- Joined
- Jun 13, 2019
- Messages
- 17,796
- Reaction score
- 3,961
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You know that there is a waiting line for adoptions of healthy babies, right?How many unwanted babies are you signing up to take care of?
You know that there is a waiting line for adoptions of healthy babies, right?How many unwanted babies are you signing up to take care of?
Granted but what relevance? Nothing about abortion went unchallenged on either side.
You know that there is a waiting line for adoptions of healthy babies, right?
You know that there is a waiting line for adoptions of healthy babies, right?
If there is a hook. Before the hook was a given but no longer.It will become relevant when any laws to criminalize having an abortion violate any of the woman's Constitutionally protected rights, like to due process or 4th Amendment "security of the person" (bodily autonomy), for example.
When charges are brought, the case can be challenged in federal court.
You know there is a waiting line, right?How many are you looking to adopt when all of these unwanted babies are born? Or at least sponsor financially?
I'm pro-choice. There are legitimate reasons and I expect state statutes will anticipate them for the most part. Texas does.What about the ones that arent perfect? And women that dont want to be pregnant or have a baby dont take prenatal vitamins, eat properly, stop drinking, smoking, taking drugs.
Break it down by age. Infants and toddlers are by far the most adoptable.There are over 100,000 kids waiting to be adopted.
Do you know this? It seems like a knee-jerk assumption.Plenty of those were dumped in that giant pool as infants...why did they get dumped there? Why didnt they get adopted?
You have not said how many you plan to adopt.If there is a hook. Before the hook was a given but no longer.
You know there is a waiting line, right?
I'm pro-choice. There are legitimate reasons and I expect state statutes will anticipate them for the most part. Texas does.
Break it down by age. Infants and toddlers are by far the most adoptable.
Do you know this? It seems like a knee-jerk assumption.
You would have to show that this is the case and exclude babies with severe medical issues.
If there is a hook. Before the hook was a given but no longer.
I'm pro-choice. There are legitimate reasons and I expect state statutes will anticipate them for the most part. Texas does.
Break it down by age. Infants and toddlers are by far the most adoptable.
Do you know this? It seems like a knee-jerk assumption.
You would have to show that this is the case and exclude babies with severe medical issues.
You know that there is a waiting line for adoptions of healthy babies, right?
You haven't shown how many healthy infants are available.You have not said how many you plan to adopt.
In cases not involving a federal statute, state courts have primary jurisdiction. To get into federal court, you need to show some reason why it cannot be tried in state courts. I am referring to the reason that federal court is necessary as the hook. It can take many forms, but it requires a motion, showing of cause, and a judicial ruling. Prior to Dobbs, none of that was necessary because federal courts had primary jurisdiction.WHat 'hook?' Please explain.
You are entitled to your opinion.IMO you are not pro-choice as you dont believe in letting women choose. You just wrote it clearly...you expect the state to specify 'legitimate reasons.'
I not only do not admit it, but I also deny that there are infants and toddlers waiting. The line is of people wishing to adopt.And yet, there are still thousands. You admit it yourself...there is a line waiting. Why are there infants and toddlers waiting?
You say that I am limited and then spout something like this.YOur thinking is very limited. With abortion banned or heavily restricted.
You could be reading talking points from any of a dozen cult sources...there will now be even more. And when women are forced to remain pregnant, there will be MORE born with defects since those women wont eat properly, stop drinking, smoking, taking drugs, etc. They will be less likely to see medical attention during a pregnancy. We already have too many kids that are not being adopted...and now potentially hundreds of thousands more will be born. Are there hundreds of thousands of people that will be waiting in line to adopt them? Even if only half those born are put up for adoption? (ANd most of the rest growing up in single parent, low income homes.)
We are in agreement. That's rare.Yea, babies only, it’s when they become toddlers and teens there is a huge problem. But you know this you just continue to blindly argue.
State and federal expenditures for foster care administrative costs (placing and monitoring children in foster care) totaled $4.3 billion. The number of children entering foster care or in care totaled 679,191. Thus, the average administrative cost per child served per year was $6,675.
In cases not involving a federal statute, state courts have primary jurisdiction.
To get into federal court, you need to show some reason why it cannot be tried in state courts.
I am referring to the reason that federal court is necessary as the hook. It can take many forms, but it requires a motion, showing of cause, and a judicial ruling. Prior to Dobbs, none of that was necessary because federal courts had primary jurisdiction.I
You are entitled to your opinion.
I will say that I have never considered the desires of the mother to be the only valid consideration.
I not only do not admit it, but I also deny that there are infants and toddlers waiting. The line is of people wishing to adopt.
You say that I am limited and then spout something like this.
You could be reading talking points from any of a dozen cult sources.
