Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 10, 2019

The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law, mandating doctors perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before they can perform abortions.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the cited article:

...The Kentucky law, which requires a doctor to describe an ultrasound in detail while a pregnant woman hears the fetal heartbeat, was passed in 2017....


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 12:58 PM | Reply

Politicians forcing us to act out their horror story.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-12-09 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I think this is a good law, because it reminds a woman that SHE HAS A HUMAN INSIDE HER with a beating heart.

#3 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-09 01:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How stupid do you think women are, that they don't know where babies come from?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 01:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I think this is a good law, because it reminds a woman that SHE HAS A HUMAN INSIDE HER with a beating heart.

#3 | Posted by boaz

She probably knows far better than you do.

And it's not a beating heart you ignorant ----.

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-09 01:55 PM | Reply

Procedurally, how does the supreme court decide to not hear an appeal?

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 02:01 PM | Reply

And it's not a beating heart you ignorant ----.

Wow. I would ask for you to explain, but I risk going deep into the --------- that is your liberal, twisted mind.

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-09 02:02 PM | Reply

"how does the supreme court decide to not hear an appeal?"

They "refuse to take" the case, leaving the lower court decision as the final one.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-09 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

but how? do they vote? The chief justice decides? what?

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 02:03 PM | Reply

"I would ask for you to explain'

Cells pulse, long before the heart has formed. The pulsing is IN NO WAY a "beating heart", despite what you might've been told.

It's like pretending the fetus can "feel pain", when pathways for feeling pain are still undeveloped.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-09 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advertisement

Advertisement

law.freeadvice.com

so, if only 3 want to hear the case, they won't hear it? If 4 want to, then they will?

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 02:05 PM | Reply

"but how? do they vote? "

Four justices must sign on to hearing the case. One might be spearheading, in an effort to get three more. If that doesn't happen, they'll inform the public and the lower courts.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-09 02:07 PM | Reply

"so, if only 3 want to hear the case, they won't hear it? If 4 want to, then they will?"

Yep.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-09 02:07 PM | Reply

and lemme guess....we don't get to know who wouldn't agree to hear the case? We can assume at least 6 said no?

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 02:09 PM | Reply

And it's not a beating heart you ignorant ----.

Wow. I would ask for you to explain, but I risk going deep into the --------- that is your liberal, twisted mind.

#7 | Posted by boaz

You can take cells from an adult, turn them into stem cells then cause them to differentiate into heart cells (called myocytes).

Guess what they do? They pulse rhythmically in a dish. Why? Because it's an inherent trait of that cell type.

There is nothing resembling the organ we call a heart present.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-09 02:10 PM | Reply

#15 Interesting stuff. I did not know that.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 02:11 PM | Reply

#15,

But does that indicate that there is life there?

And why is it a heart can be seen beating on the sonar gram?

#17 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-09 02:17 PM | Reply

why is it a heart can be seen beating on the sonar gram?

Electrical impulses flowing through tissue.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-09 02:19 PM | Reply

"But does that indicate that there is life there?"

In the Petri dish? No.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-09 02:27 PM | Reply

@#2 ... Politicians forcing us to act out their horror story. ...

That's my concern with the law -- it forces the legislators' opinions into the private conversation that should occur solely between a doctor and her patient.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-09 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But does that indicate that there is life there?

And why is it a heart can be seen beating on the sonar gram?

#17 | POSTED BY BOAZ

It indicates there's living cells. It's up to you how you define "life". Living cells, viable fetus? We're getting into why 25 or so weeks is the key time point.

What you're seeing beating is the mass of heart cells contracting. Truthfully, I'm not even sure there a cardiovascular system in place for the "heart" to move fluid through. I'd have to check on that.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-09 03:11 PM | Reply

#16

www.jove.com

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) were a big thing about ten years ago during the whole stem cell research debate during the Bush years.

I was in early graduate school at the time so I followed it rather closely. It's a cool technology only made possible by those evil librul scientists killing babies!

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-09 03:15 PM | Reply

You don't care about the unborn Boaz. You just want control over their bodies and their decisions.

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-09 03:17 PM | Reply

I'd take Republicans' pro-life positions a lot more seriously if they gave a rip about what happened to people after they exit the womb.

