Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Abortion Ban in Alabama Designed 'To Directly Challenge Roe v. Wade'


Muda69

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Wouldn't they similarly have even more choices if Missouri's government wasn't intervening ... in those other states as well as in Missouri?

 

Yes,  but as with any good or service a market will be created to service the need for that good or service,  with our without government interference.  See the "War on Drugs".

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

It's still the same amount of business, just being reassigned from one state to another. 

That would be true, if travel does not impose a relative barrier ... which, I’m afraid, it does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Impartial_Observer said:

C'mon man, I've driven an hour to get my wife Krispy Kreme doughnuts!

Yes, but if you were an unemployed 17 yr. old with basically no means of support, would you take a 3 state bus ride to get an abortion, even if you could afford the ticket? Because that’s what it will come to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bobref said:

Yes, but if you were an unemployed 17 yr. old with basically no means of support, would you take a 3 state bus ride to get an abortion, even if you could afford the ticket? Because that’s what it will come to.

That or a coat hanger.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Is the medical procedure free?

There are places, like Planned Parenthood, for example, that are heavily subsidized. But I don’t know that it’s ever completely free. There are 15 states where Medicaid pays for abortions. Can you guess whether Indiana is among them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

There are places, like Planned Parenthood, for example, that are heavily subsidized. But I don’t know that it’s ever completely free. There are 15 states where Medicaid pays for abortions. Can you guess whether Indiana is among them?

To be honest, the Krispy Kreme comment was in jest. This subject has been done to death from every angle. I find it interesting that when it comes to attaining a state issued ID to vote, it’s too burdensome and should be abolished. If one has to cross a state line to get an abortion, the cost is too burdensome. But having to pay a fee to the state, $125 in Indiana, to have a handgun on your person, isn’t considered too burdensome.

To the subject at hand, we currently have clamoring over women’s right to reproductive healthcare. So if it’s the woman’s right, why are taxpayers forced to subsidize it?

Lastly I cringe at the fact that we all know Indiana GOP lawmakers are already planning their next anti-abortion bill for the 2020 session and the $hit show that will ensue. Unfortunately with lousy leadership from North Meridian, it’ll be a circus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

In other words, localities seeking the benefits of having a major manufacturing entity relocate there have offered various types of economic incentives to lure the manufacturer... just like they would with any other manufacturing entity that  promised local employment opportunities and infusion of cash to the local economy. Wouldn’t matter if they were manufacturing Winchesters or widgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bobref said:

In other words, localities seeking the benefits of having a major manufacturing entity relocate there have offered various types of economic incentives to lure the manufacturer... just like they would with any other manufacturing entity that  promised local employment opportunities and infusion of cash to the local economy. Wouldn’t matter if they were manufacturing Winchesters or widgets.

Using subsidies paid for by taxpayers. Which was the point made originally. The reason for the subsidies makes a difference somehow? They all cost taxpayers money. We don't get that back. Period.End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

Using subsidies paid for by taxpayers. Which was the point made originally. The reason for the subsidies makes a difference somehow? They all cost taxpayers money. We don't get that back. Period.End of story.

The article in my opinion is long on accusations and short on content. It uses the word subsidies and taxpayer funds, but only mentions one time a grant. Most of it is tax abatements which locally are handed out like candy. 

The article also mentions 100-120 million over a given time period, which kinda pales in comparison to Amazon’s recent deals.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

The article in my opinion is long on accusations and short on content. It uses the word subsidies and taxpayer funds, but only mentions one time a grant. Most of it is tax abatements which locally are handed out like candy. 

The article also mentions 100-120 million over a given time period, which kinda pales in comparison to Amazon’s recent deals.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.  

Is your opposition to subsidies used for abortion based on moral grounds, or simply the use of your tax dollars used for subsidies in general? The dollar amount of subsidies used for abortions is quite small compared to government subsidies used for other purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Bend abortion provider can operate without a license, federal judge rules: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/06/01/south-bend-abortion-provider-can-operate-without-license-federal-judge-rules/1316295001/

Quote

An abortion provider should be able to open a clinic in South Bend, a federal judge has ruled, despite Indiana's earlier denial of a license.

U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted Whole Woman's Health Alliance a  temporary injunction Friday in its lawsuit against the state, saying that the Indiana State Department of Health's rejection of a license for the clinic violates due process and equal protections.

“We hold that the state stands to lose little if an injunction is issued,” Evans Barker wrote, “but women in northern Indiana stand to lose a great deal if it is not.”