What court ruling said that the right to an abortion meant that patient records could not be accessed? I think you are conflating the (former) right to an abortion with (still existing) medical privacy laws.In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier ruling that the Constitution provides a right to privacy, which included a right to an abortion. It appears that the decision effectively states that the Constitutional right never existed. There are almost 50 years of legislative action, rules, and procedures associated with abortion availability and practices. Many of those have been swept aside by so-called trigger laws. Others will be modified to reflect the state-level authority they now represent.
What is not clear, and no one seems to write about it, is the effect this will have on Planned Parenthood as an organization. Even their own page on Dobbs does not address it. The page speaks only to the availability of procedures.
Frequently Asked Questions: SCOTUS Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
www.plannedparenthoodaction.org
Planned Parenthood has enjoyed federal-level protection. States could not shut down their operations because a Constitutional right was involved. With the right gone, it appears that state officials will have the right to regulate Planned Parenthood like any other medical facility, including access to records and patient files. Right-to-life groups have long accused PP of a variety of cover-ups, particularly with regard to procedures performed late in the pregnancy's term. They never had leverage to compel answers. That may have changed this week.
If anyone has any relevant knowledge or resources, please post.
Not quite. Dobbs said nothing about state vs. federal control. The federal government could enact a law banning/allowing abortion nationwide. Dobbs simply held that a woman does not have the individual right to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy.Dobbs, of course.
The decision expressly passed the matter back to state control.
Supreme Court overturns constitutional right to abortion - SCOTUSblog
This article was updated on June 24 at 3:11 p.m. The Supreme Court on Friday eliminated the constitutional right to obtain an abortion, casting aside 49 years of precedent that began with Roe v. Wade. The decision by Justice Samuel Alito will set off a seismic shift in reproductive rights across twww.scotusblog.com
Federal court is not a given. This is a change. That's it.Yes, unless they do as I wrote, in which case they can be challenged in federal court. Please source that. I'm not talking about a case being 'tried' in court, I'm discussing a challenge to a law or ruling and those need to be based on specific cases.
What federal law? We just removed the Constitution from the mix.Federal law and the Const always has priority. Again, see the Supremacy Clause.
Another subject for another day.Well it's kind of disturbing if you think the unborn has any desires. Certainly the woman is the only one that suffers...pain, awareness, minimization in society, her right to consent over her individual liberty and self-determination over-ridden by the govt. The unborn suffers nothing. So while I understand people's sympathy for the unborn, the suffering, pain, and minimization in society is by far worse for women and IMO the it's immoral to intentionally impose that greater pain and suffering and loss of self-determination and equal status with men.
Let's see them.Prove your claim. Prove there are not infants and toddlers waiting. There are plenty of websites and sources.
You have not been thinking through things properly, so that goes with some salt.Hey, if you dont think things thru properly, that's not my fault.
Special needs infants you will find. You have still not shown that there is a backlog of healthy infants.Actually I'm very familliar....my parents adopted my twin sisters, special needs infants. After taking in many special needs foster kids over the years. My mother, before retiring, was an Ob/Gyn nurse and had the qualifications to care for such infants. I grew up with this.
Reread the thread. No one has claimed that.What court ruling said that the right to an abortion meant that patient records could not be accessed? I think you are conflating the (former) right to an abortion with (still existing) medical privacy laws.
Normally, I would assume you were kidding but your last post was lame enough to make me think you are serious.Not quite. Dobbs said nothing about state vs. federal control. The federal government could enact a law banning/allowing abortion nationwide. Dobbs simply held that a woman does not have the individual right to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
The premise of this thread is that with abortion no longer a constitutional right, Planned Parenthood records will be easier to access to “compel access” to information about “cover ups.” For that premise to be true, there must be some case dependent on Roe that held certain medical records are more protected because abortion is a constitutional right. Otherwise the argument in the OP has no basis. Dobbs did not declare that any statutes are unconstitutional. So any additional statutory protections given to abortion records would not be impacted.Reread the thread. No one has claimed that.
Not sure what you aren’t understanding. As I said in my last post, Dobbs was not about state vs. federal control. It was about whether abortion is an individual right protected by the constitution. The court said it is not an individual right. But the federal government (I.e. Congress) can still pass a law banning or allowing abortion nationwide. Do you actually dispute this?Normally, I would assume you were kidding but your last post was lame enough to make me think you are serious.
As Lursa keeps pointing out, Constitutional rights are federal? That is now gone.
The premise is that Planned Parenthood has lost a layer of insulation from official inquiry, making it the same as other medical practitioners. In particular, primary jurisdiction has moved from federal to state because Dobbs eliminated the Constitutional law justification to put cases in federal court.The premise of this thread is that with abortion no longer a constitutional right, Planned Parenthood records will be easier to access to “compel access” to information about “cover ups.”
Since you have the premise incorrect, your question is off-base. I am still not sure where you came by the idea that Dobbs is not about state vs federal. That is expressly stated in the decision.For that premise to be true, there must be some case dependent on Roe that held certain medical records are more protected because abortion is a constitutional right. Otherwise the argument in the OP has no basis. Dobbs did not declare that any statutes are unconstitutional. So any additional statutory protections given to abortion records would not be impacted.
