Texas

Will Texas' Use of 'Safety Regulations' to Close Abortion Clinics Be Declared Unconstitutional?

SCOTUS heard testimony last week.

|

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments involving the Texas Omnibus Abortion Bill (HB 2), which would restrict the procedure to surgical centers and require doctors who perform it to be near a hospital. (Elizabeth Nolan Brown first noted this at Hit & Run last week.)

If the court decides Texas' bill is unconstitutional, it'll set a precedent that will stop other states looking to close abortion clinics.

In 2013, Reason TV reported on Virginia's 2011 Senate Bill 924, which led to the closure of three clinics before state doctors lobbied the Board of Health to remove the restrictions in 2015. Click below to watch.

NEXT: Nancy Reagan, First Lady from 1981 to 1989, Dies at 94

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wait, you’re telling me that it’s possible for government regulations to strangle and end businesses? That increasing regulations doesn’t cause ponies and candy to magically rain from the sky, and that if we got rid of any regulations we wouldn’t immediately end up in some Mad Max style dystopia?

    You must be some type of right-wing tea bagging Koch sell out.

  2. Abandon ship!

    1. The conservative contortionist logic in this thread is bound to be delicious.

  3. Conservatives are so hypocritical in this regard. They use “safety” to justify shutting down abortions and then complain when liberals use “safety” to try to shut down gun rights. Get the gov’t out of the business of ensuring our safety–gov’t is the greater danger in nearly all cases.

    1. So today I learned that “hypocrisy” means “failure to realize that abortion is a sacred constitutional right like the right to bear arms.”

      1. Lol that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument he made.

      2. Vagina police is a Constitutional right. Women will have to be watched. From the first menses to the last. To make sure they don’t commit murder. The surveillance must be strict because them women are sneaky. Weekly testing is in order. Just to be sure.

        If we don’t do strict monitoring that would be unfair to the women who get caught. It would be unequal justice.

        1. Besides what better way to teach women the virtues of a police State?

          1. Ah Sez, restrict them that thar women-folks to State-licensed-and-inspected breeding farms, ’cause “every sperm is sacred”, and every un-fertilized egg cell… Said un-fertilized eggs cells have a soul waiting to be born, ya know, Government Almighty-Righty told me so,,, Has the RIGHT to be born!

            PLUS… Here comes my clinching argument… The more babies we have, now, the more SOLDIERS we will have, in the future, to preserve and protect The Empire of Trumpistanistanistan, DER VATERLANT!!!! Trump Heil!

    2. I’m going to agree with Notorious here. The right learned this backdoor prohibition nonsense from the left and there is a difference between a constitutional right and abortions.

      1. The right learned this backdoor prohibition nonsense from the left

        Little Bobby: “But Billy did it first!”

        *points at kindergarten classmate*

        Teacher: “If Billy jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?”

        1. Depends. Is Billy one of the cool kids?

      2. So, neither should fly, but you know as well as I do that any rejection of what Texas is doing will be the sort of ruling that is only applicable to abortion clinics which get some special exemption. The left has no opposition to what Texas is doing in terms of principles. They only object on the grounds that it’s this one particular thing they don’t want regulated.

        1. Well then. Can I object on a principled basis?

    3. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. The right to kill the unborn is not.

      Think; if (IF!) you thought that Abortion clinics were murdering millions of human beings, what tactics would you emply to stop it?

      1. Hmmm. *rubs chin*

        Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        1. You think the ninth amendment matters anymore.

          How quaint.

        2. There is, and should be, s distinction between those rights explicitly spelled,out and those referred to by implication.

          Also, if (and again, I say IF) you believe a fetus is human, then your argument would be that a right to murder is implied.

          1. There is, and should be, s distinction between those rights explicitly spelled,out and those referred to by implication.

            Except, there isn’t and your opinion is directly contradicted by the wording of 9A.

            Also, if (and again, I say IF) you believe a fetus is human, then your argument would be that a right to murder is implied.