75% of abortion patients are poor or low income. Restricting abortions means more poor babies that Republicans want to do nothing to help.

Republicans should be cheering every time a poor person gets an abortion. Less "free stuff" they have to give after getting "robbed" by the IRS. Instead, inexplicably, they want to increase human suffering.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-09 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You don't care about the unborn Boaz. You just want control over their bodies and their decisions.

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr

You suck at trolling Laura...

#25 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-09 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'd take Republicans' pro-life positions a lot more seriously if they gave a rip about what happened to people after they exit the womb.

Why are you also pissed at the woman who made the choice to get prego? Why is it all of a sudden societies problem because a woman gets pregnant? Maybe, just maybe, she should have thought about that before she had sex. I'm just sayin...

#26 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-09 03:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

What you're seeing beating is the mass of heart cells contracting. Truthfully, I'm not even sure there a cardiovascular system in place for the "heart" to move fluid through. I'd have to check on that.

Which, in my personal opinion, is why I'm for abortion up to and until about two or three months. Anything after that, I consider it a human being and the woman and the man who made it need to step up as parents.

#27 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-09 03:45 PM | Reply

You suck at trolling Laura...

Posted by boaz at 2019-12-09 03:42 PM | Reply

Stating facts is not trolling slick. Do try and keep up.

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-09 03:50 PM | Reply

"Republicans should be cheering every time a poor person gets an abortion."

If you could only get them to do that.

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-09 04:07 PM | Reply

Stating facts is not trolling slick. Do try and keep up.

#28 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Falsely assigning a position to someone isn't stating facts, slick.

Do try and keep up.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 04:11 PM | Reply

Falsely assigning a position to someone isn't stating facts, slick.

Do try and keep up.

Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 04:11 PM | Reply

His posting history bears this out slick.

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-09 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#31 No, it really doesn't.

This does not comport with your characterization of Boaz's views on the subject:

Which, in my personal opinion, is why I'm for abortion up to and until about two or three months. ...

#27 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Do try again, slick.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-09 04:18 PM | Reply

Why are you also pissed at the woman who made the choice to get prego? Why is it all of a sudden societies problem because a woman gets pregnant?

Perhaps i am. But my being "pissed" at an irresponsible pregnant mother does not translate into a willingness to allow an innocent child to starve.

Republicans seem to love taking out their rage at parents' crimes on their innocent kids. Must be something i missed at bible class.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-09 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How stupid do you think women are, that they don't know where babies come from?

#4 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No more stupid than people who say I shouldn't hunt and should get my meat from the grocery store instead, where no animals get harmed.

#34 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-12-09 04:45 PM | Reply

Laura,

"You don't care about the unborn Boaz."

Interesting use of the word, "unborn".

You are admitting this is something that left alone would ultimately be "born".

It is a life. Just not yet born.

Personally, I think the defining difference between pro-choice and pro-life is whether one uploads and believes in the Sanctity of Life.

I've said time and again I would feel better about pro-choice philosophy if it included the idea the piece of meat being removed is actually a life but that.... the woman reserves the right to control her body. That would make sense. Still morally wrong but makes sense.

But that's not how its played. Pro-choice folks say it's not even a life. In my opinion that's just a way to deal with the knowledge they are killing their own child. Once you admit that, it's a whole new game.

#35 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-09 08:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"You are admitting this is something that left alone would ultimately be "born".

It is a life. Just not yet born."

Men like Boaz and BillJohnson amaze me.

They think women don't know that pregnancy results in childbirth.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-09 08:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"No more stupid than people who say I shouldn't hunt and should get my meat from the grocery store instead..."

Nobody is saying that, bonehead.

#37 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-12-09 08:17 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

People like Snoofy amaze me.

Abortions result in someone dying.

#38 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-09 08:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

You know....flagging my comment funny is sort of morbid.

There is nothing funny about abortion.

#39 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-09 08:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Abortions result in someone dying." - #38 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-09 08:46 PM

Not since the 1973 SCOTUS decision legalizing abortion.

At least not in the numbers women were dying before that decision.

#40 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-09 08:58 PM | Reply

Hans,

"Not since the 1973 SCOTUS decision legalizing abortion."

A court decision?

Are you serious?

