America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by rfenst. 47 replies replies.
Texas doctor says he violated nation’s most restrictive antiabortion law to challenge it
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
WAPO
A Texas doctor stepped forward Saturday to say he had performed an abortion that is illegal under the state’s restrictive new law to force a test of its legality.

“I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” Alan Braid, a San Antonio OB/GYN, said in an op-ed in The Washington Post. “I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces. I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. . . . I can’t just sit back and watch us return to 1972.”...

Braid said he performed a first-trimester abortion on Sept. 6, just a few days after the law known as Senate Bill 8 went into effect in Texas, making nearly all abortions illegal after a woman is about six weeks pregnant ­— with no exceptions for incest or rape. The doctor said he acted because he had “a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients.”

The op-ed is the latest development in the storm over Texas’s abortion law, the most restrictive in the nation. The law took effect Sept. 1 after a conservative Supreme Court majority declined to block it, saying the abortion rights advocates who challenged it could not show they were suing the right people. The Justice Department sued Texas just over a week ago to try to block the ban and has also made an emergency request to a federal judge in Austin to immediately block its enforcement. The judge set an Oct. 1 hearing date....

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments this year in another abortion base involving a restrictive law in Mississippi, but that one was stayed from taking effect. Mississippi officials have asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade and continue a state law that bans abortions after 15 weeks.
Brewha Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,147
And he is a better man than I.
bgz Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Good for him, stepping up.
RayR Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
#2 and #3 wish they could perform abortions too. Sick clowns they are. 🤡👺
bgz Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Your cuts as dull your perspective.

You ain't on my level...
Whistlebritches Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
bgz wrote:
Your cuts as dull your perspective.

You ain't on my level...


There's that liberal elitism on full display
bgz Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Whistlebritches wrote:
There's that liberal elitism on full display


I thought Libertarians were supposed to be pro liberty...

The whole government not sticking their noses in people's business type thing.

All men created equal and such... I guess that one might be it.

Did the Libertarian site say they no longer support women's liberty?
Whistlebritches Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
I think this law will stand all challenges........that being said Dr Dumbass will be broke in the not so distant future due to the bombardment of lawsuits headed his way.He deserves no less..............I wish we still used tall trees and short ropes to rid the world of this kind of scum.
ZRX1200 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Hmmmm….

I’m just here for the common sense murder laws.
Whistlebritches Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
bgz wrote:
I thought Libertarians were supposed to be pro liberty...

The whole government not sticking their noses in people's business type thing.

All men created equal and such... I guess that one might be it.

Did the Libertarian site say they no longer support women's liberty?


I have a libertarian stripe a mile wide............however I cannot support murder in any way shape or form.
bgz Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Not going to happen. The law is going to get rekt... and it deserves no less.

You're talking about murdering a doctor for performing a lawful abortion.

Who's the sick one?
Whistlebritches Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
bgz wrote:
Not going to happen. The law is going to get rekt... and it deserves no less.

You're talking about murdering a doctor for performing a lawful abortion.

Who's the sick one?


It'll stand......mark my words

Lawful......I don't think so

Do you consider capital punishment murder??????? Then somehow justify murder of an innocent child?
Whistlebritches Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
I see Tony lurking.........can't wait to hear his words of wisdom on the subject RollEyes
tonygraz Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,175
Whistlebritches wrote:
It'll stand......mark my words

Lawful......I don't think so

Do you consider capital punishment murder??????? Then somehow justify murder of an innocent child?



Your words are worthless and indicative of your scatterbrained mind. Right after you post "I wish we still used tall trees and short ropes to rid the world of this kind of scum." you post "I have a libertarian stripe a mile wide............however I cannot support murder in any way shape or form."
tonygraz Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,175
Whistlebritches wrote:
I see Tony lurking.........can't wait to hear his words of wisdom on the subject RollEyes


I guess you couldn't. At least you got something right.
bgz Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Whistlebritches wrote:
It'll stand......mark my words

Lawful......I don't think so

Do you consider capital punishment murder??????? Then somehow justify murder of an innocent child?


Not a child...

At the time the parasite is aborted it's basically a ball of biomass.

