I'm not sure how much credit he deserves. He apparently asked a lot of people, including VP Quayle, if he could do what Trump wanted, and they uniformly said "No effing way!" I don't have much doubt that he would have if he could have.

If Pence, a lifetime right-wing Christian fundamentalist, had any integrity he would have quit the ticket the day the pussy tape came out.

That's why I call it cowardly. If he could have found a way of doing it without getting himself in massive trouble if it didn't work, I have absolutely no doubt he would have done it. As a country, we should all be grateful that Pence has a low risk tolerance.

Since when do christian fundamentalists take serious issue with sexual assault? Those women really should have known better than to consort with Trump.

...

Why do you insist on this? The link I posted above says that this is a major procedure performed by only a handful of doctors in the U.S. when it is medically necessary. It's hard to believe that a rogue doc could fly under the radar for long.

More important, so what? Less than one percent of all abortions are performed in the third trimester, and most are documented medical crises. What does a tiny percentage, if that, of a tiny percentage of abortions have to do with denying the right to medical care and bodily autonomy to every woman in America?

This is why I can't take you seriously. You are contradicting yourself.

RvW was legislating from the bench, or to be more precise, removing much of the abortion question from the legislature. By overturning RvW, they are explicitly leaving the question of what to do about abortion to the legislatures. You cannot simultaneously complain that the Supreme Court must leave it up to the legislatures AND object to them leaving it up to the legislatures. That is completely incoherent.

Only because you really struggle with understanding context.

I'm saying conservatives' whole deal is that judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench. Under that philosophy, they should leave interstate travel up to the various (federal and/or state) legislatures and not prohibit it?

Do you want to try again?

Why do I insist that doctors will prescribe painkillers to patients who just want to get high? Why do I insist that some cops will take bribes? Why do I insist that some politicians will trade votes for donations?

Because corruption exists. No profession is free of it, especially when it's easy to get away with. And there's absolutely no reason, none at all, to think that he's alone. Because, as Gosnell has shown, it's quite profitable, and quite easy to get away with. Hell, he murdered multiple people before he was caught. How the hell would you ever catch an abortion doctor performing illegal abortions if he actually did it safely?

It's up to you to decide how much you care. But you don't get to decide for other people how much they can care.

And lest you forget, you seemed to care about an alleged 10 year old pregnant girl who had to go out of state to get an abortion. That's a single case, an extreme outlier far below the 1% mark. So you don't even apply this standard to yourself.

Interstate travel *IS* left up to the legislature: the FEDERAL legislature. The split between the feds and the state has absolutely nothing to do with not legislating from the bench. Refusing states the ability to regulate interstate travel isn't the courts taking that power for themselves.

Okay, I know this is hard to understand but who says that is true?

It's the courts.

Who can reverse that?

Also, the courts.

What can prevent them from reversing that?

Absolutely no one.

Corruption, by docs or anybody else, is already illegal. If you have evidence that docs are performing illegal abortions, call the cops. The fact that somebody somewhere might do something illegal is not a basis for making public policy.

And the 10-year-old is just an extreme example of a state attempting to compel any female to bear a child against her will and at risk to her life and health. The issue is the same, whether she's 10 or 16 or 35.

Let's take a look at Kermit Gosnell who has been presented by anti-choice advocates using him in their fear-mongering propaganda film where But let's be clear: He was not a gynecologist or obstetrician although he was a medical doctor. Gosnell was a criminal and serial killer and operated (literally) in the way that pre-Roe v Wade back alley abortionists did:

Quote:

There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets.

Most of the abortions he performed were illegal under PA law which only allowed them up to 24 weeks gestation. He aborted and induced the labor of viable fetuses past the 24 week law and then killed at least 3 who were still alive by severing their spinal cords. He was convicted of these 3 murders. He was also suspected of dealing in illegal drug subscription.

This POS did all this ILLEGALLY because he was a criminal and murderer. The law meant nothing to him and neither did the lives of the women who came to him or their babies.

Gosnell got away with it for decades because the PA Dept. of Health failed in their job to properly inspect his clinic.

AS usual, you hit the nail on the head. What SCOTUS has declared is that each state can determine if a woman has the right over her own body or not.

I don't care either. Zig hunts up a case of a convicted serial murderer as if he knew of the case prior to a desperate attempt to not be wrong. I said it was a pattern and Zig did not disappoint.

The rest of us know you were wrong, Zig. No matter how deep you dig that nuh'uh hole.

I'm sure he prayed on it, maybe asked if 'Mother' (his wife) could overlook it.