#41 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-09 09:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It is a life. Just not yet born.
Personally, I think the defining difference between pro-choice and pro-life is whether one uploads and believes in the Sanctity of Life.
I've said time and again I would feel better about pro-choice philosophy if it included the idea the piece of meat being removed is actually a life but that.... the woman reserves the right to control her body. That would make sense. Still morally wrong but makes sense.
But that's not how its played. Pro-choice folks say it's not even a life. In my opinion that's just a way to deal with the knowledge they are killing their own child. Once you admit that, it's a whole new game.

POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2019-12-09 08:08 PM | REPLY

No dear it's a potential life. Life begins at first breath. That's biblical baby.

#42 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-09 09:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My grandson is 4 months old. In talking with my daughter when she let me know they were having a baby. She said she thought about an abortion, but when she heard that little heart beating she knew she could not do it.

I raised her well.

She values life.

#43 | Posted by sawdust at 2019-12-09 10:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Laura,

"No dear it's a potential life."

Then why do they have to kill it before removing it?

#44 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-09 10:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Then why do they have to kill it before removing it?

Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-09 10:23 PM | Reply

Because if it was out it would be a living being with all rights as you and I. Hence it would be murder then.

#45 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-09 10:34 PM | Reply

Which, in my personal opinion, is why I'm for abortion up to and until about two or three months.
#27 | Posted by boaz

So you're OK with abortion in the first trimester?

You're fine with 92% of abortions?

www.plannedparenthood.org

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-09 10:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comrades Boazo and Bill Johnson want the sad little men.
Their ------- crazy moms should have aborted them.

#47 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-12-10 01:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Monson,

You are the epitome of a broken record.

Your schtick is so monotonous....come up with some new material...

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-10 01:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Lest anyone think otherwise, while I do think abortion is the killing of a human being, I would not suggest abortion should be illegal.

It is morally wrong but a necessary evil.

Just like capital punishment.

I see it's place in society so long as the person is truly guilty. Our courts aren't perfect but nothing is.

At least with capital punishment the right person is paying the price for bad decisions, unlike abortion.

#49 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-10 07:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Personally, I think the defining difference between pro-choice and pro-life is whether one uploads and believes in the Sanctity of Life."

Horse crap. If you really believed in the "Sanctity of Life" then you'd also support Medicaid Expansion which the denial of causes thousands of deaths every year. If you are so supportive of the "Sanctity of Life" then you would support the things that help those lives continue and prosper. pro-life people need to recognize that their views are pretty questionable when they won't support the lives of those who are already born. To me, the entire abortion argument is really about politics, not lives. Those most opposed to abortion don't care about the lives of those they pretend to defend, it's really just politics.

#50 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-10 08:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Danni,

Stay on topic.

Abortion.

Don't extrapolate as a defense.

Actually it's ironic conservatives oppose abortion.

I mean...the majority of abortions are low income women who will likely give birth to people who will live off the government much of their lives.

#51 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-10 08:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Those most opposed to abortion don't care about the lives of those they pretend to defend, it's really just politics."

some, yes. but not all.

There are actually real pro-life folks out there you can't accuse of being a hypocrite.

You probably doubt that as it disrupts your belief system....so keep on with the hate parade.

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-10 08:56 AM | Reply

To me, the entire abortion argument is really about politics, not lives. Those most opposed to abortion don't care about the lives of those they pretend to defend, it's really just politics.

This. Except that the politicking goes both ways. Those screaming MY BODY the loudest are those who are the least likely to ever need the choice - they're just there for the political gain. Abortion is much like gun control in this sense - 10% of the population wails and shrieks from one side or the other, the media laps it up, and 90% of Americans just don't give a crap.

#53 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-12-10 09:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Actually it's ironic conservatives oppose abortion

Also this. Conservative vilification of abortion only started in the Falwell era. Likewise, progressive support for abortion on demand runs counter to empowerment of minorities. Margaret Sanger knew it.

#54 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-12-10 09:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

There are actually real pro-life folks out there you can't accuse of being a hypocrite.

#52 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Oooh... Oooh... pick me. I can.

Anyone who is "pro-life" but in favor of exceptions for rape or ------ is a hypocrite.

Either it is a life, and killing it is murder. And in this country we do not murder people because their parents screw up or break the law.

Or it is not a life, so exceptions for rape and ------ are arbitrary, and there is no reason to have any restrictions on abortion based on it being a human being.