You guys are the cruel ones... demanding unwanted babies be born... you don't give a f*ck about them after that... so why care for them before?

Demanding lives get ruined because a couple cells happenned to cross paths.

You going to pay for the kid? No?... didn't think so...

You going to send the would be porcelain rider some clothes? No? Didn't think so.

You going to go plug it's mom to give it a brother? Maybe? Seriously, she's already got three, wtf is wrong with you.

Don't get me started on the economics.

Anyway... if you ain't going to feed it, clothe it or f*ck it's mom... then it doesn't concern you. You have no right to insist the government steps in because you feel like your liberty has been violated because of an aborted fetus... or so Libertarians argue.
Whistlebritches Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
Actually we adopted and raised a black child............Well there went Tony's racist argument and there went your not paying for the kid argument

You morons got anything else?
bgz Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
You convinced a woman to bring the child to term instead of aborting?

If so... great!!! Go convince more would be fetal murderers they should give you their kid instead of aborting it.

If not.... then you didn't defeat an argument...

I could argue that you didn't defeat Tony's either... but probably not without pissing you off.
bgz Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Actually I could probably argue it without pissing you off.

Trying not to be the cause of you whipping your blowup d*ck out on the vherf.

Remember kids... you don't have to abort unwanted little parasites if you f*ck plastic products.
ZRX1200 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
So now it’s capital punishment for fetuses Tony?

So if it’s the same rules can we scramble their brains without their permission and suction the chunks out of the cells as we see fit?

My felon my choice
bgz Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Oh... no, I don't consider capital punishment murder... forgot to address that.
rfenst Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
Whistlebritches wrote:
I think this law will stand all challenges....

Wanna bet a friendly fiver on that?
HockeyDad Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
rfenst wrote:
Wanna bet a friendly fiver on that?


The currency for the bet should be fetuses.
tonygraz Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,175
Whistlebritches wrote:
Actually we adopted and raised a black child............Well there went Tony's racist argument and there went your not paying for the kid argument

You morons got anything else?


I think you lost a stupid bet.
ZRX1200 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
We all think you won the prize…..
rfenst Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
If it were to go financial instead of cigars, it would have to be fiat as I am hoarding all my gold bullion.
RayR Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
rfenst wrote:
If it were to go financial instead of cigars, it would have to be fiat as I am hoarding all my gold bullion.


Good idea, dump the funny money and hold onto the hard stuff.
Whistlebritches Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
rfenst wrote:
Wanna bet a friendly fiver on that?



Why not Robert.........I think this law was skillfully crafted to avert all SCOTUS challenges.Poor old Dr Dumbass has two lawsuits filed today and in the next few weeks I see him overwhelmed.My personal hope is he is broke and living under a bridge by this time next year.
Whistlebritches Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
tonygraz wrote:
I guess you couldn't. At least you got something right.



Well where are they moron?Are imbecilic one liners all you got..........hypothetical,we know that's all ya got.
bgz Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Whistlebritches wrote:
Why not Robert.........I think this law was skillfully crafted to avert all SCOTUS challenges.Poor old Dr Dumbass has two lawsuits filed today and in the next few weeks I see him overwhelmed.My personal hope is he is broke and living under a bridge by this time next year.


Not going to happen, big money will come to the rescue on that defense.

Big money not going to let the good Dr. lose.

Fat stacks of digital paper comin... transfer in an instant, not that heavy azz old gold sh*t that you have to send by train.
rfenst Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
Whistlebritches wrote:
Why not Robert.........I think this law was skillfully crafted to avert all SCOTUS challenges.Poor old Dr Dumbass has two lawsuits filed today and in the next few weeks I see him overwhelmed.My personal hope is he is broke and living under a bridge by this time next year.

So we have a friendly bet?

Skillfully crafted laws that violate the status quo? I'll give you "skillfully crafted" indeed.

But, laws are not just simply or always applied literally. Instead, the intent of a law and it's consequences are of considerable importance when interpreting and applying the law equally.

