On 2/5/14, 11:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:14:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/5/14, 11:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:02:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

snipped

To name two states, Kansas and Texas have closed down most clinics where
women can obtain abortions, forcing women to drive to other states or
even another country to get one.

Well, I suppose these put the lie to that:

http://www.southwindwomenscenter.org/abortion-care/

http://www.routhstreet.com/




I fail to see how your post disputes the fact that Kansas and Texas have
closed most clinics where women can get abortions. You did see the word
"most" in there, right? "Most" does not mean all.

..."forcing women to drive to other states or even another country to get one."

'Forcing' is a very bellicose term, no?


If you are a pregnant woman who wants an abortion and because of the
lawmakers in your state you have to drive long long distances to get
one, yes, "forcing" is the right word. What if you are poor, or can't
drive, or you have to stay somewhere overnight or you have complications.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On 2/5/2014 11:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:14:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/5/14, 11:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:02:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

snipped

To name two states, Kansas and Texas have closed down most clinics where
women can obtain abortions, forcing women to drive to other states or
even another country to get one.

Well, I suppose these put the lie to that:

http://www.southwindwomenscenter.org/abortion-care/

http://www.routhstreet.com/




I fail to see how your post disputes the fact that Kansas and Texas have
closed most clinics where women can get abortions. You did see the word
"most" in there, right? "Most" does not mean all.

..."forcing women to drive to other states or even another country to get one."

'Forcing' is a very bellicose term, no?


Does "bellicose" mean lie?

On 2/5/14, 11:47 AM, KC wrote:
On 2/5/2014 11:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:14:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/5/14, 11:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:02:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

snipped

To name two states, Kansas and Texas have closed down most clinics
where
women can obtain abortions, forcing women to drive to other states or
even another country to get one.

Well, I suppose these put the lie to that:

http://www.southwindwomenscenter.org/abortion-care/

http://www.routhstreet.com/




I fail to see how your post disputes the fact that Kansas and Texas have
closed most clinics where women can get abortions. You did see the word
"most" in there, right? "Most" does not mean all.

..."forcing women to drive to other states or even another country to
get one."

'Forcing' is a very bellicose term, no?


Does "bellicose" mean lie?


Reality is the perfect squelch for ignorance:

Our archaic laws on pregnancy termination wiped out safe abortions for
the entire Rio Grande Valley.

So, our state's archaic, sweeping restrictions on abortion providers
have made it impossible for women in the Rio Grande Valley — in McAllen,
Mission, San Benito and the like — to receive adequate reproductive
care. The restrictions have shut down all clinics within a 150-mile
radius of the Rio Grande Valley, which means that the women of the
Valley have two options — they can drive an insane distance in order to
obtain a termination or they can hop on over to Mexico, where as we all
know abortions are so safe and sterile and all. Or they can have their
wombs hijacked for nine months because the state says so, I guess. So
perhaps that leaves three options. Three totally garbage options.

The court system really couldn't care less about the women of their
state receiving adequate care, though. When lawyers for The Center for
Reproductive Rights attempted to explain to Judge Edith Jones the
300-mile termination quandary, she suggested that women simply make the
drive, since the roads are "peculiarly flat and not congested." Perhaps
Jones is forgetting the mandatory ultrasound and 24-hour wait time that
a woman must be forced to adhere to in Texas, which will clock those
miles in at not 300 but 600, given that the trip must be made twice. A
woman cannot simply drive herself home from a medical procedure, either.
And certainly not for 150 miles.

http://tinyurl.com/lubpzel


--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:45:16 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/5/14, 11:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:14:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/5/14, 11:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:02:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

snipped

To name two states, Kansas and Texas have closed down most clinics where
women can obtain abortions, forcing women to drive to other states or
even another country to get one.

Well, I suppose these put the lie to that:

http://www.southwindwomenscenter.org/abortion-care/

http://www.routhstreet.com/




I fail to see how your post disputes the fact that Kansas and Texas have
closed most clinics where women can get abortions. You did see the word
"most" in there, right? "Most" does not mean all.

..."forcing women to drive to other states or even another country to get one."

'Forcing' is a very bellicose term, no?


If you are a pregnant woman who wants an abortion and because of the
lawmakers in your state you have to drive long long distances to get
one, yes, "forcing" is the right word.
Who said they have to drive long distances?