#55 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-10 03:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Maybe, just maybe, she should have thought about that before she had sex. I'm just sayin...

#26 | POSTED BY BOAZ

This is what it is for most of them. They don't care about the fetus. It is not about "protecting life". It is about punishing the woman for having sex.

Which is why they are also always trying to make it difficult to get birth control. They think that by forcing a woman to risk having her life (or at least career) destroyed by bearing a child they will be able to stop women from having sex.

#56 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-10 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Anyone who is "pro-life" but in favor of exceptions for rape or ------ is a hypocrite.

Or a pragmatist rather than an ideologue, who realizes that to maintain a civil society, we need to strike a balance between competing interests and values.

#57 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-10 04:10 PM | Reply

Anyone who is "pro-life" ... is a hypocrite.
#57 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

FTFY.

No one is pro life.

They're pro birth. They also tend to be pro war, pro death penalty, pro gun, anti government assistance for children, anti government assistants for single mothers, anti government assistance for the poor.

They don't care about life.

Their only concern is controlling the lives of other people.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-10 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Or a pragmatist rather than an ideologue

#57 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Yep. Pragmatists fine with murdering babies (if you believe they are people, then it is murder, and you "pragmatically" believe in allowing that murder). I am sure there are some of those.

But I am pretty sure that it is really about punishing women for having sex. You talk to any pro-life person long enough and you will eventually hear about "the consequences of her actions" or that "she should have thought about that before" or whatever. But, in cases of rape and ------ it is not her "fault" that she got pregnant so they don't think she should be "punished" by being forced to bear the child. It is OK to punish the others because they "deserve" it.

#59 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-10 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Am I wrong here that the new laws says that the clinic can not refuse to show the woman the if she asks but does not require them to show her if she does not want to see it? Woman should have as many choices as possible and if some clinics were refusing to give her all the info she needs that both sides should support the law.

#60 | Posted by THomewood at 2019-12-11 02:18 AM | Reply

BOAZ

"I think this is a good law, because it reminds a woman that SHE HAS A HUMAN INSIDE HER with a beating heart."

It's Kentucky! That where every woman has a chance to be a mother and a grandmother by the time she's 16. Lucky her, huh?

#61 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-11 07:17 AM | Reply

#60 | POSTED BY THOMEWOOD

My understanding is that this is limiting choice. The doctors HAVE TO perform the ultrasound (regardless of the wishes of the woman) and have to describe it to her and have her listen to the sound of the heartbeat.

You seem to imply that some clinics refuse to give an ultrasound, or refuse to show it to the woman or refuse to inform her of the results. I have never heard of that being an issue. If you are saying that is an issue, can you provide a link?

#62 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-11 10:46 AM | Reply

She values life.

#43 | Posted by sawdust

While voting Republican to cut safety nets, shooing homeless away because they're icky and cheering when we start another unnecessary war for oil no doubt.

Good on her but don't pretend righties "value life".

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-11 11:58 AM | Reply

The doctors HAVE TO perform the ultrasound (regardless of the wishes of the woman) and have to describe it to her and have her listen to the sound of the heartbeat.

Sounds like emotional abuse and torture to me.

Why are righties such viciously nasty human beings?

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-11 12:00 PM | Reply

"She values life.
#43 | Posted by sawdust"

Whose life?
The mother or the fetus?

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-11 12:05 PM | Reply

"My understanding is that this is limiting choice. The doctors HAVE TO perform the ultrasound (regardless of the wishes of the woman) and have to describe it to her and have her listen to the sound of the heartbeat."

can someone confirm if that's true?

Do they have to perform the procedure or simply offer to perform it and document if the patient adamantly refuses to have it done?

I don't see how forcing the ultrasound against the woman's wishes passes the constitutional scrutiny of Roe. But.....I'm far from an expert on this.

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-11 12:26 PM | Reply

JPW

"Why are righties such viciously nasty human beings?"

They don't think they are. They think they're saving a life that God (not man) created.

What they're really doing is bringing back a cottage industry for coat hanger butchers. But that doesn't matter because they can sweep it under the rug like a bunch of phony evangelicals.

#67 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-11 12:30 PM | Reply

"Do they have to perform the procedure or simply offer to perform it and document if the patient adamantly refuses to have it done?"