Here, applying the law brings about a sudden, current, freezing out of women and doctors from their current abortion rights (Roe v. Wade). The work-around here was solely intended to violate those rights by a method that, to my knowledge, is not going to fully withstand the law because Texans who sue have not been damaged personally, and therefore lack the right to file suit (standing) in this matter.

So, SCOTUS will: 1) decide for or against precedent vs. 2) apply the actual law in question to the facts vs. 3) consider the majority of American's socio-political views and the upward pro-choice trend in America, but not necessarily in that order.

As to the doctor, I believe he can only be successfully sued one time for a single violation of the law, that is for each abortion, and not $10,000 to everyone who wants to jump on the bandwagon causing him to be liable for, let's say, millions of dollars.
Smooth light Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Bring your unwanted babies mother's too and teach them birth control.
For the c*ckhounds that can't control their self. Or does 'Planned Parenthood' scrape them, only when they are ripe.
tonygraz Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,175
Whistlebritches wrote:
Well where are they moron?Are imbecilic one liners all you got..........hypothetical,we know that's all ya got.


Even one liners are too sophisticated for small minds like yours. Maybe crayons or pictures would be easier for you to understand.
Whistlebritches Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
rfenst wrote:
So we have a friendly bet?

Skillfully crafted laws that violate the status quo? I'll give you "skillfully crafted" indeed.

But, laws are not just simply or always applied literally. Instead, the intent of a law and it's consequences are of considerable importance when interpreting and applying the law equally.

Here, applying the law brings about a sudden, current, freezing out of women and doctors from their current abortion rights (Roe v. Wade). The work-around here was solely intended to violate those rights by a method that, to my knowledge, is not going to fully withstand the law because Texans who sue have not been damaged personally, and therefore lack the right to file suit (standing) in this matter.

So, SCOTUS will: 1) decide for or against precedent vs. 2) apply the actual law in question to the facts vs. 3) consider the majority of American's socio-political views and the upward pro-choice trend in America, but not necessarily in that order.

As to the doctor, I believe he can only be successfully sued one time for a single violation of the law, that is for each abortion, and not $10,000 to everyone who wants to jump on the bandwagon causing him to be liable for, let's say, millions of dollars.



Yes


You are correct but from my understanding anyone related to the aborted fetus may sue,father,grandparents,aunts,uncles,cousins so on and so forth.If this is the case the poor doctor could be out millions from one out of compliance abortion.

Lets sit back with our popcorn and watch........I think it will be interesting.
Whistlebritches Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
tonygraz wrote:
Even one liners are too sophisticated for small minds like yours. Maybe crayons or pictures would be easier for you to understand.



You make my point every time........although this one did make me laugh
tonygraz Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,175
What cartoon character came to mind that caused you to laugh ? Just asking for a friend.
DrafterX Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
prolly yo momma... Mellow
Whistlebritches Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,127
tonygraz wrote:
What cartoon character came to mind that caused you to laugh ? Just asking for a friend.



Stimpy...............I can barely tell you apart
tonygraz Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,175
I see you are still very confused.
rfenst Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
Whistlebritches wrote:
Yes


You are correct but from my understanding anyone related to the aborted fetus may sue,father,grandparents,aunts,uncles,cousins so on and so forth.If this is the case the poor doctor could be out millions from one out of compliance abortion.

Lets sit back with our popcorn and watch........I think it will be interesting.

I don't consider it a victory yet, but a federal trial judge just struck-down Texas' new abortion law.

Now, the case goes to the very conservative 11th Court of Appeals, which will probably reverse the federal trial judge. After the appellate court rules, SCOTUS can simply deny taking on by deferring to the opinions of the trial and appellate court

Time will tell...
rfenst Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
Abortions resume in some Texas clinics after judge halts law

Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas — Abortions quickly resumed in some Texas clinics Thursday after a federal judge halted the most restrictive abortion law in the U.S., but doctors across the state did not not rush to resume normal operations with the court battle far from over.

The order by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman late Wednesday was meant to give Texas clinics cover to resume seeing most patients for the first time since early September, when the law known as Senate Bill 8 went into effect, banning abortions once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, president of Whole Woman's Health, said her four Texas clinics called in some patients early Thursday who were on a list in case the law was blocked at some point. Other appointments were being scheduled for the days ahead, and phone lines were again busy, she said.