Not sure what you aren’t understanding. As I said in my last post, Dobbs was not about state vs. federal control. It was about whether abortion is an individual right protected by the constitution. The court said it is not an individual right. But the federal government (I.e. Congress) can still pass a law banning or allowing abortion nationwide. Do you actually dispute this?
Not quite. The premise is that Planned Parenthood has lost a layer of insulation from official inquiry, making it the same as other medical practitioners. In particular, primary jurisdiction has moved from federal to state.
Since you have the premise incorrect, your question is off-base.
An article posted above speaks of a seismic shift in the law. This thread seeks to inquire into one of the tremors.
What part of, "the same as other medical practitioners." was unclear? That represents a significant change.LMAO... Any inquiry must have a probable cause basis or Planned Parenthood will haul the state officials ass into federal court and slap them with an injunction.... Are you under the delusion that Planned Parenthood has somehow lost access to federal courts?
What part of, "the same as other medical practitioners." was unclear?
Your emphasis is wrong here. It did not use to be the same as other medical practitioners. There use to be more protection, starting with automatic federal jurisdiction.They ALREADY have the same requirements as other medical practitioners.... Good lord... Are you talking about state laws that targeted abortion clinics with regulations that exceeded what they require for other medical practices like these in Texas THAT ALREADY EXIST?
They apply as a health care provider. If PP stops offering health care services then they apply only to that period when such services were provided.How will these requirements apply to a Planned Parenthood clinic that no longer provides abortions?Abortion Facilities | Texas Health and Human Services
Information about the regulation of abortion facilities in Texas.www.hhs.texas.gov
No. I have said as much several times in this thread.Are you under the impression a state can go digging in records to prosecute for something that was legal at the time it was performed?
I am. Are you?Familiar with the constitution and ex post facto laws?
Planned Parenthood has long been under attack by those seeing to restrict access to reproductive healthcare. They will need our help now more than ever. I urge anyone reading this to donate to your local Planned Parenthood affiliate, or consider volunteering.In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier ruling that the Constitution provides a right to privacy, which included a right to an abortion. It appears that the decision effectively states that the Constitutional right never existed. There are almost 50 years of legislative action, rules, and procedures associated with abortion availability and practices. Many of those have been swept aside by so-called trigger laws. Others will be modified to reflect the state-level authority they now represent.
What is not clear, and no one seems to write about it, is the effect this will have on Planned Parenthood as an organization. Even their own page on Dobbs does not address it. The page speaks only to the availability of procedures.
Frequently Asked Questions: SCOTUS Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
www.plannedparenthoodaction.org
Planned Parenthood has enjoyed federal-level protection. States could not shut down their operations because a Constitutional right was involved. With the right gone, it appears that state officials will have the right to regulate Planned Parenthood like any other medical facility, including access to records and patient files. Right-to-life groups have long accused PP of a variety of cover-ups, particularly with regard to procedures performed late in the pregnancy's term. They never had leverage to compel answers. That may have changed this week.
If anyone has any relevant knowledge or resources, please post.
Your emphasis is wrong here. It did not use to be the same as other medical practitioners. There use to be more protection, starting with automatic federal jurisdiction.
They apply as a health care provider. If PP stops offering health care services then they apply only to that period when such services were provided.
No. I have said as much several times in this thread.
I am. Are you?
You say under attack. They say immune to legitimate inquiry. The truth is probably in the middle.Planned Parenthood has long been under attack by those seeing to restrict access to reproductive healthcare. They will need our help now more than ever. I urge anyone reading this to donate to your local Planned Parenthood affiliate, or consider volunteering.
Notice how it defaults to a federal injunction. The federal issue is now a state issue by order of the Supreme Court so simple standing in federal court is not given.LMAO... Any inquiry must have a probable cause basis or Planned Parenthood will haul the state officials ass into federal court and slap them with an injunction.... Are you under the delusion that Planned Parenthood has somehow lost access to federal courts?
I am suggesting that federal injunctions one of their primary deflections--you referred to it yourself--is not available any longer.Are you suggesting Planned Parenthood did not have to comply with Texas' licensing requirements for abortion clinics prior to this ruling?
There aren't any legitimate inquiries of Planned Parenthood. Only half baked schemes by social conservatives aiming to restrict access to abortion.You say under attack. They say immune to legitimate inquiry. The truth is probably in the middle.
You say under attack. They say immune to legitimate inquiry. The truth is probably in the middle.
A few posts up we had this.
Notice how it defaults to a federal injunction. The federal issue is now a state issue by order of the Supreme Court so simple standing in federal court is not given.
I am suggesting that federal injunctions one of their primary deflections--you referred to it yourself--is not available any longer.
You haven't shown how many healthy infants are available.