proposed law would remove all restrictions on abortion requiring medical reason

Quote:NEWS FEBRUARY 04, 2019
If you thought abortion bills in New York, Virginia were bad, just wait until you see Vermont's
Unimaginable evil
Win McNamee/Getty Images
CHRIS ENLOE
Legislation to eliminate abortion restrictions have dominated headlines in recent weeks as outrage builds over how extreme progressives are willing to be in order to preserve so-called women's rights.

So far, New York has been the only state to successfully pass new pro-abortion legislation. Some Democrats in Virginia tried and failed, and Rhode Island continues to consider its legislation. All of the bills are weaved together by a common thread: They appear to remove nearly all abortion regulations, even allowing abortions during the third trimester requiring only vague justification.

But one state's bill, which has been dubbed "the most radical abortion legalization statute in the world," may top them all.

What are the details?
Vermont legislators are currently considering a bill that goes further than New York or Virginia, a frightening proposition considering one Virginia lawmaker admitted her bill would allow abortions up to the moment of birth.

The bill, H-0057, would remove all practical abortion regulations, establishing the "fundamental right" to the procedure without restriction while completely eradicating any consideration for an unborn child's viability.


The bill declares:

Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization.
Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.
A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.
What distinguishes Vermont's bill from that of New York, Virginia, or Rhode Island is that it would permit abortions without consideration of viability, a major point of contention in the abortion debate. Additionally, the law does not outline restrictions related to the health of the mother or unborn child, effectively permitting abortions for any reason.

The people drawing this up were probably appalled by Big Boi's fur coat last night.

Monsters

Satan reached a deal with his counterpart on Mars today. He's so disgusted with the left, that Mars will be housing them going forward.

(02-04-2019 05:08 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  proposed law would remove all restrictions on abortion requiring medical reason

Quote:NEWS FEBRUARY 04, 2019
If you thought abortion bills in New York, Virginia were bad, just wait until you see Vermont's
Unimaginable evil
Win McNamee/Getty Images
CHRIS ENLOE
Legislation to eliminate abortion restrictions have dominated headlines in recent weeks as outrage builds over how extreme progressives are willing to be in order to preserve so-called women's rights.

So far, New York has been the only state to successfully pass new pro-abortion legislation. Some Democrats in Virginia tried and failed, and Rhode Island continues to consider its legislation. All of the bills are weaved together by a common thread: They appear to remove nearly all abortion regulations, even allowing abortions during the third trimester requiring only vague justification.

But one state's bill, which has been dubbed "the most radical abortion legalization statute in the world," may top them all.

What are the details?
Vermont legislators are currently considering a bill that goes further than New York or Virginia, a frightening proposition considering one Virginia lawmaker admitted her bill would allow abortions up to the moment of birth.

The bill, H-0057, would remove all practical abortion regulations, establishing the "fundamental right" to the procedure without restriction while completely eradicating any consideration for an unborn child's viability.


The bill declares:

Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization.
Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.
A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.
What distinguishes Vermont's bill from that of New York, Virginia, or Rhode Island is that it would permit abortions without consideration of viability, a major point of contention in the abortion debate. Additionally, the law does not outline restrictions related to the health of the mother or unborn child, effectively permitting abortions for any reason.

This would not fly under Vermont's law (if passed):

Pregnant real estate agent stabbed to death in vestibule of New York apartment building

Quote:Police are hunting for the man who murdered a pregnant woman and her unborn child Sunday, with officials and witnesses saying the killer repeatedly stabbed the 35-year-old real estate agent before dragging her body into the vestibule of her New York City apartment building, where he left her screaming in vain for help.

Quote:The 35-year-old was rushed to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Her baby also did not survive, according to police.

If a killer is charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman and her baby, I see legal challenges under new abortion laws stating, "A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under [insert name of radleft state here] law."

This may be what eventually goes to the SCOTUS.

If a fetus is not a person and does not have rights, you can't be charged for killing it.

If a fetus is a person and has rights, you can't kill it.



BTW, why can't we crush eagle eggs again?

Amazing how quickly this seemingly turned around. Aside from the usual suspects like a NY, none of these barbaric laws has gone through. But just a few scant years ago we were as close as we've ever been to restrictions on 3 trimester abortions.

Now we've got people actually discussing abortion when the child is crowning and the mother dilating. Disgusting, but it's walls that are immoral.

