The law basically says you must use drugs approved by the FDA for inducing an abortion, as opposed to some other drug that has an "off label" use as an abortion drug. Does it not make sense to you that something the FDA has approved for use as an abortion drug is safer than something they have not? I'll join with you 100% that the FDA is slow and often a problem... but the state is not the problem here.

the FDA doesnt regulate HOW TO USE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, they let doctors decide that

The procedure has come into wide use, accounting for nearly one-fifth of the country’s 1.2 million abortions in 2008

The 2011 law voided in Oklahoma said that the drugs, which are widely used in medicinal, nonsurgical abortions, could be administered only in the dosage and manner specified by the Food and Drug Administration when it first approved their use in 2000. The law was promoted by anti-abortion groups in the name of protecting women’s health from “off-label” uses of the drugs that have become standard practice.

An Oklahoma court ruled that the law violated women’s bodily integrity and right to abortion and struck it down, saying it “can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions.” The state’s highest court affirmed that decision, and now the state attorney general has appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the law is a reasonable exercise of state power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/us/sup....html?_r=0

(07-15-2013 01:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  oh i dunno....the part where the anti abortion movement is fueled by religion. (not the entire movement, but the vast majority)

So what? You realize lots of the anti death penalty people are religious as well, right? So are many anti drunk drivers or anti gun people.

(07-15-2013 02:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  awesome-

whats your response to this? cuz so far you have none.....

i compare this bill to the voter ID issue, a sensible reasonable argument from the conservative side. but they.......

1. try to push this type of legislation through state senates very fast and not using normal procedures. they say "oh its not political....its in the general intrest of the public". but if that was the truth they would let this legislation be passed bi partisan, allowing months of debate, amendments be added and let it be implemented over a long period of time so that this can be implemented without disenfranchising voters, or putting an unnecessary burden on abortion clinics

There are so many opinions rather than facts in here I don't know where to start... but I'll try.

1) this is hardly the first bill of this sort
2) the bill has been kicked around for months. You don't just introduce a bill that nobody is aware of and this was introduced on 6/11.
3) the requirements don't go into effect immediately, but time is given to meet the requirements. 9/1/2014 at least according to my reading.
4) according to the records, more than 30 amendments were offered beginning on 6/11.

It is pretty clear (and even admitted) that many of the efforts to debate or amend this bill were merely introduced as stalling tactics to the vote as opposed to actually intending to bring out anything other than its defeat on technical, rather than substantive grounds. This has been going on for decades at all levels of politics in this country. MOST bills that the minority on the issue opposes and the majority supports happen pretty quickly, but over a range of dissent.

Quote:2. voter fraud is not coming close to affecting elections, & the vast majority of abortion clinics are not coming close to having high percentages of death rates, complications, abuse etc.

There is virtually no evidence whatsoever that innocent people have been executed... but we still take that concern seriously. I generally agree that this bill doesn't really accomplish that much, but given that like the death penalty, there is absolutely no recompense for the dead, it is important that we go to great lengths to ensure their safety.

Not many people die from lots of procedures, but we still require that their doctors be accredited and capable of dealing with complications that could arise

Quote:these are two made up problems with reasonable "fixes" being implemented in a way to allow a hidden agenda affect voters/abortion clinics

so your complaint is that although reasonable regulation is perfectly legal and these are reasonable requirements passed by a majority of the duly elected representatives of a state, you don't like them because you think the people have the wrong "spirit" behind them?

{snicker}

(07-15-2013 01:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:47 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:41 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Funny I thought I posted the Texas standards. Run away little lamb you can't admit this is a reasonable bill..

imma answer both of you guys in one post

i compare this bill to the voter ID issue, a sensible reasonable argument from the conservative side. but they.......

1. try to push this type of legislation through state senates very fast and not using normal procedures. they say "oh its not political....its in the general intrest of the public". but if that was the truth they would let this legislation be passed bi partisan, allowing months of debate, amendments be added and let it be implemented over a long period of time so that this can be implemented without disenfranchising voters, or putting an unnecessary burden on abortion clinics

2. voter fraud is not coming close to affecting elections, & the vast majority of abortion clinics are not coming close to having high percentages of death rates, complications, abuse etc.

these are two made up problems with reasonable "fixes" being implemented in a way to allow a hidden agenda affect voters/abortion clinics

#FAIL


Answer the question. You know...the one I asked.

oh i see, cant make a counter argument so you just add a #FAIL

and FYI i answered your question perfectly.

#FAIL

What part of the bill do you disagree with. Why?

Lets try this again.

i disagree with the 4th part of the bil (abortion inducing medication ban) but the biggest reason i disagree with this bill was the way it was implemented

saying "why do you disagree with this bill?....but you can only refer to the bill itself and not how it was implemented."

is like a restaurant owner........

saying "why is my restaurant terrible?...but you can only cite the (tasty) food as an example and not the (******) service.

get a freaking clue dude....

You've been told.... This bill does not ban any chemical procedure what happened was the dems tried to amend the bill to expand it and that amendment was rejected..