            False premise.

            It is certainly human…cells. Killing human cells isn’t murder. I kill human cells everytime I scratch my ass. People have rights. Not cells. After it’s a person, it’s murder.

            1. Humans don’t become persons until they accept Christ.

              1. No, no, no…

                Humans don’t become persons until they get laid.

                Don’t you know anything?

                1. Leaves to go down to the high school and offer them personhood services.

              2. Humans don’t become persons-thetans till they accept L. Ron Hubbard, dammit!!!!

            2. “After it’s a person, it’s murder.”

              How do you feel about withholding food from a person who has no brain activity? Is it murder to take them off the machine?

              Is it murder if they have brain activity and you take them off the machine?

              You will be charged with murder. That is about the same level of personhood as a fetus at about 20 weeks, except the machine is replaced by the mother. To be consistent abortion after about 20 weeks should be treated as murder.

              1. If the patient has a significant chance of recovery to becoming a functioning adult I would absolutely consider it murder.

                1. If the patient has a significant chance of recovery to becoming a functioning adult I would absolutely consider it murder.

                  Almost every aborted fetus has a significant chance of becoming a functioning adult, even those that have not reached 20 weeks. For consistency you would consider every abortion to be murder.

                  The other problem, is “Who decides” if the patient has a significant chance of recovering? There is little certainty in medicine.

              2. How do you feel about withholding food from a person who has no brain activity?

                Here is how I’d define a person:

                A human (and I have an alternative if we ever discover ET) who is aware of its own existence.

                For ET:

                An entity who is aware of it’s own existence AND, as a species, can claim and explain the concept of rights.

                My reasoning…rights are are immaterial if one has no knowledge of their existence. So if I’m brain-dead, yes, feel free to stop spending money on me.

                The problem with both scenarios is that we have no fucking clue when a fetus is self aware and same with the supposed brain-dead. So I can articulate when there are rights conceptually, but can’t tell you when that is.

                Which is why I have no black and white position on abortion.

                1. we have no fucking clue when a fetus is self aware and same with the supposed brain-dead.

                  It’s not as bad as that. The lack of brain activity precludes self-awareness AFAIK.

                2. Franciso, that definition does not work, because babies only become aware of their own existence at around 18 months of age. So your definition would exclude babies.

          2. Abortion doesn’t kill the fetus, or at least doesn’t have to. Strictly speaking, abortion is just the eviction of the fetus. Forcing a mother to use her womb to carry the fetus to term against her will is a direct violation of the prohibition on involuntary servitude. What happens to the fetus after the abortion is a separate issue.

          3. No, killing another person is not murder, if that other person is located inside your body when you kill him. In that case, killing him is a form of justifiable homicide.

    4. I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily inconsistent for conservatives since defending the value of human life is at the center of both issues for them. With guns it’s the defense of one’s own life. With abortion it’s the defense of unborn life. I’d say liberals are much worse on this issue. No choice of defending your own life vs. Choice to terminate a life you made, as long as you’re the one with the vagina

      1. Btw on this issue, saying conservatives are acting in bad faith is just saying you don’t think they are justified in acting in bad faith. Imagine someone saying schindler acted in bad faith, only a psychopath would. In reality you only disagree over it being a matter of life and death. You haven’t advanced your argument.

  4. “SCOTUS heard testimony last week.”

    Really? They rarely hear testimony. Are you sure?

    1. Come on, you expect these guys to use accurate terminology?

  5. Assuming the case is not reargued, this case could only set a precedent if the restrictions are overturned (the result would have to be 5-3, since the only movable vote is Kennedy.

    If Kennedy decides that the restrictions are compatible with Casey, the result is a tie, which upholds the lower court decision, but does not set precedent. Other circuits would remain free to decide differently on similar restrictions, creating a circuit split ripe for return to the Supreme Court.

