Wow, this is really poorly thought-out.
Abused wife: “Your honor, I am seeking a divorce because he beats me.”
Abusive husband: “I contest this divorce.”
Judge: “The husband, being opposed to divorce, is the most responsible spouse. He gets all the money and 66% visitation time.”
Abused wife: “…”
Judge: “Sucks to be you, honey. Get a thicker skin if you want to be married in THIS state!”
If she had a thicker skin she wouldn’t mind so much when he beat her. 
[QUOTE=waterj2]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/marriage_rates_90_95_99-09.pdf Eh, Massachuestts is toward the low end, with 5.5 marriages per thousand. Kansas is at 6.5. The data is based on where the marriage occurred, though, which at least throws Nevada way off. I don’t know where to find data on what proportion of the population in a given state is married.
[/QUOTE]
You’d think them queers would have been satisfied with simply ruining marriage, but nooooo, they done went and ruined divorce, too.
Sorry, this was sort of the last straw thing for me. You see, at the moment our good state government has the ability to make batshit crazy laws about marriage or anything else.
Kansans elected a pretty ultra conservative legislature this past election, so the idea is that Gov crazy will have the full backing of our other state reps for whatever he would like to do. Maybe during the next elective cycle they’ll be voted out of office, but in the meantime, it really pisses me off that they are wasting time and money on this issue which they have no right to regulate. Meanwhile, services for the needy, disabled and children are going to be much harder to come by.
I apologize for not articulating better…but even now i’m still almost speechless at what is in store for us in the near future.
the “responsible spouse” is presumptive. In other words, when she proves her claim, he no longer is the “responsible spouse.”
As I am a fence sitter on the abortion issue, and willing to realize that in some cases there just aren’t any perfect answers, I am going to argue this from perceived hypocrisy.
Sometimes it’s the right I complain of.
The regulations passed here are summed up as “designed to close three abortion clinics.”
In my opinion that is an entirely inappropriate summation and satisfactory only to the biased.
Should I presume that there never is an abortion clinic ever at any time that should be shut down?
Those in favor of abortion frequently talk about the importance of public access to SAFE and legal abortion clinics. Does this not imply that if an abortion clinic is UNSAFE the advocate would be in favor of closing it or fixing it so that women are not subject to substandard procedures and facilities?
In this case, the new regulations, whatever the perceived motivation, were (I confess that I haven’t read the new law itself) reported in the news to concern whether the buildings were adequate according to medical standards.
One issue was that doors were too small to fit a gurney through. I think that one is entirely legitimate. On first blush, I thought one was unreasonable–the requirement for a certain number of square feet for Janitor’s closets. But then I considered that medical facilities DO HAVE an interest in cleanliness, and figured that too small of closets (can’t dump the mopwater without splashing the trash bags) could plausibly impede cleanliness, and whether this is unreasonable or not would depend on square footage required. If it’s 50 square feet, ok. If it’s 500 that is unreasonable. And if the number 50 is chosen and the square footage of janitor’s closets in the clinics was 49, I’d be awfully suspicious.
Having doors wide enough to accept gurneys is certainly within reason for a goal of SAFE access to abortion. Abortion is life threatening, sometimes they do go wrong. If an abortion goes wrong, the speed in which a patient is transported to the hospital may be crucial, as well as how gently she can be moved. I agree completely with this idea. One wonders whether those complaining are in favor of small substandard doors instead?
There may be something in the law that is unreasonable, but I haven’t heard it yet.
On this one, the abortion supporters appear to be the hypocrites by demanding SAFE abortions but complaining if a law is passed concerning the SAFETY of the clinics, if it happens to close clinics.
BTW, one of those three clinics was immediately licensed and open for business legally and SAFELY, so claims that it shut down all three are false.
I believe the legal term you are looking for here is “rebuttable presumption” [ianal, spelling may be bad]. In other words, something like “I presume you are an idiot, but you are welcome to rebut that presumption.” IOW, “prove I’m wrong, and you are not an idiot”.
Eh. There is really only so much that can be done. They probably will come up with a covenant marriage law. Since covenant marriages are legal and voluntary, and have admirable aims, I would support this.
Sure, that is correct. But as no-one else was speaking in strict legal terms, I didn’t bother. As long as it is descriptive, I figured, folks woul;d easily understand what I mean. But thanks for correcting me.
David42, the major issues with the new laws are these:
These new “safety” regulations apply only to abortion clinics, and not to any other medical clinic or even hospital. If Brownback’s and the legislature’s concern is patient safety, they should be applied to all providers of any type of medical care.
The regulations were issued after business hours on Friday, June 17, and were to go into effect on Friday, July 1, leaving the clinics less than 2 weeks to review and implement them. The regulations would require pretty extensive remodeling at all three clinics, something impossible to achieve in the dictated time frame.