(07-15-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  saying the anti abortion movement is not fueled by religion is like saying amy whinehouse's never used drugs

Should it matter if the specifics of this bill are not religious? It's not at all logical or reasonable to reject something because you don't like the people doing it. That makes you a zealot..

(07-15-2013 04:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:47 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:41 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  #FAIL


Answer the question. You know...the one I asked.

oh i see, cant make a counter argument so you just add a #FAIL

and FYI i answered your question perfectly.

#FAIL

What part of the bill do you disagree with. Why?

Lets try this again.

i disagree with the 4th part of the bil (abortion inducing medication ban) but the biggest reason i disagree with this bill was the way it was implemented

saying "why do you disagree with this bill?....but you can only refer to the bill itself and not how it was implemented."

is like a restaurant owner........

saying "why is my restaurant terrible?...but you can only cite the (tasty) food as an example and not the (******) service.

get a freaking clue dude....

You've been told.... This bill does not ban any chemical procedure what happened was the dems tried to amend the bill to expand it and that amendment was rejected..

Reading is hard....

(07-15-2013 01:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ive already mentioned this multiple times on the other thread. the texas bill has 4 main parts......you only mentioned 3......

the 4th part practically bans all forms of abortion inducing medication........

but yeah....this bill is all about safety & womens rights

So it's the drugs you have a problem with? Why?

anytime politics/religion dictates the direction of science or medicine.....the general public losses every single time

So science and medicine should not be constrained by ethics?

It's amusing that every lib comes in with the same willful ignorance of history and philosophy, in addition to their ignorance of science, math and reason.

but whose ethics?

the ethics saying that killing a fetus is wrong? or the logic that no law can account for every medical event, or the ethics that govt shouldnt tell a women what she can do with her body, or the philosophy that religion shouldnt influence legislation

You can say that about any piece of legislation, and a great deal of content in a society.

Your excuse simply boils down to, "It's hard, and I may not like the outcome, so I'll try to avoid it."

Herein lies the problem liberals have with this bill. It is because it is viewed as anti-black. The rest is just window dressing for the "lets not address the real problem" liberals.

Quote:According to the Guttmacher Institute, abortion rates among Black women are much higher than we thought: They are four times the rate of white women. The report found that on average, 41 in 1,000 pregnancies among Black women (ages 15-19) are terminated compared to 10 among white women and 20 among Latinas.

And then there is this...

Quote:The highest abortion rates among Black teens occur in Texas (78 per 1,000), New York (76 per 1,000), Delaware (51 per 1,000), Michigan (45 per 1,000), Ohio (35 per 1,000) and Rhode Island (30 per 1,000).

It not religious at all. The Texas legislature is actually addressing problems.

(07-15-2013 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The law basically says you must use drugs approved by the FDA for inducing an abortion, as opposed to some other drug that has an "off label" use as an abortion drug. Does it not make sense to you that something the FDA has approved for use as an abortion drug is safer than something they have not? I'll join with you 100% that the FDA is slow and often a problem... but the state is not the problem here.

the FDA doesnt regulate HOW TO USE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, they let doctors decide that

The FDA absolutely regulates how we are allowed to use prescription drugs. They don't prohibit off label indications. But a physician is taking a risk when he goes off label. A bad outcome essential guarantees a lost malpractice case. Maybe that's what you mean. They don't prohibit off label usage. I consider it a risk to go off label.

(07-17-2013 07:12 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 02:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

Hambone10 Wrote:The law basically says you must use drugs approved by the FDA for inducing an abortion, as opposed to some other drug that has an "off label" use as an abortion drug. Does it not make sense to you that something the FDA has approved for use as an abortion drug is safer than something they have not? I'll join with you 100% that the FDA is slow and often a problem... but the state is not the problem here.

the FDA doesnt regulate HOW TO USE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, they let doctors decide that

The FDA absolutely regulates how we are allowed to use prescription drugs. They don't prohibit off label indications. But a physician is taking a risk when he goes off label. A bad outcome essential guarantees a lost malpractice case. Maybe that's what you mean. They don't prohibit off label usage. I consider it a risk to go off label.

The quote function betrayed you here... FIFY, but you are correct

Think about this in terms of liability.

This is a government supported facility providing these services. Why should they be allowed to administer drugs not approved by an agency of the government for that use? If you want a HUD loan, you have to use a HUD approved lender and appraiser to limit the exposure.

Are we really arguing that the FDA doesn't regulate drug prescriptions or that "as tested and approved" uses aren't likely safer than NOT "as tested and approved"?

Its as if the left on this issue is just flailing around on the issue hoping they can get ANYthing to stick

I went over this before but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Sometimes parents don't know that there is a genetic defect until the third trimester. This bill to me sure seems like it will require those parents to carry the child all the way to birth. Is that reasonable? Do you really know better than another family? It just seems like a form of psychological torture to me. You know the child is going to die but carry on with the pregnancy anyways.

(07-17-2013 03:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I went over this before but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Sometimes parents don't know that there is a genetic defect until the third trimester. This bill to me sure seems like it will require those parents to carry the child all the way to birth. Is that reasonable? Do you really know better than another family? It just seems like a form of psychological torture to me. You know the child is going to die but carry on with the pregnancy anyways.