    Kennedy seems to be leaning towards overturning the lower decision, but I don’t think he is likely to create a broad ruling since the Casey framework is sufficient. He would probably be the one who wrote the opinion since he would have dibs.

  6. Be interesting to compare regulations on facilities that perform other medical procedures of similar risk.

    1. SCOTUS agreed with the FTC that allowing a state dental board to decide who was allowed to do teeth-whitening procedures and who was not was an anti-competitive restraint of trade – I want the state medical boards and the AMA to answer the question of why limiting the schools that can offer medical degrees and the requirements for certifying doctors and hospitals and clinics and so forth isn’t also an anti-competitive restraint of trade.

  7. Why do democrats hate science and democracy? Why do they oppose common sense restrictions to protect the health of the mother?

  8. What the plaintiffs in this case are asking for is that abortion clinics be given special exemption from regulation that do not apply to any other type of clinic offering ambulatory procedures. This is not defending a liberty principle but simply reinforcing abortion as a secular sacrament.

    1. No matter what the decision is, it won’t be based around principles grounded in law or the constitution, but the justices opinions of abortion.

      1. In the case of the proggy justices, yes.

        But, alas, alas, the conservative justices *won’t* impose their prolife views on the constitution.

        This is all the more interesting when the constitution itself speaks the rights of all “person[s]” to life.

  9. I just don’t see what any of this has to do with Donald Trump.

    1. Give it a minute

    2. It’s Donald Trump and terminating the life of a parasitic lump of cells that may or may not develop into a human being – what’s not to understand?

      1. Whenever someone on Reddit refers to their abortion at 12 weeks as “removing a clump of cells” I post a link to pictures of a 12 week old fetus. Most definitely not a clump of cells.

        Because I am an asshole.

    3. everything has to do with Donald Trump. Always has and always will , at least until after the republican convention .

    4. I’ll tell you what it has to do with Donald Trump. I’m a businessman. I mean, I’m terrific. And I’ve built abortion clinics. Believe me. They’re damn good. So women love me. Unlike Fist of Etiquette. Women hate him. And this is why I’m in the lead. Because of women. They have rights. This is what America needs. I will make abortion great again.

      1. What are you? Too good to change to a spoof screen name for that?

    5. Donald Trump’s hair is a sentient alien parasitic organism that cannot survive of its own. It is also the last male of its species and cannot reproduce until Donald Trump gets inside the White House. One of Washington’s wigs inside the White House is the last surviving female of the species. Would it be morally justified for Donald Trump to cut off his own scalp?

  10. Since abortions are “one of the safest procedures in contemporary [medical] practice” I wish people who support these regulations would simply admit the goal is to lower the number of abortions performed rather than meaningfully increase safety of it.

    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717375

    1. “” I wish people who support these regulations would simply admit the goal is to lower the number of abortions performed rather than meaningfully increase safety of it.””

      I’m sure that will happen as soon as the gun-controllers admit that they just want to disarm their political opponents

      1. I think there are significant differences between the two cases. With gun control two things can happen, simplistic thinking can win out (“the use of guns cause lots of deaths every year, so restrict or get rid of the guns and there will be fewer deaths) and/or data indicating positive effects of gun control can be appealed to (there are mixed studies and data about gun control). So, I think most people who support gun control support it because the want improved safety.

        With the safety of abortion, there’s not even a starting point. Abortions procedures are extremely safe. Maybe some people hear individual stories about women who have complications or die from having an abortion and then assume abortions are fairly dangerous. But this would only include people who are uninformed about the issue, which granted might include a large number of non-politicos.

        Allow me to change my wish. I wish people who knew administering abortions would not become meaningfully safer through these safety regulations would admit that the regulations are intended to lower the number of abortions rather than improve safety.

        In any case, the fact remains that these regulations would not significantly improve safety for abortion procedures. They certainly could reduce the number of abortions performed, however.

        1. ” I think most people who support gun control support it because the want improved safety.”

