medical procedure.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • -8 Points
  • 19:45:48, 6 March

Cool, I'm going to open a discount abortion clinic in my garage. I figure I can re-use the coat-hangers between patients but I don't think I'll bother sterilizing them. Any regulation of my practice would be discriminating against the wimminz.

  • [-]
  • TSapp85
  • 3 Points
  • 01:32:18, 7 March

That's basically what is going to happen in the Rio Grande Valley, and exactly what the GOP wants to happen.

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • 0 Points
  • 02:07:13, 7 March

Bullshit. The GOP doesn't want women to have abortions at all.

  • [-]
  • TSapp85
  • 1 Points
  • 02:15:35, 7 March

But they have no problem forcing them into unsafe options. They have no problem forcing the kids they're forcing to be born into lives of poverty. They want them to be carried to term, and then they 100% cease giving a shit.

  • [-]
  • slo3
  • 6 Points
  • 19:56:10, 6 March

It's discrimination because a group of specific facilities were targeted for closure... and the next closest (now "legal") facilities are prohibitively (in distance, time, and money necessary to reach) far away.
I'm not arguing whether abortion is "right" or "wrong" or even if we as citizens of Texas have the right to make that decision for someone else. I am however saying that singling out a specific demographic of people and forcing your life choices on them is discrimination.

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • -6 Points
  • 20:08:24, 6 March

>It's discrimination because a group of specific facilities were targeted for closure

Nothing was "targeted'. Facilities either complied or didn't. They would still be open if they were made compliant. I asked another poster this: should the government not be in the business of regulating medical procedures? Were women living far from the abortion clinics in operation before this law being discriminated against because I couldn't open an abortion clinic in my garage?

>and the next closest (now "legal") facilities are prohibitively (in distance, time, and money necessary to reach) far away.

Living in the boonies has its disadvantages. One can get anywhere in the state from anywhere in the state in 24 hours.

>I am however saying that singling out a specific demographic of people and forcing your life choices on them is discrimination.

I find people only think that about the life-choices they're in favor of. Also, abortion isn't prohibited by these acts and no one is preventing women from getting abortions. The government, which as I'm sure you know always has our safety and happiness in its heart, is merely protecting women from undergoing a medical procedure in a risky way. The same way it prevents women from undergoing that procedure in my garage.

  • [-]
  • slo3
  • 4 Points
  • 20:37:39, 6 March

Sure, living that far out has its disadvantages. Medical care shouldn't be one of them, not in this modern age.

These facilities were very much targeted. The stipulation that hospitals grant admitting privileges was the kicker... the facilities which are affected by this law were all in areas where the only hospitals able to grant admitting privileges were all known to be Pro-Life.
The stipulation that admitting privileges were required at all is also suspect (and the claim that this was necessary by a state level medical board is disputed). Abortion is considered an "out-patient procedure" and no longer requires surgery (for those up to but not including those prior to 15 weeks of gestation). Instead, doses of very specific drugs are administered and induce a miscarriage. Later term abortions due require medical procedures but these are already discouraged in Texas by other laws.
How would you feel if you were to some day consider a vasectomy? Currently those are also out-patient procedures. Now, I'm not saying whether or not it's right that you have one. I'm also not saying that you should or shouldn't have one. I'm just suggesting that one day, if you're done with having children, that you might want to consider getting a vasectomy, a safe and reversible procedure. Now, if I were to suddenly force you to wait 24 hours before you were to get one, after driving for several hours from home, where previously you could have gone to the local clinic or been referred by your doctor, (and having to take an additional day off of work - now two days of PTO, what?!), then make you look at a sonogram of your nuts (which you already know you want cut ties with), and then try to talk you out of the procedure even though you have made up your mind... well, you might, just might be a bit put out.

Abortion isn't the only thing that is being prevented by this law. This law also prevents procedures that have nothing to do with family planning... all of which are now no longer available.
As far as your assumption that I'm only in favor of life-choices I'm in favor of, well, you're wrong. I'm also don't think that personal drug use should be illegal. As long as it's done safely and has no impact on others and use clean needles, why should I care if you shoot up in your home? However, if you're stoned out of your gourd and driving, eff yeah I want your ass in jail and think you should be introduced to the lifer named, "Tiny".

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • -5 Points
  • 21:23:14, 6 March

>Sure, living that far out has its disadvantages. Medical care shouldn't be one of them, not in this modern age.

So you want fully-staffed and capable hospitals every hundred miles or so? You do realize this is incredibly unrealistic, right?

>These facilities were very much targeted. The stipulation that hospitals grant admitting privileges was the kicker... the facilities which are affected by this law were all in areas where the only hospitals able to grant admitting privileges were all known to be Pro-Life.

Since the law affected all facilities it didn't "target" any of them.

>How would you feel if you were to some day consider a vasectomy?

I would be perfectly fine driving a extra few hours to get a once-in-a-lifetime medical procedure if it meant it would be conducted safely.

>Now, if I were to suddenly force you to wait 24 hours before you were to get one

No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything. I choose not to live in the boonies. One of the main benefits is immediate access to medical care.

>As far as your assumption that I'm only in favor of life-choices I'm in favor of, well, you're wrong.

Do you support polygamy?