But the relief felt by Texas abortion providers was tempered by the possibility of an appeals court reinstating the law in the coming days. Some Texas physicians, meanwhile, were still declining to perform abortions, fearful they might be held liable despite the judge's order.

“There's actually hope from patients and from staff, and I think there's a little desperation in that hope," Hagstrom Miller said. “Folks know this opportunity could be short-lived."

The law leaves enforcement solely in the hands of private citizens, who are entitled to collect $10,000 in damages if they bring successful lawsuits against abortion providers who violate the restrictions. Planned Parenthood, which had said it was hopeful the order would allow clinics to resume abortion services as soon as possible, did not immediately offer an update on its plans Thursday.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office quickly served notice of the state's intent to appeal but had yet to do so Thursday.

“The sanctity of human life is, and will always be, a top priority for me," Paxton tweeted.

Pitman's order amounted to the first legal blow to Senate Bill 8, which had withstood a wave of earlier challenges. In the weeks since the restrictions took effect, Texas abortion providers said the impact had been “exactly what we feared.”

In a 113-page opinion, Pitman took Texas to task, saying Republican lawmakers had “contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme” by leaving enforcement solely in the hands of private citizens, who can collect damages if they bring successful lawsuits against abortion providers who violate the restrictions.

The law, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May, has the effect of banning abortions before some women even know they are pregnant.

“From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” wrote Pitman, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama.

“That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right."

The lawsuit was brought by the Biden administration, which has said the restrictions were enacted in defiance of the U.S. Constitution. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the order “a victory for women in Texas and for the rule of law.”
The law had been in effect since Sept. 1.

“For more than a month now, Texans have been deprived of abortion access because of an unconstitutional law that never should have gone into effect. The relief granted by the court today is overdue, and we are grateful that the Department of Justice moved quickly to seek it,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Texas Right to Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group, said the order was not unexpected.

“This is ultimately the legacy of Roe v. Wade, that you have activist judges bending over backwards, bending precedent, bending the law, in order to cater to the abortion industry," said Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the group. “These activist judges will create their conclusion first: that abortion is a so-called constitutional right and then work backwards from there.”


Abortion providers say their fears have become reality in the short time the law has been in effect. Planned Parenthood says the number of patients from Texas at its clinics in the state decreased by nearly 80% in the two weeks after the law took effect.

Some providers have said Texas clinics are now in danger of closing while neighboring states struggle to keep up with a surge of patients who must drive hundreds of miles for an abortion. Other women, they say, are being forced to carry pregnancies to term.

Other states, mostly in the South, have passed similar laws that ban abortion within the early weeks of pregnancy, all of which judges have blocked. A 1992 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court prevented states from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

But Texas’ version had so far outmaneuvered the courts because it leaves enforcement to private citizens to file suits, not prosecutors, which critics say amounts to a bounty.

The Texas law is just one that has set up the biggest test of abortion rights in the U.S. in decades, and it is part of a broader push by Republicans nationwide to impose new restrictions on abortion.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court began a new term, which in December will include arguments in Mississippi’s bid to overturn 1973’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a woman’s right to an abortion.

Last month, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Texas law in allowing it to remain in place. But abortion providers took that 5-4 vote as an ominous sign about where the court might be heading on abortion after its conservative majority was fortified with three appointees of former President Donald Trump.

Ahead of the new Supreme Court term, Planned Parenthood on Friday released a report saying that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, 26 states are primed to ban abortion. This year alone, nearly 600 abortion restrictions have been introduced in statehouses nationwide, with more than 90 becoming law, according to Planned Parenthood.

Texas officials argued in court filings that even if the law were put on hold temporarily, providers could still face the threat of litigation over violations that might occur before a permanent ruling.
HockeyDad Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
rfenst wrote:


Abortion providers say their fears have become reality in the short time the law has been in effect. Planned Parenthood says the number of patients from Texas at its clinics in the state decreased by nearly 80% in the two weeks after the law took effect.