          The people who want gun control the most have never heard a shot fired in anger in their lives. They don’t have any danger in their lives at all.

          People who live in high-crime areas where there’s lots of gun-violence tend to be far more aware that the mere-existence of “laws” don’t prevent violence.

          There is no difference at all between these examples. “”The fact remains that these [gun] regulations would not significantly improve safety” applies equally. The 1994 AWB had no effect in crime or violence reduction.

          I don’t think abortion regulation is really about ‘safety’ either. I think all regulations are generally for their own-sake = to give politicians greater control over something which they can use pander to their irrational constituents with. Social-engineering via regulation is awful in the vast majority of its forms and people should always look for better “incentives or disincentives” rather than ‘rule-making’

          1. Notice the comments by Social Contractor and Notorious. They’ve indicated that at least some people are aware that these regulations are about decreasing the number of abortions. I suspect the activist from the Susan B. Anthony list thinks the same. What bothers me is the disingenuity of people like that activist who claim it’s for the safety of the women who want abortions, knowing full-well otherwise.

            1. “What bothers me is the disingenuity of people like that activist who claim it’s for the safety of the women who want abortions, knowing full-well otherwise.”

              “” knowing full-well otherwise””

              are you suggesting their proposed regulation is actually supposed to make things *more dangerous*?

              No one denies that the object of the proposals is to reduce abortions (*whether it would really do so in any material way, and whether or not that’s a bad thing, is just being assumed).

              and just to over-use the term “disingenuous” as much as possible… is your getting so-bothered by this because you really hate political misrepresentation? Or is it just this example that bothers you so much because its on the other side of some culture-war you give a shit about?

              1. If women are reduced to having abortions in illegal back alley clinics, then yes, it has the potential to make things more dangerous for women.

        2. The people supporting the regulations do not belief that a procedure that terminates a fetus is safe because they believe the fetus deserves to be kept safe. You might as well try to convince people against the death penalty that lethal injections are safe because they haven’t killed anyone but their intended target.

          1. And this demonstrates the motives. It’s not about improving the safety for the women in the procedure but to decrease the number of abortions performed. It is therefore disingenuous to claim these kinds of regulations are about safety for women.

            1. “”It is therefore disingenuous to claim these kinds of regulations are about safety for women.””

              And as already noted = “dis-ingenuousness of intent” is so widespread as to be the defining characteristic of most regulations.

              Pretending that this is some special, egregious case is silly.

              1. I see what you’re saying, and I agree with you to an extent, but we’ll also have to agree to disagree to an extent.

                1. “”I agree with you to an extent, but we’ll also have to agree to disagree to an extent.””

                  I see.

        3. I think its also worth noting that many “pro abortion” activists are equally mendacious in their general approach

          this story was one i found especially ridiculous =

          The U.N. Sent 3 Foreign Women To The U.S. To Assess Gender Equality. They Were Horrified.
          The human rights experts concluded that the country falls far behind most others.

          “The most telling moment of the trip, the women told reporters on Friday, was when they visited an abortion clinic in Alabama and experienced the hostile political climate around women’s reproductive rights.

          “We were harassed. There were two vigilante men waiting to insult us,” said Frances Raday, the delegate from the U.K. The men repeatedly shouted, “You’re murdering children!” at them as soon as they neared the clinic, even though Raday said they are clearly past childbearing age.

          “It’s a kind of terrorism,” added Eleonora Zielinska, the delegate from Poland. “To us, it was shocking.”

          Of course, it is completely un-noted in the story that abortion is still mostly illegal in Poland.

          The average HuffPo reader is simply expected to think “Ugh! Europeans are *so* enlightened!! And people in Alabama are just *so gross*”

          1. We were harassed. There were two vigilante men waiting to insult us,” said Frances Raday, the delegate from the U.K. The men repeatedly shouted, “You’re murdering children!” at them as soon as they neared the clinic,

            Not fans of free speech, I see.

