For Texas Women, Access to Abortion K...

For Texas Women, Access to Abortion Keeps Dwindling, with No Hope in Sight

There are 50 comments on the Dallas Observer story from Mar 17, 2014, titled For Texas Women, Access to Abortion Keeps Dwindling, with No Hope in Sight. In it, Dallas Observer reports that:

Last year, Governor Rick Perry called the Texas Legislature to Austin for two special sessions, both focused on passing one of the country's most restrictive abortion laws.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Dallas Observer.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#1 Mar 17, 2014
The only hope for Texas women, is for us to rise up in a cohesive body and DEMAND an end to this insanity, with a Constitutional Amendment:

"The right of all born persons, regardless of gender, to choose medical treatment for any unwanted medical condition, shall not be infringed."

Should have been clamoring en masse for this fifty years ago.

As it stands, the right to 'privacy' has been pitifully standing in for the untrammeled right to make medical decisions for oneself, for far too long - as the onslaught of a minority's religious opinions, continues to carve vast swathes of territory where 'privacy' isn't a 'right' of pregnant women, at all.

If Texas women sit idly by, and allow this to happen continually, Personhood for fetuses will get there first.
Dan

United States

#2 Mar 17, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
The only hope for Texas women, is for us to rise up in a cohesive body and DEMAND an end to this insanity, with a Constitutional Amendment:
"The right of all born persons, regardless of gender, to choose medical treatment for any unwanted medical condition, shall not be infringed."
Should have been clamoring en masse for this fifty years ago.
As it stands, the right to 'privacy' has been pitifully standing in for the untrammeled right to make medical decisions for oneself, for far too long - as the onslaught of a minority's religious opinions, continues to carve vast swathes of territory where 'privacy' isn't a 'right' of pregnant women, at all.
If Texas women sit idly by, and allow this to happen continually, Personhood for fetuses will get there first.
The article paints a picture of demand outstripping supply.

Some private outfit can't come in, build a compliant center and serve the demand?

I think they could.
Dan

United States

#3 Mar 17, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
The only hope for Texas women, is for us to rise up in a cohesive body and DEMAND an end to this insanity, with a Constitutional Amendment:
"The right of all born persons, regardless of gender, to choose medical treatment for any unwanted medical condition, shall not be infringed."
Should have been clamoring en masse for this fifty years ago.
As it stands, the right to 'privacy' has been pitifully standing in for the untrammeled right to make medical decisions for oneself, for far too long - as the onslaught of a minority's religious opinions, continues to carve vast swathes of territory where 'privacy' isn't a 'right' of pregnant women, at all.
If Texas women sit idly by, and allow this to happen continually, Personhood for fetuses will get there first.
Odd statement here from you-

"......the right to 'privacy' has been pitifully standing in for the untrammeled right to make medical decisions for oneself, for far too long ".

Um, that's the very crux of RvW that decriminalized abortion. An unenumerated right to privacy.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#4 Mar 17, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd statement here from you-
"......the right to 'privacy' has been pitifully standing in for the untrammeled right to make medical decisions for oneself, for far too long ".
Um, that's the very crux of RvW that decriminalized abortion. An unenumerated right to privacy.
Roe v Wade simply didn't go far enough. I don't see any reason to compromise with foaming fanatics, who think abortion is so 'icky' that they don't want it to be legal.

The right to make one's own medical decisions, should be codified in and of itself.

JMO.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#5 Mar 17, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The article paints a picture of demand outstripping supply.
Some private outfit can't come in, build a compliant center and serve the demand?
I think they could.
Not if they can't get hospital privileges.....that's not up to 'compliant centers'- it's up to hospitals, which don't have a mandate to grant them.

We've covered this.
Dan

United States

#6 Mar 17, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>Roe v Wade simply didn't go far enough. I don't see any reason to compromise with foaming fanatics, who think abortion is so 'icky' that they don't want it to be legal.
The right to make one's own medical decisions, should be codified in and of itself.
JMO.
You and I both know that it's not going to be made illegal.

The courts made the right to privacy codicil up practically out of whole cloth to start with. That's why we're still having this discussion 40 years after the deal was "settled".

I don't think that countering one bad law with another is the answer.("Bad law" in the aspect that it was legislated from the bench, is poorly constructed, etc-not "bad" in the moral sense).
Dan

United States

#7 Mar 17, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>Not if they can't get hospital privileges.....that's not up to 'compliant centers'- it's up to hospitals, which don't have a mandate to grant them.
We've covered this.
Well, what, then?

If hospitals don't have to grant admitting privileges to all, would you compel that?

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#8 Mar 17, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what, then?
If hospitals don't have to grant admitting privileges to all, would you compel that?
Of course not - but then, I wouldn't require abortion clinicians to have hospital privileges either. Especially not when every OTHER type of out-patient surgery can be performed without them, legally.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#9 Mar 17, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You and I both know that it's not going to be made illegal.
The courts made the right to privacy codicil up practically out of whole cloth to start with. That's why we're still having this discussion 40 years after the deal was "settled".
I don't think that countering one bad law with another is the answer.("Bad law" in the aspect that it was legislated from the bench, is poorly constructed, etc-not "bad" in the moral sense).
What difference does it make if it's legal to get an abortion, when there are no legal providers in one's State of residence? To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me much if the rabid religious right in certain states, made residency of 6 months or longer a requirement for getting an abortion....if it's not able to illegalize abortion entirely, should the SCOTUS happen to decide abortion is a State's rights issue...there are all sorts of ways the SCPL is making end runs around Roe as it is...why not that one?

As far as that goes, the right to privacy is being annulled by the NSA, so it's not strong enough to keep abortion legal - we can holler 'It'll never be illegal' all we like, but that doesn't make it so.