Reading not your strong suit, Eberly?

"mandating doctors perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before they can perform abortions."

Figure it out, dummy.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-11 12:45 PM | Reply

Pretend all you want that group of cells isn't a baby if it makes you feel better about killing it.

#69 | Posted by homerj at 2019-12-11 01:30 PM | Reply

They don't think they are. They think they're saving a life that God (not man) created.

That's what they tell themselves in their self-righteousness.

But truth is once the kid is born all the "we're all God's children" nonsense goes right out the window.

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-11 01:37 PM | Reply

Do they have to perform the procedure or simply offer to perform it and document if the patient adamantly refuses to have it done?

I don't see how forcing the ultrasound against the woman's wishes passes the constitutional scrutiny of Roe. But.....I'm far from an expert on this.

#66 | POSTED BY EBERLY

"Challengers, including an abortion clinic, argued that the law forced patients to see the images even if she didn't want to, and that it violated doctors' First Amendment rights."

www.lex18.com

I think this law is disgusting, but from what I have read about it don't think it is unconstitutional. I do not think it would qualify as an "undue burden" placed on getting an abortion (mainly because I don't think intentionally inflicting psychological pain on a woman is considered a "burden"?) so I do not see how it would fall afoul of Roe.

And, as far as I know, people don't have a constitutional right NOT to hear speech (aside from anything that would fall under "cruel and unusual punishment"). And requiring a professional (doctor) to state facts and follow a specified process when performing a procedure also does not seem to be unconstitutional.

Where do you think it may run afoul of Roe?

#71 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-11 01:44 PM | Reply

Pretend all you want that group of cells isn't a mother if it makes you feel better about telling her she can't control her own pregnancy.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-11 01:46 PM | Reply

-I do not think it would qualify as an "undue burden" placed on getting an abortion (mainly because I don't think intentionally inflicting psychological pain on a woman is considered a "burden"?) so I do not see how it would fall afoul of Roe.

I would think that qualifies as an undue burden.....but that's just me.

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-11 01:51 PM | Reply

Pretend all you want that group of cells isn't a baby if it makes you feel better about killing it.

#69 | POSTED BY HOMERJ

So, how do you feel about exceptions for rape? Is it OK to kill a baby if its father is a rapist? Do you tell yourself that rapists only make a "group of cells"?

If conservatives advocated for banning abortion with no exceptions for rape and ------, then I would be a lot more sympathetic to the argument. But, their current stance of being in favor of murdering babies just because it wasn't the woman's "fault" that she got pregnant seems kinda arbitrary and capricious to me.

Do the actions/crimes/sins of its parents suddenly make a "baby" turn into a "group of cells" for conservatives? Or do they consider it a baby and STILL favor murdering it?

#74 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-11 01:52 PM | Reply

I would think that qualifies as an undue burden.....but that's just me.

#73 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I think the phrasing of my post was ambiguous.

To be clear, I personally think it is an "undue burden". My point was just that from what I understand of case law that a court would not consider it a "burden".

If doctors were required to perform an ultrasound before performing an abortion, I think we could agree that was not an "undue burden". Them being required to tell you pertinent facts related to your upcoming procedure I think we also would agree is not an "undue burden".

So, what it really comes down to is that conservatives are trying to inflict psychological trauma on a woman to try to convince her not to have an abortion. The methods are fine (ultrasound and verbal description). The CONTENT is what is objected to. The question is whether the courts will decide that something is an "undue burden" not because of the methods but because of the content. And I think they would not find it to be so, because there is no legislation or case law that gives them precedent to say so.

#75 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-11 02:04 PM | Reply

I think conservatives consider abortion a slippery slope to be watched.

Personally I doubt most conservatives would want to see legalized abortion totally banned.

But most do want restrictions. This particular case is about making sure women take this serious.

Sort of like requiring meat eaters to watch an animal be killed in order to buy a pound of ground beef. It's easy to forget just where your pack of ground beef came from or live in denial.

Where does it all end?

Could abortion lead to justified infanticide?

Or how easily will it be to move into a society of designer children casually aborting children considered undesirable.

This isn't just like pulling a tooth.

This is killing a human being simply for the convenience of not being stuck with a baby you don't want.