    2. Wow, if a procedure which kills over 50% of patients is among the safest, what would the unsafe procedures look like?

      “I wish people who support these regulations would simply admit the goal is to lower the number of abortions performed rather than meaningfully increase safety of it.”

      Texas Right to Life supports lowering the number of abortions, and *also* supports regulating abortion mills as surgery centers.

      1. Wow, if a procedure which kills over 50% of patients is among the safest, what would the unsafe procedures look like?

        I think you’ve just demonstrated the motives behind the safety regulations–not to improve the safety for the women, but to try and decrease the number of abortions.

        Texas Right to Life supports lowering the number of abortions, and *also* supports regulating abortion mills as surgery centers.

        And do they admit that their support for the safety regulations are not about significantly improving safety for the women but about decreasing the number of abortions?

        1. I’ll add: I’m fine with people being open about their intent with these regulations. It’s simply disingenuous to claim these regulations are about the safety of the women if a person knows these regulations will not significantly improve safety for them.

          1. “Preventing the Keystone Pipeline was a major victory for the Environment!!” (cheers)
            “The NY SAFE Act will help prevent mass shootings!” (cheers)
            “Dodd-Frank is victory for Main Street versus Wall Steet!!” (cheers)
            “Getting rid of Gaddafi helped make the US Safer” (tepid applause)

          2. You think the the interests of women and their unborn children are always in conflict.

            Of course they do, from your “prochoice” point of view. To you, women have an interest in killing their children when they consider that to be inconvenient.

            So you know it would be disingenuous for *your* side to claim to be protecting both woman and child. (though some of your more wacko fellow-travellers talk about killing a child being in that child’s interest because it’s being spared a hard life, etc.)

            So of course you’re going to project this onto your opponents. So if prolifers advocate for the interests of the pregnant woman, you’ll assume they’re simply lying. Because *you* would be less than candid if you pretended to be concerned with the interests of both women *and* their children.

            But from its earliest days, the ranks of the prolife movement have been filled with lots of women – not just as foot soldiers, but as leaders. And prolife women tend to speak of protecting both women *and* children. When we see how many children these women are often caring for, then you’ll see some indication that maybe, just maybe, they’re sincere.

            1. And here’s a thought – maybe prolife *men* want to protect women, too.

              Maybe prochoice heroes like Hugh Hefner, Bill Clinton and Edward “bridge too far” Kennedy aren’t the *only* men who get the credit for supporting women.

            2. Notorious, I can’t understand your pushback, and it seems like your trying to sidestep the issue. I think the following is quite clear: Imagine a person knows that abortion procedures are very safe for the women involved. This person doesn’t like abortions, and they want to decrease the number of abortions any way they can. They therefore try to pass regulations to decrease the number of abortions but claim it’s to help protect the safety of the women involved, knowing that the regulations won’t make a significant change to the safety for women. The person is therefore being disingenuous about the whole issue by saying their motives are one thing, when in reality their motives are entirely different.

              Do you disagree with the above?

              The points that you make are probably important to talk about too, but they do not affect the above. Maybe we can talk about them another day.

              I think I’ve spend enough time on this for today. It seems clear to me that people who support these regulations because they want to decrease abortions should come out and say it rather than disingenuously claim that their support for the regulations are about the safety of the women. That’s all. You can have the last word if you like.

              1. I was going to ask you to give a name to “This person” who is waging a dishonest campaign.

                That is, someone who is prolife but is still deluded enough to think that abortion not risky for pregnant women.

                Seriously? Can you name anyone like that?

                1. Such a person could at the very least use the search terms “planned parenthood ambulance” in YouTube.

                  That would put paid to his belief that “abortion procedures are very safe for the women involved.”

                  1. Let me note that I have a sarcasm mode which I sometimes use inappropriately – even if my interlocutor is seriously trying to engage me.

                    I develop a certain persona to adapt to H&R, but if this persona isn’t the best to engage with you, let me know and I’ll try to be a bit less sarcastic.