  • [-]
  • slo3
  • 1 Points
  • 21:54:04, 6 March

No. I do not think that there should be hospitals every hundred miles. I do however think that communities should have public, primary care facilities able to provide care to everyone, regardless of the person's personal moral stances.
And I mean that for both the care-provider and the care-receiver.

As far as those facilities being targeted, you're incorrect because you're being too literal and narrowing your focus too much. Yes, this law applies to all facilities. You're assuming everywhere has the same services your community does, an equal number of choices. In larger and more affluent communities, there are more than one hospital available and able to grant admitting privileges (you can read that as: often times larger metro areas have hospitals that do not have religious affiliations preventing them from providing family planning services) However, in more rural communities there may only be a single hospital and they would be the only one able to grant admitting privileges. If that hospital has a religious affiliation who prevents them from providing family planning services, you're now SOL. Even if you do not practice that Faith (hypothetical time: say you live in a community whose only health care provider is affiliated with a Christian Science Church. Now, their "practitioners" can't provide you with any medicine, drugs, or surgery... but they can pray for your healing. Now, you're probably thinking, "well, I'd just move and go somewhere else"... well, what if you grew up in that community, your family has lived there for generations, and frankly you can't afford to move, let alone drive to the next city that has a hospital... what then?)

As far as having to drive an extra few hours to have a procedure done... you're assuming that those seeking these procedures have the ability to drive a few hours. Not everyone has a vehicle, is able to afford the time away from work, able to find a ride, can afford the bus ticket and motel room...

You're also making the assumption that these people have been exposed to the option of not having unprotected sex in the first place. You and I (I'm assuming you're male and have sex on occasion and practice safe-sex) know to wrap it up when we have sex for pleasure. Not everyone knows that! Think about that for a second. There are people out there that don't know that it's possible to have sex without the chance of conceiving a child... either through the use of condoms or birth-control pills... they've only ever been taught that the only way not to have a kid is to not have sex. Period. Now, I'm not making a judgement on whether having intercourse outside of a committed relationship is a good thing or a bad thing... I'm just saying that there are people alive, in our State, who don't know that they have the choice to even prevent (if their partner is female) conception in the first place!

Regarding the polygamy question, I won't answer that until later as I think you're trying to derail the conversation and use my thoughts on it, one way or the other, to dismiss what I've said so far as being a crack-pot. I will say that I have probably more experience with it first hand than you most likely do... and I'm not talking about the State a few hours west of us either.

EDIT:
Man... I was really looking forward to continuing this...

  • [-]
  • SmokyMcBalls
  • 4 Points
  • 20:48:06, 6 March

You realize that there are stages of fetal development, right? Do you think that when a man and woman have sex, a fully-formed baby appears in the aforementioned woman's uterus and just kinda hangs out for 9 months? It's not even biologically considered a fetus until 12 weeks, at which point abortion isn't even an option.

  • [-]
  • Talran
  • 3 Points
  • 21:12:12, 6 March

> It's not even biologically considered a fetus until 12 weeks, at which point abortion isn't even an option.

The way many Americans read the bible it doesn't matter, they perceive that little clump of cells as having a soul as soon as sperm hits egg.

Also, something something, brimstone, other things never directly mentioned in the actual bible, popular culture, fear mongering, circles of hell, ect.

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • -3 Points
  • 21:09:33, 6 March

Of course I'm aware of that. What is your point?

  • [-]
  • SmokyMcBalls
  • 4 Points
  • 21:19:17, 6 March

Nobody is "killing babies."

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • -2 Points
  • 21:33:24, 6 March

>Nobody is "killing babies."

Except the people killing babies. That ball of cells, without outside intervention, will become a human. The difference in terminology between different stages of development is entirely arbitrary and doesn't represent any biological reality. Unfortunately, it is a dogma that pro-abortion people must defend to the death since their argument falls apart without it.

Let's be intellectually honest here, /u/strugglz's argument was that by preventing humans from existing we won't have to pay for them if they end up poor. If that's the motivation for maintaining the status quo the motivation is eugenics.

  • [-]
  • SmokyMcBalls
  • 3 Points
  • 21:44:01, 6 March

So, by your logic, any sperm (since it could potentially one day be a human) should be considered sacred, and masturbation should be outlawed as well, since it kills MILLIONS OF BABIES EVERY TIME? OH MY GOD, THE HORROR! THINK OF ALL THE BABIES YOU'VE KILLED IN YOUR LIFE!

  • [-]
  • NuclearWookiee
  • 0 Points
  • 23:51:15, 6 March

If sperm, left unattended, turned into a human being you would have a valid point and I'd have a kleenex full of genocide. However, an embryo, unlike a sperm cell, is a new organism with a unique genome. One that would, without active intervention, turn into a normal human.

  • [-]
  • TSapp85
  • 2 Points
  • 01:34:31, 7 March

Unless of course there are fatal defects during development. But I'm sure you love that children get to be born to live six hours in pain and die. They got their chance!

  • [-]
  • explodingcranium2442
  • 0 Points
  • 03:22:44, 7 March

Pro-abortion does not equal pro-choice. No one WANTS to have an abortion, good lord.

  • [-]
  • totes_meta_bot
  • 1 Points
  • 04:02:07, 7 March

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Comments? ^Complaints? ^Send ^them ^to ^my ^inbox!