Where is your link?

(07-17-2013 03:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 03:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I went over this before but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Sometimes parents don't know that there is a genetic defect until the third trimester. This bill to me sure seems like it will require those parents to carry the child all the way to birth. Is that reasonable? Do you really know better than another family? It just seems like a form of psychological torture to me. You know the child is going to die but carry on with the pregnancy anyways.

Where is your link?

Maybe if we find the defect at Birth we can snuff the freaks out then. Apparently they are less human if they have defects..

This is a sensibly reasonable bill. I suspect those that would be against it would advocate for truck tailgate abortions. You loons make your cause look as foolish as some nut bombing a clinic.

Loons?

Here's a site from the CDC. Pay particular attention to the coats associated to the families who have children with a birth defect. Maybe you can shrug that off but to many people it destroys a family. I'm going to look at divorce rates of parents with a child who is disabled. i honestly don't know. It can probably work both ways. But if you force people to have children who can't handle it. Disaster.

http://www.cdc.gov/features/birthdefects/

http://www.children-and-divorce.com/divo...ities.html

It's all over the place but this link says 85% higher chance at divorce.

(07-17-2013 03:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Loons?

Here's a site from the CDC. Pay particular attention to the coats associated to the families who have children with a birth defect. Maybe you can shrug that off but to many people it destroys a family. I'm going to look at divorce rates of parents with a child who is disabled. i honestly don't know. It can probably work both ways. But if you force people to have children who can't handle it. Disaster.

http://www.cdc.gov/features/birthdefects/

I understand where your personal feeling on this stand from your experiences Mach. I support this bill because I believe it reduces harm. As with any legislation...there will be unintended consequences and It will never be perfect. Reduction of harm should be our goal.

My comment was aimed at those that seem to object to ANY type of regulation of abortion. I don't think that would include you.

Fo,

It goes to everything. When you force someone to care for a child I can see nothing but disaster. You have kids. You know the struggles. How damn hard it is to do the right thing by them. It's hard... it's damn hard. Now put a kid in a situation where the PARENT DIDN"T WANT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT BOGGLES MY FCKIN MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's madness. You are saying and everyone who supports this is saying I know better than someone else. That's what it boils down to. I don't understand it. I will never understand it and what makes it worse for me. It's que sera sera once it's born. The ******* GOP has it ass backwards. If you characters cared 1/5th as much as you do pre birth as you do post birth I could stand back and let be what would be

but NOOOOOO..... Health Care....... You are on your own buckaroo!

Education.... let's privatize it all!!! Let's separate the state and education.

It's crazy it's madness and I can't ******* stand it.

Cue the retard to post some more abortion pictures. The gash in the base of the baby skull was a particularly pleasant one!

(07-17-2013 04:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Fo,

It goes to everything. When you force someone to care for a child I can see nothing but disaster. You have kids. You know the struggles. How damn hard it is to do the right thing by them. It's hard... it's damn hard. Now put a kid in a situation where the PARENT DIDN"T WANT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT BOGGLES MY FCKIN MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's madness. You are saying and everyone who supports this is saying I know better than someone else. That's what it boils down to. I don't understand it. I will never understand it and what makes it worse for me. It's que sera sera once it's born. The ******* GOP has it ass backwards. If you characters cared 1/5th as much as you do pre birth as you do post birth I could stand back and let be what would be

but NOOOOOO..... Health Care....... You are on your own buckaroo!

Education.... let's privatize it all!!! Let's separate the state and education.

It's crazy it's madness and I can't ******* stand it.

Cue the retard to post some more abortion pictures. The gash in the base of the baby skull was a particularly pleasant one!

Mach....A woman has 20 weeks to figure this stuff out. My suggestion is more pre screening for birth defects so they will have know the chances and be able to terminate in that time frame if wished. Again..I understand your angst due to your personal history.

Hell...I know people that knowingly have had a kid with a birth defect after they knew the chances were high because of family history. Evident ly the drive for parenthood is pretty damn strong with some folks. I would not do that. I can't put my self in those shoes and I won't judge them other than they gambled...and it happened.

My wife and I were trying to have another child when my daughter was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes at 18 months. We chose at that point not to risk it again even though there is little known causal relationship in T1 and family history. Somewhere down the line we need to look at ourselves in the mirror and not be selfish. I agree bringing a child in the world with a birth defect or serious medical condition would be tough. My problem is people constantly roll the dice knowing there is a chance it might happen.

I agree with you on one point Mach. The GOP contradicts itself on this issue when it comes to the children born into poverty. They do not fight as hard for the born as they do the unborn. It is one of the reasons I could not be a member of that gang.

Fo,

You know how I feel about you. I respect the hell out of you. You are good people.


It just makes my blood boil though when people think they know better than someone else. That's it. This issue is like a red flag and I'm a brahma bull in the ring. I should avoid it. Sharp swords are behind it, but I have to charge it. I honestly can't stand it. Just pisses me off.

I think a lot of people were upset by that one elected official that said that rape kits will keep rape victims from getting pregnant.