In the ruling — which exempts the nonprofit organization from the clinic licensing requirement — Evans Barker added that there “is an unmet demand” for abortion services in South Bend, and more broadly in north-central and northeastern Indiana.

“It can be difficult for federal judges and federal litigators, from our comfortable vantage points, to understand how completely the everyday life of another may be outside of her control — but we must try to understand it,” Evans Barker wrote.

“For women in northern Indiana who enjoy ample financial means, supportive personal relationships, and power over their own conditions of labor and movement, the scarcity of abortion access there likely presents an insubstantial burden. But many women in these areas (as in most) do not enjoy those advantages, and lacking even one of them can cause substantial difficulties.”

Whole Woman's Health Alliance, which has clinics in Virginia and Texas, applied for a license to operate the South Bend clinic in August 2017. The following January, the state health department denied the application on the grounds that the nonprofit “failed to disclose, concealed, or otherwise omitted information related to additional clinics,” and thus that WWHA was not of “reputable and responsible character,” as required by the law.

After WWHA appealed that decision, and an administrative judge recommended the clinic receive a license. A 2-1 vote by an appeal panel, however, overturned that decision.

In a responding June 2018 suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, WWHA, All-Options Inc. and Dr. Jeffrey Glazer said the state's laws restrict a woman's access to abortions, single out providers and are, as a result, unconstitutional. 

....

With the order, the planned clinic — which, once opened, would become the seventh abortion clinic in the state — could offer abortions to women who are up to 10 weeks pregnant.

The injunction is still temporary, and a trial relating to the lawsuit is set to be heard before Evan Barker in August 2020.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2019 at 8:35 PM, gonzoron said:

Is your opposition to subsidies used for abortion based on moral grounds, or simply the use of your tax dollars used for subsidies in general? The dollar amount of subsidies used for abortions is quite small compared to government subsidies used for other purposes.

I get your point, subsidies are subsidies period. 

In my original comment, my thoughts are how can anything be a right, when someone else's rights are infringed upon? If abortion is a right, someone has to perform it. Expanding on the gun issue, US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but if I can't afford one, the government doesn't subsidize me purchasing a firearm. As far as subsidies to businesses, I have mixed emotions. I don't necessarily oppose all subsidies on the face of it. But a for instance our local government recently granted an abatement for a warehouse that added no new employees. That in my opinion is a government handout. 

I never said I necessarily opposed subsidizing abortions. I think I have pretty consistent in my opinion that government's place is to aid it's citizenry with things they can't do for themselves. In Bob's example of a broke 17 year old girl taking a bus three states away for an abortion. There are a myriad of thoughts that come to mind with this situation. It no doubt fits my opinion of government's role in our lives, but first and foremost, how is a 17 year old kid in this situation where she has no where to turn other than an abortion clinic.?

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I get your point, subsidies are subsidies period. 

In my original comment, my thoughts are how can anything be a right, when someone else's rights are infringed upon? If abortion is a right, someone has to perform it. Expanding on the gun issue, US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but if I can't afford one, the government doesn't subsidize me purchasing a firearm. As far as subsidies to businesses, I have mixed emotions. I don't necessarily oppose all subsidies on the face of it. But a for instance our local government recently granted an abatement for a warehouse that added no new employees. That in my opinion is a government handout. 

I never said I necessarily opposed subsidizing abortions. I think I have pretty consistent in my opinion that government's place is to aid it's citizenry with things they can't do for themselves. In Bob's example of a broke 17 year old girl taking a bus three states away for an abortion. There are a myriad of thoughts that come to mind with this situation. It no doubt fits my opinion of government's role in our lives, but first and foremost, how is a 17 year old kid in this situation where she has no where to turn other than an abortion clinic.?

Thanks for the explanation. I am certainly not a fan of subsidies. For anything. I also don't think an abortion is a right, but I feel that a woman's right to choose whether she wants one or not IS a right. If you consider Medicaid paying for one or partially paying for one as a subsidy, I can see your point there also. Medicaid money is administered by the States, so that should be able to be controlled by them. Write your State Representative, maybe they can take care of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Thanks for the explanation. I am certainly not a fan of subsidies. For anything. I also don't think an abortion is a right, but I feel that a woman's right to choose whether she wants one or not IS a right. If you consider Medicaid paying for one or partially paying for one as a subsidy, I can see your point there also. Medicaid money is administered by the States, so that should be able to be controlled by them. Write your State Representative, maybe they can take care of it.