(02-04-2019 05:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  The people drawing this up were probably appalled by Big Boi's fur coat last night.

Man, I loved eating at Shoney's when I was a kid.

But it's spelled Big Boy.

(02-04-2019 06:13 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:08 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  proposed law would remove all restrictions on abortion requiring medical reason

Quote:NEWS FEBRUARY 04, 2019
If you thought abortion bills in New York, Virginia were bad, just wait until you see Vermont's
Unimaginable evil
Win McNamee/Getty Images
CHRIS ENLOE
Legislation to eliminate abortion restrictions have dominated headlines in recent weeks as outrage builds over how extreme progressives are willing to be in order to preserve so-called women's rights.

So far, New York has been the only state to successfully pass new pro-abortion legislation. Some Democrats in Virginia tried and failed, and Rhode Island continues to consider its legislation. All of the bills are weaved together by a common thread: They appear to remove nearly all abortion regulations, even allowing abortions during the third trimester requiring only vague justification.

But one state's bill, which has been dubbed "the most radical abortion legalization statute in the world," may top them all.

What are the details?
Vermont legislators are currently considering a bill that goes further than New York or Virginia, a frightening proposition considering one Virginia lawmaker admitted her bill would allow abortions up to the moment of birth.

The bill, H-0057, would remove all practical abortion regulations, establishing the "fundamental right" to the procedure without restriction while completely eradicating any consideration for an unborn child's viability.


The bill declares:

Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization.
Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.
A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.
What distinguishes Vermont's bill from that of New York, Virginia, or Rhode Island is that it would permit abortions without consideration of viability, a major point of contention in the abortion debate. Additionally, the law does not outline restrictions related to the health of the mother or unborn child, effectively permitting abortions for any reason.

This would not fly under Vermont's law (if passed):

Pregnant real estate agent stabbed to death in vestibule of New York apartment building

Quote:Police are hunting for the man who murdered a pregnant woman and her unborn child Sunday, with officials and witnesses saying the killer repeatedly stabbed the 35-year-old real estate agent before dragging her body into the vestibule of her New York City apartment building, where he left her screaming in vain for help.

Quote:The 35-year-old was rushed to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Her baby also did not survive, according to police.

If a killer is charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman and her baby, I see legal challenges under new abortion laws stating, "A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under [insert name of radleft state here] law."

This may be what eventually goes to the SCOTUS.

If a fetus is not a person and does not have rights, you can't be charged for killing it.

If a fetus is a person and has rights, you can't kill it.



BTW, why can't we crush eagle eggs again?

Yup, pointed this out yesterday, trying to have it both ways. Make up your stupid f%$&ing minds.

(02-04-2019 06:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  The people drawing this up were probably appalled by Big Boi's fur coat last night.

Man, I loved eating at Shoney's when I was a kid.

But it's spelled Big Boy.

Was Shoney's the same as Bob's Big Boy?

Any "doctor" that could perform a late term abortion needs to have their cellars and gardens checked.

(02-04-2019 06:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  The people drawing this up were probably appalled by Big Boi's fur coat last night.

Man, I loved eating at Shoney's when I was a kid.

But it's spelled Big Boy.

Still love the breakfast bar

(02-04-2019 07:40 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 06:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  The people drawing this up were probably appalled by Big Boi's fur coat last night.

Man, I loved eating at Shoney's when I was a kid.

But it's spelled Big Boy.

Was Shoney's the same as Bob's Big Boy?

Same franchise...different ownership groups...
also known as Frisch's in Cincinnati, Azar's in Fort Wayne, etc.

They are going to give Trump the most effective campaign commercials ever with this sick ****.

(02-04-2019 07:54 PM)HCJag Wrote:  Any "doctor" that could perform a late term abortion needs to have their cellars and gardens checked.

Nah. They sell it. See Planned Parenthood.

(02-04-2019 08:53 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 07:40 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 06:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 05:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  The people drawing this up were probably appalled by Big Boi's fur coat last night.

Man, I loved eating at Shoney's when I was a kid.

But it's spelled Big Boy.

Was Shoney's the same as Bob's Big Boy?

Same franchise...different ownership groups...
also known as Frisch's in Cincinnati, Azar's in Fort Wayne, etc.

Shoney's in the south, Bob's in the west, Frisch's in the central US. Never saw an Azar's.