#76 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-11 04:21 PM | Reply

It forces a doctor to perform a procedure that is not medically necessary, potentially against the will of the woman it is being performed upon. Then it forces speech from the doctor whether the doctor wants to speak it and whether the woman wants to hear it or not. What other medically unnecessary procedures would you like to force doctors to perform? How about on MEN?

This from the same people who fear having the government controlling their lives.

#77 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-12 12:56 AM | Reply

"What other medically unnecessary procedures would you like to force doctors to perform? How about on MEN?"

Kamala Harris asked as much during Kavanaugh's hearing, whether or not there are ANY equivalents in the law affecting men. Turns out there are none.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-12 12:59 AM | Reply

"Where does it all end?'

With the woman and her doctor.

Would you rather the government make all the decisions, like forcing doctors to re-implant ectopic pregnancies, like Ohio wants to do? Even though 1) it would put the woman's life at serious risk, and 2) IT'S ------- IMPOSSIBLE.

That's the kind of crap you get when you let a bunch of old white impotent ignorant men make reproductive decisions for women.

#79 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-12 01:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This is killing a human being simply for the convenience of not being stuck with a baby you don't want."

If one plane crashed every day, would you think twice about flying?

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-12 01:04 AM | Reply

"If one plane crashed every day, would you think twice about flying?"

How about 200...PER DAY. Think twice, or not?

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-12 01:05 AM | Reply

If the government mandated men get vasectomies until they could provide for a baby they would have a conniption fit but they see no problem dictating what a woman can do and can't do with her body. It's bullschit.

#82 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-12 01:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Laura,

"If the government mandated men get vasectomies until they could provide for a baby they would have a conniption fit but they see no problem dictating what a woman can do and can't do with her body".

I do believe if a man is willing to sign an affidavit willing to be the legal guardian, the courts should block the woman from killing his child and hand over the child when it is born.

As far as vasectomies, maybe you're onto something?

Some serial "baby-makers" impregnating women and not taking responsibility...well...don't be so sure I would have a "conniption fit".

#83 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-12 05:54 AM | Reply

I do believe if a man is willing to sign an affidavit willing to be the legal guardian, the courts should block the woman from killing his child and hand over the child when it is born.

POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2019-12-12 05:54 AM | REPLY

It's not his place to decide if she has the unborn or not. It is solely her's and her's alone. Why do you think you have a right to dictate a woman's medical choices???

#84 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-12 06:02 AM | Reply

Jimmy Carter is a leftist and the best Christian I am aware of.

#20 | POSTED BY BORED

Why, because women are property, of course. Duh...

#85 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-12 08:04 AM | Reply

Sorry, wrong header. That was meant to reply to Laura.

#86 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-12 08:06 AM | Reply

Pretend all you want that group of cells isn't a baby if it makes you feel better about killing it.

#69 | POSTED BY HOMERJ

Look at those Crocodile tears as you lie.

Pretend that we abort babies all you want. Doesn't happen legally unles for medical reasons such as the life of the mother is in danger.

Only a fetus can be aborted legally.

Generally, in the US, abortion is an option from very early pregnancy (somewhere between 4-6 weeks, depending on where you go) until about 24 weeks. Abortions are available later than 24 weeks only in rare cases for medical reasons. (Planned Parenthood)

The fact that you have to lie says a lot about your own ethics. Not those of mothers making the most difficult decision of their lives.

#87 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-12 11:22 AM | Reply

"I do believe if a man is willing to sign an affidavit willing to be the legal guardian, the courts should block the woman from killing his child and hand over the child when it is born."

Don't know much about life do ya?

What about a Rapist? A molester? ------?

So you wish make the woman have a baby and give it away. If a man signs a paper saying he will take care of that baby.

You have no idea of the horrible situation you just set up.

Typical.

#88 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-12 11:28 AM | Reply

I do believe if a man is willing to sign an affidavit willing to be the legal guardian, the courts should block the woman from killing his child and hand over the child when it is born.

#83 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

As soon as he pays her reasonable rent for the child living in her body, then we can talk about such a plan.

#89 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-12-12 12:14 PM | Reply

Procedurally, how does the supreme court decide to not hear an appeal?