Some providers have said Texas clinics are now in danger of closing while neighboring states struggle to keep up with a surge of patients who must drive hundreds of miles for an abortion. Other women, they say, are being forced to carry pregnancies to term.


I was always told that Planned Parenthood offered lots of service besides just abortion. An 80% loss of foot traffic would seem to indicate otherwise.

Abrignac Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
HockeyDad wrote:
I was always told that Planned Parenthood offered lots of service besides just abortion. An 80% loss of foot traffic would seem to indicate otherwise.



Imagine that.
bgz Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
HockeyDad wrote:
I was always told that Planned Parenthood offered lots of service besides just abortion. An 80% loss of foot traffic would seem to indicate otherwise.



Sounds like they don't want the state of Texas having anything to do with their rights.

Pretty soon they're going to have them covering their faces... oh wait, that one they're against!

Batting 50%, as long as they don't start doing genital mutilation or anything to keep them from premarital sex.

Start stoning adulterers to death according to the bible... that should fix the problem.

Honor killing for all the little would be hookers floating around Texas... biblically speaking of course.

Oh, to solve the rape problem... Texas can go ahead and let the rapist pay off the father of the victim, but then he has to marry her.

Just follow these simple rules... all women problems solved.

Then everyone in Texas can start bumpin Jay-Z.
HockeyDad Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
BGZ’s account got hacked by Ray!
Smooth light Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Were does the honor and privilege of her having my love or yours flush down the toilet. We have some rights and opinion, (that why we call them b*tches) one night of pleasure and can't do eight months with camel rides also. Ain't never heard of the day after pill?

I guess women ain't smarter in every way... they don't the see meal ticket when it's in there belly.
rfenst Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
Supreme Court Agrees to Quick Consideration of Texas Abortion Law

Court leaves state law in place for now; it will hear oral arguments on Nov. 1

WSJ

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to quickly consider two lawsuits challenging a Texas ban on most abortions but left the restrictive law in place for now, adding a new blockbuster battle to a docket that already included another major abortion-rights case.

The court set oral arguments for Nov. 1 but deferred acting on an emergency request from the Justice Department to block the Texas law while the federal government challenges its legality. The Texas limits, which are the most restrictive in the U.S., have been in effect for nearly two months.

The case adds more urgency to a Supreme Court term that already was shaping up to be a momentous one for the future of abortion law. The justices in December will review an appeal by the state of Mississippi, which is seeking to implement an abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Both states are seeking to roll back precedents protecting abortion rights, starting with the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The high court for years declined to entertain such requests, but Republican-led states have been more willing to test the issue after recent changes in the court’s membership have made it more conservative.

“These are home-run swings by these states,” said University of Illinois law-school dean Vikram Amar. “There’s no way to uphold the Texas or Mississippi statutes absent dramatic changes in the existing doctrine and rules. And so, by the end of this term, we’re going to know whether this is an incremental conservative court or a transformational one.”

With Friday’s action, the justices stepped into the Texas battle even though lower courts haven’t issued final rulings on the law, known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, or SB 8, which bars abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. The measure limits the procedure far earlier than allowed by current Supreme Court precedent, which says that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before fetal viability. Doctors generally consider viability—when a fetus could live outside the womb—to fall around 21 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes, the Republican author of the abortion law, said: “I am encouraged that the law will remain in effect while the case is before the court, and I am optimistic that the court will uphold the right of Texans to protect life.”

The law’s critics voiced mixed views on Friday’s developments.

“It’s good in the sense that we may get an answer more quickly than we would have otherwise,” said Texas state Rep. Donna Howard, a Democrat who chairs the Texas Women’s Health Caucus. But it was disappointing, she added, that “Texas women are still being denied the rights and protections that every other U.S. woman has while this is going on.”

The high court said it would hear separate appeals by the Justice Department and abortion providers to decide legal issues related to Texas’s novel effort to shield its law from federal-court review.

The court’s latest order comes weeks after it voted 5-4 on Sept. 1 to let the Texas law go into effect. The justices’ prior order came when it denied an emergency appeal by the abortion providers, with the court’s majority saying there were procedural problems with how they sued to challenge the law.
Users browsing this topic
Guest