They’re dressing it up as concern for the patients’ care and safety, but their intention is to make it physically impossible (at least in the short term) for the three existing clinics to provide patient care.
There is no need for this, its even a bit of a fox pass. We Dopers are so concerned with perfect correctness in all things factual, we presume gratitude on the part of the corrected.
For instance, I note that friend Morgyn has described continuing health care at these facilities as being “physically impossible”. I adopt my snottiness possible tone of condescension and nit-pickitude as I point out that this is wrong. It may be legally inadmissible, financially ruinous, but it is not actually impossible in a strictly physical sense.
Morgyn, being a Doper in good standing and familiar with out culture, will accept the admonishment in a cheerful sense of improvement and correction. And though she(?) might very well feel compelled to rush here and thank me in glowing terms for my thoughtful correction, she abstains. The act of correction is its own reward, and we are all the better for it.
I would tend to agree if in fact there is a known problem with hospitals. The hospital in my town was rebuilt about 8 years ago because the doors weren’t wide enough. In Wichita I happened to be emnployed in the early nineties remodeling two hospitals because the doors weren’t wide enough and a couple other reasons. If abortion providers are the only ones ignoring this safety concern, then a law targeting them is fine. If you can show me other medical facilities that do not voluntarily do these standard improvements, I will agree 100% with you.
Kansas frequently does not get some of the more difficult to pass legislation until June. Our new laws go into effect July 1 by law. I see nothing out of the ordinary, but do see how perhaps two weeks isn’t really enough time to remodel or find new digs, but the world is not perfect, and I have been cut short of time to do things like that too.
The logical flaw here is that if the conservatives ONCE dressed up some legislation, they ALWAYS dress up legislation.
Has anybody seen my hip waders?
No reason…
Oh, elucidator! You care! But I must point out that I did not say it *would *be physically impossible, only that it was the legislature’s and governor’s intention to make it physically impossible.
I believe Brownback, at least, has said as much, but I cannot find a cite. Although maybe it was one of the bill supporters who did.
And David42, I did not say it was a “known problem with hospitals”. I said that the regulations do not apply to hospitals or to medical clinics that do not provide abortions. The hospitals may well be fine, but I’d be willing to bet that you could find any number of non-abortion-providing medical clinics that would be unable to comply with these new regulations.
Nor, might I add, has anyone said that the abortion providers are unwilling to comply or that they are willfully refusing to comply. Indeed, they must have been complying with the current regulations that still apply to all other medical service providers or they wouldn’t have been licensed under them.
If the concern is patient care and safety, then the new regulations must apply to ANY, EVERY, and ALL providers of medical services in the State of Kansas. They don’t.
Of course, we accept these helpful corrections with varying degrees of grace. I should like to put a shining example before young David’s eyes, but modesty does not permit.
Let’s say instead of betting you find some evidence, OK? The problem with guess work is you get to decide any variables in your favor. Keep in mind my claim isn’t that there aren’t. And I see no need for a general practicioner who does no life threatening procedure to have to set himself up like an emergency room does. If you’re gonna guess, you should be willing to stipulate that it might not be so. If you are certain, then I’d like some proof.
Definitely you should show me these one and all regulations regardless of what kind of medical service you are providing. Don’t forget that cosmetologists are licensed in my state for the same health reasons. And Let’s see, there are in-home services too…
yep, my dentist currently is going over heart-lung machine regulations/standards so that everything that applies to an operating room applies to his practice.
Before you go too far with this, ARE you SURE that* if it applies to one, it must apply to all?*
I guess I am seriously confused here…Is it IMPOLITE to say thank you for a clarification of my point, or any other matter?
Sorry, as long as the Democratic legislative candidates in Kansas continue to act as almost political parodies, they’re not going to be voting out the conservatives anytime soon. Good grief, we had a couple of Democratic candidates for office here run a platform featuring “raise taxes and ban guns” - in Kansas. They may as well have gone door-to-door dressed like Dr. Frankenfurter. Democrats in this State need to push away hard from the failed politics of Finney/Sebelius and embrace the politics of Parkinson, who was a damn fine Democratic governor.
I wish Parkinson was governor now.
AT least I voted against Brownback. If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s people who are bitching about how things are being run, but didn’t vote. That pisses me off. If you don’t vote, I don’t think you have a right to complain.
I too liked Parkinson, and he would have had my vote. I guess he figured that it was impossible to beat Brownback, so he gave up. I would have liked to have seen him carry out a race against Brownback and hammer home some key points, I don’t know, maybe he could have swayed a few State representative or senate races to go Democrat.