#6 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2019-12-09 02:01 PM | REPLY |

The Supreme Court decides to hear a case based on at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court agreeing to grant the Petition for Certiorari. If four Justices agree to grant the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case. A Petition for Certiorari is granted in very, few selected cases"fewer than 100 a year, by the Supreme Court of the United States.

A petition for Writ Certiorari is a request that the court hear your case. The Supreme Court receives over 5000 writs of Certiorari every year. Each writ and the case it comes from is reviewed the Supreme Court clerks and then shortened into a cert. memo. The cert. memo is what the Supreme Court justices use to actually decide the case. Upon reviewing the memo, the particular justice that the case was assigned to will either deny the appeal himself and affirm the appeals court judgment or will bring the cert. memo before the other justices and debate whether the case should be heard. In order for the case to be heard, four justices must agree to hear the case. This is known as the Rule of Four. If four justices vote to hear the case, then it is placed onto the court's docket and the parties and their attorney's are notified that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.

The court will typically grant the petitions of cases that are exceptionally unique and that present an issue of law that would be considered far-reaching throughout the United States. The Supreme Court also prefers cases that are clear examples for the lower court so that exact guidance can be given.

law.freeadvice.com

#90 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-12 12:42 PM | Reply

Sy,

OK...I'm sure something can worked out.

#91 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-12 02:02 PM | Reply

Laura,

"Why do you think you have a right to dictate a woman's medical choices???"

I'm talking about the father's reproductive rights.

Why shouldn't he have an opportunity to have a say on the matter?

Liberals have some odd logic when it comes to divvying up civil rights among all effected parties.

#92 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-12 02:20 PM | Reply

I'm talking about the father's reproductive rights.

What percentage of abortions do you believe are against the father's wishes.

I'm not doubting it occurs.

But, are we talking about 1% of all abortions? 5%?

#93 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-12 02:25 PM | Reply

"I'm talking about the father's reproductive rights."

Where in the Constitution -- or elsewhere -- are these rights enumerated, BillJohnson?

(I've never heard of them and I don't think they exist.)

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-12 02:25 PM | Reply

- Why shouldn't he have an opportunity to have a say on the matter?

Because he's not the one that might be dying in child birth.

As my old pastor once noted, if men could have abortions, they would have been legal starting 5,000 years ago.

#95 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-12 02:27 PM | Reply

"I'm talking about the father's reproductive rights."

Then the father can have the pregnancy implanted in him:
www.science20.com

Of course, it might kill him, but that wouldn't be a deterrent...right?

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-12 02:35 PM | Reply

I'm talking about the father's reproductive rights.
Why shouldn't he have an opportunity to have a say on the matter?
Liberals have some odd logic when it comes to divvying up civil rights among all effected parties.
POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2019-12-12 02:20 PM | REPLY

Because he isn't the one who can get pregnant. Until that happens he gets no say.

youtu.be

#97 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-12 02:49 PM | Reply

Abortions result in someone dying.

#38 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-09 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

So does polluting the ground, water and air.

So does kicking people off medicaid.

So does cutting food stamps.

So does allowing coal ash to be dumped in rivers.

So does cutting affordable health insurance.

So does the death penalty.

So does high prescription drug prices.

I might buy the GOP argument about abortion if they were consistently concerned about people dying.

#98 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-12 03:13 PM | Reply

BTW Trump's FAA administrator was cool with allowing the 737MAX to kill upwards of 3,000 people.

www.cbsnews.com

"Federal Aviation Administration officials Wednesday tried to defend the decisions they made after a 737 Max jet crashed in Indonesia last year. But in a Senate hearing, it was revealed they predicted a second malfunction was likely. Sadly, they were right, and the Max has been grounded ever since the deadly Ethiopian Airlines crash in March."

www.chicagobusiness.com

An internal FAA risk assessment conducted after a Lion Air flight crashed off the coast of Indonesia in October 2018, predicted another 15 of the jets would crash over the next 45 years without a fix, according to documents released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The analysis predicted there would be 15 fatal accidents killing 2,921 people over a 45-year period with a fleet of 4,800 of the aircraft. The results were based on what would happen if the agency had taken no action"and at that point the FAA had not only alerted pilots but was working with Boeing to redesign the plane, according to an agency official briefed on the matter who wasn't authorized to speak about it.

#99 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-12 03:18 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort