The New Texas Abortion Laws

[Stooo]

Six week maximum and a greater penalty than rape if it's out of term let alone the $10,000 snitch line.

What's that all about?

[drum]

It's a bloody nonsense. Women's bodies womens choice. This will just push women back to back street abortionists, those who can afford will travel outwith Texas to get the procedure too.
Most women don't know they're pregnant at 6 weeks or are just finding out.

Will Texas force the fathers of these unwanted pregnancies' to pay half their life income towards raising such a child?

[Maddog]

It's a bloody nonsense. Women's bodies womens choice. This will just push women back to back street abortionists, those who can afford will travel outwith Texas to get the procedure too.
Most women don't know they're pregnant at 6 weeks or are just finding out.

Will Texas force the fathers of these unwanted pregnancies' to pay half their life income towards raising such a child?

Texas will put the fathers in jail on weekends if they don't pay child support. There are all sorts of things that happen to fathers that don't pay support.

That's why a lot of men are pro choice.. An abortion is a lot cheaper than a kid.

[Maddog]

Six week maximum and a greater penalty than rape if it's out of term let alone the $10,000 snitch line.

What's that all about?

I'm not aware of any additional criminal penalties. That's how it's getting around Roe v Wade.


It's all civil penalties as in a law suit.

It's very convoluted and sets a terrible precedent.

Everything about abortion is convoluted here since Roe v Wade. The Supremes legislated from the bench in 1973 by interpreting the 14th amendment to grant a right to an abortion. It's been a fucking legal mess ever since.

[Stooo]

Six week maximum and a greater penalty than rape if it's out of term let alone the $10,000 snitch line.

What's that all about?

I'm not aware of any additional criminal penalties. That's how it's getting around Roe v Wade.


It's all civil penalties as in a law suit.

It's very convoluted and sets a terrible precedent.

Everything about abortion is convoluted here since Roe v Wade. The Supremes legislated from the bench in 1973 by interpreting the 14th amendment to grant a right to an abortion. It's been a fucking legal mess ever since.

Why not just let people get on with their own business, why further complicate it? Snitch lines and you're worried about communism?

[Maddog]

Six week maximum and a greater penalty than rape if it's out of term let alone the $10,000 snitch line.

What's that all about?

I'm not aware of any additional criminal penalties. That's how it's getting around Roe v Wade.


It's all civil penalties as in a law suit.

It's very convoluted and sets a terrible precedent.

Everything about abortion is convoluted here since Roe v Wade. The Supremes legislated from the bench in 1973 by interpreting the 14th amendment to grant a right to an abortion. It's been a fucking legal mess ever since.

Why not just let people get on with their own business, why further complicate it? Snitch lines and you're worried about communism?

The Supreme Court probably should have done that back in 1973.

Now we have a mess. Abortion has been in the courts for 50 years because of how it was "legalized" everywhere.

I think we are getting close to seeing Roe v Wade overturned and abortion will either become federal law, or it's kicked back to the states where it belongs, absent a federal law.

[Guest]

More accurately Roe v Wade said a person has the right to control their own body - which it seems is a principle Gregg Abbott supports so much he will literally put thousands at risk by opposing mask mandates in a pandemic but is 'shameful' when it's letting women make their own mental and sexual health decisions.

[Maddog]

More accurately Roe v Wade said a person has the right to control their own body - which it seems is a principle Gregg Abbott supports so much he will literally put thousands at risk by opposing mask mandates in a pandemic but is 'shameful' when it's letting women make their own mental and sexual health decisions.

It said you can control your own body for the first 3 months of a pregnancy based on amendment that gave all citizens equal protection under the law, after the Civil War.

After 3 months you didn't have control of your body based on that amendment.

And of course 3 years later, we said that while you had a right to the medical treatment needed for an abortion, this particular medical treatment couldn't be paid for with federal money.

And here we are, 50 years later, dealing with the affects of the Court wanting to make abortion legal in 50 states instead of 20, by seeing something that was never there, and ignoring the 10th, which is plain as day.