 

I have no problem with a woman's right to choose, once again I think I have been pretty consistent I'm pro-choice. Personally I feel like abortion is murder, but your right to choose is between you and whoever you answer to. 

On the issue of subsidies, Cummins did a fairly large office construction/plant renovation here a few years back, sold the city/county a bill of goods. For their property taxes on the property for 2018 pay 2019 they are getting a 3.8 million dollar abatement. From what I can see there are no new employees in Jackson County, a high end apartment complex was built to house all of these "new workers" privately that received no abatement. The apartment complex has struggled to fill apartments, meanwhile Cummins charters buses to the Seymour plant from Greenwood and Franklin. Two buses a day run back and forth. My point being, if Cummins were hiring locally, or employees were moving to Jackson County, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with the abatements, but that's clearly not the case. Jackson County is giving away this year 3.8 million to help Cummins bottom line. This I have an issue with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A Pregnant Woman in Alabama Was Shot in the Stomach and Miscarried. Now, Alabama Cops Are Charging Her With Manslaughter.: https://reason.com/2019/06/27/a-pregnant-woman-in-alabama-was-shot-in-the-stomach-and-miscarried-now-alabama-cops-are-charging-her-with-manslaughter/

Quote

When expectant mother Marshae Jones was shot in the stomach last December, the 27-year-old woman survived, but her pregnancy did not. Now, Jones is behind bars and facing charges for the death of her five-month-old fetus. 

On Wednesday, Jones was taken into custody after a jury in Jefferson County, Alabama, indicted her for manslaughter, according to Alabama newspaper group AL.com. She'll be held in jail until her trial unless she can post a $50,000 bond.

Meanwhile, the woman who shot Jones—23-year-old Ebony Jemison—is free. Police initially charged Jemison with manslaughter as well, but a grand jury did not indict. 

Prosecutors allege that Jones started the altercation with Jemison, and that this makes Jones responsible for whatever happened as a result of her choice. 

"It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby," said Pleasant Grove Police Lt. Danny Reid. "Let's not lose sight that the unborn baby is the victim here. She had no choice in being brought unnecessarily into a fight where she was relying on her mother for protection."

It's a terrifying interpretation of criminal justice—and one made especially poignant by taking place in a state that just criminalized almost all abortions and declared that fertilized eggs should have equal rights to the fully-formed women carrying them. Under this logic, pregnant women who are victims of violent crime could be held criminally liable anytime they're perceived to have done something to "invite" the violence against them. 

Picking a physical fight, certainly picking a fight while pregnant, may not show the best judgment. But even if Jones did initiate the altercation, it does not follow that she knew or should have known her opponent was armed or that her opponent would use lethal force in response. Plenty of people—even sometimes pregnant women—get in altercations that don't end with anyone shooting anyone else.  

Meanwhile, many more pregnant women engage in all sorts of behaviors that are probably OK but could harm a fetus if things go awry. Once we start holding women responsible for such unintentional harms, where do we draw the line? Is playing sports OK? Riding a bicycle? Is it OK to meet new people, even though they could turn out to be violent? What about driving on highways? Driving, period? Angering an abusive partner? Walking in a bad neighborhood?

"The state of Alabama has proven yet again that the moment a person becomes pregnant their sole responsibility is to produce a live, healthy baby and that it considers any action a pregnant person takes that might impede in that live birth to be a criminal act," said Amanda Reyes, executive director of abortion access group The Yellowhammer Fund, in a statement. "Today, Marshae Jones is being charged with manslaughter for being pregnant and getting shot while engaging in an altercation with a person who had a gun. Tomorrow, it will be another black woman, maybe for having a drink while pregnant. And after that, another, for not obtaining adequate prenatal care." 

It appears with this legislation that Alabama is slipping closer to the world found in The Handmaid's Tale.   Frightening.

Edited by Muda69
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Muda69 said:

A Pregnant Woman in Alabama Was Shot in the Stomach and Miscarried. Now, Alabama Cops Are Charging Her With Manslaughter.: https://reason.com/2019/06/27/a-pregnant-woman-in-alabama-was-shot-in-the-stomach-and-miscarried-now-alabama-cops-are-charging-her-with-manslaughter/

It appears with this legislation that Alabama is slipping closer to the world found in The Handmaid's Tale.   Frightening.

The end result of GOP rule.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...