Follow the money, indeed: Rick Perry’s sister may personally profit from Texas abortion clinics closing. She’s the VP of United Surgical Partners International, which runs the estimated 5 clinics that will be able to remain open after the bill passes. I guess that’s one way to eliminate the competition.
Which five current abortion clinics does United Surgical Partners run? I can’t find a single USP clinic that does abortions. Which ones did you find?
ETA: Here’s one. The Whole Women’s Health of San Antonio is one of the five abortion facilities currently certified as a surgical center, and that’s NOT owned or run by United Surgical Partners.
So what the hell are you talking about?
Another of the five: In Dallas, the Southwestern Women’s Center certified as a ambulatory surgical center, does abortion, NOT owned or operated by United Surgical Partners.
So do I need to keep looking them up, or would you like to acknowledge your claim is less than accurate?
I wish you would keep checking - you have only only 57 USP facilities in Texas left to go (according to their website) and I’d like to know which of them supposedly does abortions according to this site’s claim:
“United Surgical Partners International would be operating one of the five remaining clinics in Texas that could offer abortion services under HB 2 / SB 1, the anti-choice bill now being considered in Perry’s 2nd special legislative session.
In short, Milla Perry Jones and her colleagues are set to reap huge rewards as Texas trims back its 42 health clinics that currently offer abortion services to 5, one of which, by some astounding coincidence is the self-same United Surgical Partners International.”
In any event, the article quoted earlier mentions opportunities for companies like the one Perry’s sister helps run, to move into potentially lucrative abortion services.
That’s a very different claim, then, than this one:
If in fact USP moves into the vacated field, and Perry’s sister does not resign in protest, THEN you have a point. In the meantime, it’s not my claim to prove – why should I hunt down 57 different facilities to prove someone else’s point?
I used “pleasure” as an informal synonym for the legislature’s rationale for enactment, riffing off of your statement that you are “pleased” by the legislation. Sorry if that confused you.
What you are leaving out is that the asserted rationale must be true and not simply a pretext for impermissible motives, such as simply wishing to impose one’s religious views or simply wishing to make it more difficult or unpleasant to exercise a fundamental right. Those kinds of “pleasures,” even if masked by the pretext of a legitimate state interest, make for unconstitutional restrictions on fundamental rights.
When you say “child” you really mean “undead person”, right?
Just out of curiosity, and possibly this has been addressed in earlier threads about mandatory ultrasounds, but what medical justification is there? Is there testimony on record from doctors reporting that an ultrasound, or a particular type of ultrasound, was necessary or useful in performing an abortion?
Or is the case that anything can be “rationally related” to anything else if enough legislators agree that a rational relation exists? If that’s the case, may as well drop the terminology “rationally related” and replace it with “we say so”.
The rational relation is to the state’s interest in the unborn child, not to the efficacy in killing that child.
Or, if you prefer terms that are consistent with caselaw: the state’s legitimate interest is in “…the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Quoting Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
Cite?
I mean, for you to make a statement like that must mean you’re quoting some piece of law, somewhere – right?
In another case in which improper pretext motives were alleged, the Supreme Court has said that as long as valid justifications exist for the law, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because improper interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. (Crawford v. Marion County, 553 US 181, 195 (2008). So upon what authority are you relying to say what you said?
Only if the attending physician thinks so, and they typically don’t, do they? Is the legislature’s medical knowledge superior somehow?
Of course not. The purpose, and the source of your “pleasure”, is to help the woman understand that she is, in fact, pregnant, since of course she has to be confused on the subject even to be in the clinic in the first place. The only value the requirement has is to show her “See, that’s a baby in there! Guess what, you’re pregnant! That’s your baby! Isn’t it cute - see those little toes wiggling! Why would you want to kill somebody so precious?” and so forth. As you fucking well know. That’s all it can contribute to the situation. As you *also *fucking well know. There are *no *“valid justifications” for the law, as you claim while doing your typical letter-of-the-law act, so please drop the lying.
Now please try a bit of honesty about the motives involved here, both yours and the legislature’s, as well as about your fundamental level of respect for women.
I happen to agree with you… but I feel like that’s just one of many somewhat arbitrary lines that occur during pregnancy, and one that I pick because I have to pick SOMETHING, because it’s clear to me that aborting a one-day-before-birth baby is nearly identical to murdering a baby, while aborting a one-month embryo is not, so there has to be a line. That is, you seem to think that the right and wrong of it all is pretty cut and dried, and I’d say that I end up in the same position that you do, but because it’s the best position I can come up with in a complicated and gray situation.
I can certainly imagine some public health issue where mandating some type of procedure or shot would be legal and ethical… and you could make arguments about beard/hair requirements in public schools. But that’s all really just irrelevant side discussion.
Fair enough, I either misread your posts or got you confused with someone else.
This is such an incredibly horrible way to argue this. Our society is not giving women the status of child-bearer; basic biology is. Can I blame society for treating me like a second class citizen by making only men susceptible to testicular cancer? No, because it’s fucking basic biology.
I think I’m on an island on the issue of abortion as I simply think both abortions are immoral (not just something I dislike but an immoral action) and forcing women to complete a pregnancy is immoral. That seems so incredibly obvious that I can’t even contemplate how a person could think otherwise. I intensely dislike the political talking points and jargon surrounding the issue. Your argument is a prefect example of the stupidity that plagues this issue.
That’s a good thing. Murdering innocent babies should never be justified for any reason.
Co-opting of another person’s organs without their consent should never be justified for any reason.
(see, I can play this game too! wheeee!)
No women are not born pregnant, they are born with the child-bearing capability. Their status of ‘child-bearer’ :rolleyes: is by no means a biological inevitably. Some women never have children. Pregnancy isn’t an idiopathic condition, unlike testicular cancer. Women are sick and tired of being defined by their reproductive capabilities. They are equal citizens, not vessels of procreation. But by all means continue to pontificate about basic biology defining women’s status and the stupidity of other people. It’s not like female biology has ever been used as a reason to limit women’s social status/power before.
Oh, I’m sorry: undied. Or do you prefer “predead”?
So if that baby has a genetic defect and needs a kidney ASAP, and you’re the only available donor within range, you should be strapped to a gurney and operated on without your consent?
That’s a poor analogy, because both our ethical and legal systems recognize a huge distinction between compelling someone to begin doing something and compelling them to continue doing something. For instance it’s much harder to evict someone than it is to refuse to rent to them in the first place.