What if you are poor, or can't
drive, or you have to stay somewhere overnight or you have complications.

Are you seriously suggesting there should be an abortion clinic within a few blocks of every
dwelling in America, and that it should have a full staff of emergency and operating room doctors?

Unreal. Go back to 'having to drive to another country'....it made as much sense.

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:53:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/5/14, 11:47 AM, KC wrote:
On 2/5/2014 11:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:14:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/5/14, 11:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:02:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

snipped

To name two states, Kansas and Texas have closed down most clinics
where
women can obtain abortions, forcing women to drive to other states or
even another country to get one.

Well, I suppose these put the lie to that:

http://www.southwindwomenscenter.org/abortion-care/

http://www.routhstreet.com/




I fail to see how your post disputes the fact that Kansas and Texas have
closed most clinics where women can get abortions. You did see the word
"most" in there, right? "Most" does not mean all.

..."forcing women to drive to other states or even another country to
get one."

'Forcing' is a very bellicose term, no?


Does "bellicose" mean lie?


Reality is the perfect squelch for ignorance:

Our archaic laws on pregnancy termination wiped out safe abortions for
the entire Rio Grande Valley.

So, our state's archaic, sweeping restrictions on abortion providers
have made it impossible for women in the Rio Grande Valley — in McAllen,
Mission, San Benito and the like — to receive adequate reproductive
care. The restrictions have shut down all clinics within a 150-mile
radius of the Rio Grande Valley, which means that the women of the
Valley have two options — they can drive an insane distance in order to
obtain a termination or they can hop on over to Mexico, where as we all
know abortions are so safe and sterile and all. Or they can have their
wombs hijacked for nine months because the state says so, I guess. So
perhaps that leaves three options. Three totally garbage options.

The court system really couldn't care less about the women of their
state receiving adequate care, though. When lawyers for The Center for
Reproductive Rights attempted to explain to Judge Edith Jones the
300-mile termination quandary, she suggested that women simply make the
drive, since the roads are "peculiarly flat and not congested." Perhaps
Jones is forgetting the mandatory ultrasound and 24-hour wait time that
a woman must be forced to adhere to in Texas, which will clock those
miles in at not 300 but 600, given that the trip must be made twice. A
woman cannot simply drive herself home from a medical procedure, either.
And certainly not for 150 miles.

http://tinyurl.com/lubpzel

Why can not the 'doctors' from the clinics get admitting privileges at the local hospitals? That's
what seems to be the hang up. Now, if the 'doctors' aren't qualified enough to get the admitting
procedures, then why should they be allowed to work as 'doctors' in the clinics?

The way I read your story, many of the problems have to do, in great part, with the 'legality' of
the immigrants in question.

KC wrote:
On 2/5/2014 12:17 AM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/4/2014 2:49 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/3/2014 5:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/3/2014 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:47:27 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:21:38 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:39 PM, wrote:

I am saying you can and they do not have to include church dogma.
I have no problem with religious organizations denying these services
in their hospitals and as employers but I don't want them imposing it
on everyone else through legislation.


Now you are starting to sound like harry.... I don't see the little nuns
trying to push their agenda on anybody else, they just don't want to be
covered or charged for abortions....

Isn't that what I just said?


I was talking about the "imposing" part.. Imposing what, and the same
question we don't bother asking him, show me?

When these groups push legislation that makes everyone follow their
pro life policies it "imposing".


So, asking for a reasonable time for a mom to decide is "imposing"? Is
that what you are talking about?

No, he is talking about the law requiring a doctor or hospital to do an
abortion on demand. No matter the beliefs of the doctor or hospital!


So, what you are saying is.... "The hospital not wanting to have imposed
on it the requirement to do abortions on demand, is somehow "imposing" on
the folks who choose to use their facility? Dumb....

No, I am saying a Catholic or other religious run hospital is forced to do
abortions on demand, despite their beliefs. The women could easily choose
another facility. That is willing to perform the procedure.


So, I am still trying to see where the "imposing" comes in...

Read the laws.


I will accept your non-answer, answer.. till you show me somewhere in the
US where any woman, doesn't have access to abortion on demand... I
stipulate the only imposition is making nuns have birth control, private
doctors being forced to perform abortion on demand, and forcing us to pay
for it all with no, not one reasonable compromise like some kind of time
line for AOD, as opposed to saving life... or similar.