    3. Well, the “abortions are super safe” argument kinda got shitcanned when the Kermit Gosnell abbatoir surfaced. See, if you are going to run an operation that a lot of people hate, you need to be squeeky clean. And the pro-abortion forces in Gosnell’s Sate couldn’t be bothered. Which alows people who want to limit access to abortion to say, with not too much dishonesty, “since you-all obviously don’t give a damn about the lives of poor women, I guess we have to take steps.”

      I favor broadly legal abortion, and I am so goddamned mad at the idiots who let Gosnell’s house of horrors slide that I can’t think of a,hell deep enough for them.

  11. Good god, one thread for pissing on some dead nonagenarian, who may or may not have been Hitler with cankles, and one for re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-fighting the abortion war. I hope all you “Enough with Trump” folks are pleased with yourselves.

    1. This is better than all the Trump stuff.

      1. I know, I just wanted to signal that I’m sickened by the Reagan thread and above this one, thus a better human being than most. Also have I mentioned that I don’t even own a TV?

        1. Well. I just happen to have a personal grudge with Nancy. But I’m willing to be the designated goat.

          1. “Designated Goat” great band name.

  12. Would you go back in time and abort Nancy Reagan?

    1. When e.g. Thomas Sowell dies, we will be okey-dokey with the left’s response?

      1. It was a joke.

        1. Apologies. I’m grumpy today.

  13. OT: War, the gift that keeps on giving. How many children of today’s vets, thanks to adoption and Viagra, will be collecting monthly stipends 150 years from now?

    WILKESBORO, N.C.?Each month, Irene Triplett collects $73.13 from the Department of Veterans Affairs, a pension payment for her father’s military service?in the Civil War.

    http://www.wsj.com/news/articl…..0954152394

  14. Miz Kitty: “It sez here the christianofascists want men with guns to shoot up the Planned Parenthood clinics “for safety”!
    Festus: “Git a rope!”

  15. Put an Atheist on the Supreme Court

    “…it would be a tribute to the secular principles upon which this country was founded.”

  16. Uriah Burke began his talk with a warning.

    “The Ph.D. philosophy student cautioned the audience that his lecture slides depicted “extraordinarily graphic” images of people in pain and invited those sensitive to such images to avert their eyes or leave the classroom.

    “The images in question did not depict battlefield carnage or grotesque violence, but a familiar and widespread surgical practice that several of the students gathered in Park Hall were likely to have experienced firsthand.”

    Don’t worry, it’s not abortion.

  17. Someone please point out in the U.S. Constitution and Bill Of Rights where a woman has the right to kill her baby…
    I’ve been searching and searching for it.
    Now my copy is all dog eared and I still haven’t found it!
    Please help!

  18. OK. I’m fine with outlawing abortion if it is treated as premeditated murder and we kill (well, execute is the term) the woman.

    Because if it is murder then it is murder one. And she initiated it. Contracted for it in fact. A contract murder.

    When confronted with that most anti-abortion folks say no. no. Only the doctor who did the job should be punished. And the woman should go free. And the punishment for the doctor should be on the order of misdemeanor manslaughter.

    And if that is the case I’d prefer that we just talk women out of it. Which seems to be having an effect.

    Heaven knows how zealous the police could get dealing with this crime. And the kinds of corruption that are likely to ensue. You know. “Have sex with me a few times and I will forget all about it.”

    Hasn’t the drug war taught you anti-abortion guys anything about police states? . Because if you tell the police it is murder how much more zealous will they be than when they are chasing drugs?

    Sometimes logistics overwhelms morality. Which is why we have a murder exception for war. It is still murder. We accept innocents will get killed in war. And that is certainly murder. “Nothing personal. We are just having a war.”

    Treating every miscarriage as a murder (until proven otherwise) is going to make women hate you. And they will join with those who oppose you. Is that the political result you desire? Because that is what “the Republican war on women” is all about.