A codified right to one's own medical decisions, without interference from the State, is the only way to go, in my opinion.'Privacy' just doesn't cut it.
Dan

United States

#10 Mar 18, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>What difference does it make if it's legal to get an abortion, when there are no legal providers in one's State of residence? To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me much if the rabid religious right in certain states, made residency of 6 months or longer a requirement for getting an abortion....if it's not able to illegalize abortion entirely, should the SCOTUS happen to decide abortion is a State's rights issue...there are all sorts of ways the SCPL is making end runs around Roe as it is...why not that one?
As far as that goes, the right to privacy is being annulled by the NSA, so it's not strong enough to keep abortion legal - we can holler 'It'll never be illegal' all we like, but that doesn't make it so.
A codified right to one's own medical decisions, without interference from the State, is the only way to go, in my opinion.'Privacy' just doesn't cut it.
It kind of does make a difference as it's two different things-legality of the service and provision of the service.

No one's under any compulsion to provide the services-the law permits it, but there's no requirement that X number of providers have to operate in X places.

Your "codified right to one's own medical decisions" wouldn't help here. You cannot compel provision of a service by simple virtue of your wanting one. State medical boards would still make rules for providers in their state.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#11 Mar 18, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It kind of does make a difference as it's two different things-legality of the service and provision of the service.
No one's under any compulsion to provide the services-the law permits it, but there's no requirement that X number of providers have to operate in X places.
Your "codified right to one's own medical decisions" wouldn't help here. You cannot compel provision of a service by simple virtue of your wanting one. State medical boards would still make rules for providers in their state.
It wouldn't hurt.....
Dan

United States

#12 Mar 18, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>It wouldn't hurt.....
Who cannot make their own medical decsions now? Other than minors?

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#13 Mar 18, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cannot make their own medical decsions now? Other than minors?
Perhaps the New Amendment should take another tack:

"The right of all born persons to deny or allow the use of one's organs and systems to another, born or unborn, shall not be infringed."

A bit more definitive, and less open to interpretation.
Dan

United States

#14 Mar 18, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps the New Amendment should take another tack:
"The right of all born persons to deny or allow the use of one's organs and systems to another, born or unborn, shall not be infringed."
A bit more definitive, and less open to interpretation.
No one is now forced to donate their organs.
Dan

United States

#15 Mar 18, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps the New Amendment should take another tack:
"The right of all born persons to deny or allow the use of one's organs and systems to another, born or unborn, shall not be infringed."
A bit more definitive, and less open to interpretation.
They have this right now.

Abortion is legal.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#16 Mar 18, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
They have this right now.
Abortion is legal.
Yes, but hanging by a thread.

I'd prefer a hawser.

If there are going to be 'debates' on whether or not a pregnant woman is obligated to gestate, I'd rather the folks who say 'yes' have a tougher nut to crack than 'privacy'.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#17 Mar 18, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is now forced to donate their organs.
IIRC, we've covered this too...it is only because of opposition to banning abortion, that 'no one is now forced to donate their organs'. Laws which attempt to restrict access to it, are de facto in favor of enforced gestation. Should they uniformly pass, exercising the right to an abortion becomes an exercise in futility.

If it were up to these lawmakers, and many of them make no secret of it, women would have only the choice between celibacy and gestation - unless nature failed to grant them fertility in the first place.

But of course, you already knew that.
Dan

United States

#18 Mar 18, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, but hanging by a thread.
I'd prefer a hawser.
If there are going to be 'debates' on whether or not a pregnant woman is obligated to gestate, I'd rather the folks who say 'yes' have a tougher nut to crack than 'privacy'.
That debate is pretty much academic, right? I mean, it's rhetorical on both sides of the premise. A constitutional right is a pretty tough nut to crack.

Abortion will be restricted in various states, but it won't be made illegal.
Dan

United States

#19 Mar 18, 2014
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>
IIRC, we've covered this too...it is only because of opposition to banning abortion, that 'no one is now forced to donate their organs'. Laws which attempt to restrict access to it, are de facto in favor of enforced gestation. Should they uniformly pass, exercising the right to an abortion becomes an exercise in futility.
If it were up to these lawmakers, and many of them make no secret of it, women would have only the choice between celibacy and gestation - unless nature failed to grant them fertility in the first place.
But of course, you already knew that.
I mistakenly took your proposal to encompass actual organ donation-whereupon you end up without the organ you donate.

Restriction of abortion doesn't amount to de facto endorsement of enforced gestation. That's hyperbolic, IMO. Driving has restrictions, but that doesn't mean they want me to walk.

Some lawmakers may indeed harbor sentiments of the "celibacy/gestation" absolute, but those folks usually don't get meaningful legislation passed. Reality typically falls in the "in between" gap.

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#20 Mar 18, 2014
"shovelhead72"
What difference does it make if it's legal to get an abortion, when there are no legal providers in one's State of residence? To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me much if the rabid religious right in certain states, made residency of 6 months or longer a requirement for getting an abortion....
----------
don't give the anti choice fools any ideas

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Texas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Protesters gather at Phoenix mosque under close... 34 min Goddess Gaia 191
News 'John Wayne Day' in Texas Honors Actor's 108th ... 1 hr argylesock14 116
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr IBdaMann 53,593
News State trooper claims Jim Bob Duggar LIED to him... 19 hr Tazo 4
News Cruz supports federal relief for Texas floods; ... Sun Synque 111
News Obama: TX, OK storms a reminder to prepare for ... Sun Tazo 1
News Democrats blast border security money in Texas ... Sun huey goins 5
More from around the web