Too many people are hung up on whether abortion is a good idea or a bad idea. The question to the Supreme Court is whether the constitution protects abortion.

It doesn't. It was written and amended to separate powers. That separation grants the states the power to make laws except when the constitution prohibits them.

Like in the case of slavery. In 1866 we didn't pretend that slavery was unconstitutional (in spite of the emancipation Proclamation) and equal protection was the law.

We amended the constitution to settle that shit.

[Cactus Jack]

Don't try to mealy mouth your way out of the fucking hypocrisy.

If a person's right to control their own body is so important you're prepared to let a million Typhoid Mary's wander around spreading death to thousands then it's equally important for a woman to have control of her own body from the moment of conception right up to the moment of birth.

A woman going into the delivery room with a choice between saving herself and saving the, at that point, still unborn child should be free to choose either, the choice is hers and hers alone. She is not your slave, she is not Greg Abbott's property. If she chooses to give up her chance at survival to save the child then good for her, if she doesn't good for her. That applies if there's a 1% chance she will come to harm or a 100% chance she will come to harm - and if you disagree set a percentage and we'll apply it across the board to male and female.

[Maddog]

Don't try to mealy mouth your way out of the fucking hypocrisy.

If a person's right to control their own body is so important you're prepared to let a million Typhoid Mary's wander around spreading death to thousands then it's equally important for a woman to have control of her own body from the moment of conception right up to the moment of birth.

A woman going into the delivery room with a choice between saving herself and saving the, at that point, still unborn child should be free to choose either, the choice is hers and hers alone. She is not your slave, she is not Greg Abbott's property. If she chooses to give up her chance at survival to save the child then good for her, if she doesn't good for her. That applies if there's a 1% chance she will come to harm or a 100% chance she will come to harm - and if you disagree set a percentage and we'll apply it across the board to male and female.

I support woman's right to an abortion. At least in the first trimester. And afterwards in the event her life is in danger.

But the 14th amendment doesn't address that right.

I also think this law new Texas law is a stupid idea that sets more dangerous precedents.

[Cactus Jack]

The 14th Amendment does address that right - it may not have intended to in the same way way that those who crafted the First Amendment may not have intended to make watching women have sex with multiple men in variety of slightly uncomfortable positions but that is what they did.

This is the slow moving coup. After having stolen two SCOTUS picks Texas is passing a law that plainly violates Roe v Wade in the hope of getting that law in front of the Supreme Court and getting Roe v Wade overturned.

That is why Joe Biden should make it clear that if this goes before the Supreme Court he will appoint ten new Supreme Court Justices - each one a Black woman - and have them enpanelled in time shoot this nonsense down before it gets started.

[Raggamuffin]

Women who have abortions aren't controlling their own bodies though, they're asking someone else to do it for them.

[Maddog]

The 14th Amendment does address that right - it may not have intended to in the same way way that those who crafted the First Amendment may not have intended to make watching women have sex with multiple men in variety of slightly uncomfortable positions but that is what they did.

This is the slow moving coup. After having stolen two SCOTUS picks Texas is passing a law that plainly violates Roe v Wade in the hope of getting that law in front of the Supreme Court and getting Roe v Wade overturned.

That is why Joe Biden should make it clear that if this goes before the Supreme Court he will appoint ten new Supreme Court Justices - each one a Black woman - and have them enpanelled in time shoot this nonsense down before it gets started.

Then the 10th amendment does address it.

[Maddog]

Women who have abortions aren't controlling their own bodies though, they're asking someone else to do it for them.

Yeah, the argument is sorta lame. No one is saying women can't control their bodies. Unless there is another entity involved..


When there are multiple life forms involved, both have to be acknowledged. One may take precedence for awhile.

[drum]

Women who have abortions aren't controlling their own bodies though, they're asking someone else to do it for them.

They are in control of the choice, which is their right. Obviously if you have a bunch of rogue cells invading your body and you want them gone you approach medical assistance. Or in the state of Texas and other countries who banned or reduced abortion times, they just go to the next state who will help them terminate. Rich women will always be able to have abortions, poor women not so much so it's just another attack on poor people.