    1. Wow.
      I hadn’t thought of it that way….
      Quick, like a bunny!!!
      Legalize murder before the police start chasing murderers with undo zest!!!

      1. We can handle 20K murders a year with some strain. How about 300K potential murders? They will need to be investigated. Lawyers will have to be provided for the indigent. And reasonably good ones. We don’t want to be killing too many innocent women due to error.

        And how will women feel, being constantly under suspicion? What will they do about it politically? Bernie is looking for allies. Care to give him 1/2 the population (at minimum)? You know what? My wife would insist I vote for her preferred candidates. And go to their rallies. Ugh.

        The problem with this question is that it has ramifications beyond criminalizing the act.

        Culture war on steroids.

        The reason the drug war has lasted so long is that it has affected directly only about 10% of the population. When you get that up to 50% it doesn’t last so long. See Prohibition, Alcohol.

        1. Wow, why don’t you run those scenarios of yours past Charmaine Yoest, Lila Rose, the Susan B. Anthony List, and all those fake women who are helping lead the prolife movement.

          1. Well Carrie Nation had a very positive effect on America. She is my hero. She was a roaring success in 1920 and by 1933 a total failure. These things happen when the utopia people imagine they will get by passing laws doesn’t work as advertised.

            Jaw boning is working. You start passing laws and you might get an effect opposite to the one you imagine.

            In any case you WILL get more police. The libertarian dream no doubt.

            1. I suppose it is because libertarians can’t imagine solving problems without the help of State goons.

              1. Similar to Republicans and Democrats.

            2. Yes, all those prolife women are (a) just like Carrie Nation, who (b) was responsible for the 18th Amendment.

              /sarc

              1. If women were all prochoice, then there wouldn’t be any chance at all of prolife laws getting adopted. It’s because of prolife women that prolife laws are even being passed at all, and why (largely male) judges keep having to be called in to strike those laws down.

                Of course, one point on which women voters *would* agree is to protect their 4th Amendment rights. Which is probably why out of all the 50 states, all of which used to ban abortion, you can’t really find examples of the things you predict.

                1. OK. I get it.

                  Police States are bad. Except for your issue which is so vitally important that a police State is worth it.

        2. What I never see mentioned in the “abortion wars” is the simple fact that it empowers women against abusive and lying men. It prevents abusive men from passing their abusive genes and/or abusive cultural inheritances further on down the line.
          Given that some substantial fraction of male humanoids are pathetical, sociapathic liars? “Love ya, Babe, Love ya, Love ya, Love ya, now PLEASE can I get into your pants”? ? Then as soon as loved-ya Babe gets pregnant, out comes the abuse, physical and psychological? The female veto of lying bastards is ABORTION! Lying bastard, ya lied, and ya lied BIG-time, to me?!?!? Pass on YOUR genes, and YOUR obviously pathetic potential as a father! Not just NO, but FUCK NO!!!! … I wish we voters had the same power to ABORT the powert of LYING bastards, like Woodrow Wilson, who ran to keep the boys at home, and sent them to war 3 months after taking power! And Bush Sr., “read my lips, gonna tax the HELL outta ya bastards”, he would’ve said, had he been honest. And anti-abortion fanatics are just so many more power-grabbing pigs, take my word please? They desire Government Almighty asserting its power over our collective wombs!

          1. “Given that some substantial fraction of male humanoids are pathetical, sociapathic liars”

            Fixed

            1. Hi Akira,

              You are correct, thanks!

              Last time I posted something similar to the above, a man or two ragged on me a bit about deceptive women. This does happen?
              I have heard of at least one case in which a desperate woman scrounged sperm out of a discarded condom to make herself pregnant… And yes, then the biological father was “on the hook”!
              So yes, there is scummishness of the XX variety, clearly, as well as the XY variety?

              1. It is a bad idea to take a nap “after”.

                Always flush.

  19. cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8894 a month. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out…..

    —- http://home-jobs63.tk/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.