I am saying the law requires Catholic and other religious order run
hospitals to also do abortions.

On 2/5/2014 2:20 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/5/2014 12:17 AM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/4/2014 2:49 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/3/2014 5:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/3/2014 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:47:27 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:21:38 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:39 PM, wrote:

I am saying you can and they do not have to include church dogma.
I have no problem with religious organizations denying these services
in their hospitals and as employers but I don't want them imposing it
on everyone else through legislation.


Now you are starting to sound like harry.... I don't see the little nuns
trying to push their agenda on anybody else, they just don't want to be
covered or charged for abortions....

Isn't that what I just said?


I was talking about the "imposing" part.. Imposing what, and the same
question we don't bother asking him, show me?

When these groups push legislation that makes everyone follow their
pro life policies it "imposing".


So, asking for a reasonable time for a mom to decide is "imposing"? Is
that what you are talking about?

No, he is talking about the law requiring a doctor or hospital to do an
abortion on demand. No matter the beliefs of the doctor or hospital!


So, what you are saying is.... "The hospital not wanting to have imposed
on it the requirement to do abortions on demand, is somehow "imposing" on
the folks who choose to use their facility? Dumb....

No, I am saying a Catholic or other religious run hospital is forced to do
abortions on demand, despite their beliefs. The women could easily choose
another facility. That is willing to perform the procedure.


So, I am still trying to see where the "imposing" comes in...

Read the laws.


I will accept your non-answer, answer.. till you show me somewhere in the
US where any woman, doesn't have access to abortion on demand... I
stipulate the only imposition is making nuns have birth control, private
doctors being forced to perform abortion on demand, and forcing us to pay
for it all with no, not one reasonable compromise like some kind of time
line for AOD, as opposed to saving life... or similar.

I am saying the law requires Catholic and other religious order run
hospitals to also do abortions.


That I agree... But that is not pro lifers imposing on AOD'ers, it's
exactly the opposite, it's Abortion On Demanders imposing on pro lifers.
Pro lifers who by the way, would be willing to talk about some
reasonable compromise, but the AOD'ers will have none of it...

On 2/5/14, 4:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 2/5/2014 2:20 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/5/2014 12:17 AM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/4/2014 2:49 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/3/2014 5:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/3/2014 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:47:27 -0500, KC
wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:21:38 -0500, KC
wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:39 PM, wrote:

I am saying you can and they do not have to include church
dogma.
I have no problem with religious organizations denying
these services
in their hospitals and as employers but I don't want them
imposing it
on everyone else through legislation.


Now you are starting to sound like harry.... I don't see
the little nuns
trying to push their agenda on anybody else, they just
don't want to be
covered or charged for abortions....

Isn't that what I just said?


I was talking about the "imposing" part.. Imposing what, and
the same
question we don't bother asking him, show me?

When these groups push legislation that makes everyone follow
their
pro life policies it "imposing".


So, asking for a reasonable time for a mom to decide is
"imposing"? Is
that what you are talking about?

No, he is talking about the law requiring a doctor or hospital
to do an
abortion on demand. No matter the beliefs of the doctor or
hospital!


So, what you are saying is.... "The hospital not wanting to have
imposed
on it the requirement to do abortions on demand, is somehow
"imposing" on
the folks who choose to use their facility? Dumb....

No, I am saying a Catholic or other religious run hospital is
forced to do
abortions on demand, despite their beliefs. The women could
easily choose
another facility. That is willing to perform the procedure.


So, I am still trying to see where the "imposing" comes in...

Read the laws.


I will accept your non-answer, answer.. till you show me somewhere in
the
US where any woman, doesn't have access to abortion on demand... I
stipulate the only imposition is making nuns have birth control, private
doctors being forced to perform abortion on demand, and forcing us to
pay
for it all with no, not one reasonable compromise like some kind of time
line for AOD, as opposed to saving life... or similar.

I am saying the law requires Catholic and other religious order run
hospitals to also do abortions.


That I agree... But that is not pro lifers imposing on AOD'ers, it's
exactly the opposite, it's Abortion On Demanders imposing on pro lifers.
Pro lifers who by the way, would be willing to talk about some
reasonable compromise, but the AOD'ers will have none of it...


Oh? And what would that compromise be, pray tell?