Like I said, and like the source I cited corroborated, third trimester abortions aren't done because at that point a doctor would make every attempt to deliver that baby. Exceptions would be a fetus that had died in the womb or that had deformities incompatible with life. When either the mother or the fetus have life threatening complications, one induces labor or does a c-section.

Dr Tiller did some late abortions but they were to my knowledge only done at the very beginning of the third trimester. One of those cases was a 12 yr old. It is dangerous for a preteen to carry a pregnancy to term. And I made it clear to Zig that those could occur. He only went to the serial murderer BS when his assumptions that late third trimester abortions were done turned out to be wrong. That's the problem. Drumpf and his cult followers have been lying that 3rd trimester abortions were done up to the delivery date at the whim of the mother. And like all their lies, they repeat it so often people believe it is a fact. IMO, Zig is one of those people who fell for that lie. And from my many encounters with Zig in this forum, he has never once admitted he was wrong. Squirming out of being wrong has resulted in the most twisted/convoluted reasons why he wasn't wrong. There should be a reward like our pith awards.

As was noted in the source I cited, you can't make up laws that cover every circumstance. Some of these are very complex decisions. Legislators are not the people you want in charge of a decision that should be left up to the woman and her healthcare provider.

They said I was paranoid when Trump was elected, partially by getting christian evangelicals behind him by promising to stack the supreme court to help get Roe overturned.

They said I was paranoid when he put a literal handmaid on the SC.

They said I was paranoid when McConnell allowed a third conservative Trump nominated judge to the SC close the election, after refusing one for Obama in the same situation 4 years earlier.

They said I was paranoid when Texas passed its abortion restrictions (complete with bounty system) and the SC decided they shouldn't get involved.

They said I was paranoid when the memo was leaked where they literally said they would overturn Roe.

It was never paranoia and it's not exhausting to recognize the obvious.

Zig seems to pose the old question:

"how do you know you can't swim until you have drowned?".

Distracting from Republican misogyny, authoritarianism and hypocrisy, what else?

Confirmation bias, perhaps?

If I cared I go back and find all the things that actually happened that Zigg accused us of being dramatic about but he would literally just deny he ever said the things he said so what would be the point.

Apparently it's now "dramatic" to worry that Republicans might do the things they *checks notes* are currently claiming they are going to do.

What stopped Jan. 6th from being worse? What stopped more GOP operatives & politicians from taking it even farther? Was it their decency & love of democratic norms?

No, it was uncertainty about what would follow in the event of Trump's effort to overturn an election not succeeding (an election rigged to favor Republicans that still managed unambiguously declare Trump the loser). What happens next time if consequences do not follow for people at the top? The answer is that they try harder. This is unfortunate when we have a leadership that will bend over backwards to appease the other side. When we get there, it won't even be about Trump. It will happen Trump or no Trump (Trump is not the aberration, as much as a catalyst).

The magical thinking here is thinking that decency & democratic institutions stop coup #2 in its tracks. Then again, I doubt that Ziggy really even cares or believes his own hogwash. If it ever got that far, Ziggy here will be leading the charge to rationalize why overturning the will of the electorate was actually the right thing to do since lefties are the real threat to democracy (after all we are a republic, not a democracy,... something, something, something...).

Don't forget shuttit who likes to point out that all liberalism stems from pedophilia and the ultimate goal of liberals is to normalize sex with children...

And folks like warp12 who proudly proclaim they don't care who is harmed as long as some lefty is upset about it.

That's what they SHOULD do. But you seem to think that doctors always do what they should do.

And they don't. Nobody always does what they should do. No profession is without its bad apples.

I didn't say late, I said third trimester. I gave you a documented case of it happening. You insist that it doesn't count because reasons, but it does count. What you said never happens, happened.

Fixed that for you. If you are correct, we need much tighter gun control laws too.

Give up. You lost a couple of pages ago. :rolleyes:

BTW, you are claiming some doctors would murder newborns. On top of that you don't deliver without other people around. So you are claiming not only are these doctors murderers, but everyone else are accomplices.

I think you are confused about the difference between a law and enforcement of that law.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...89896f40fe.jpg

No. I'm claiming some doctors will perform elective third trimester abortions.

We get that. The question is where's your evidence? Keep in mind that at some point, the procedure is no longer an "abortion," and becomes an induced delivery or a caesarian, possibly resulting in a premature but living baby. Just as you find it hard to believe that somebody somewhere isn't doing something bad, I find it hard to believe that someone could routinely perform a complex and risky medical procedure illegally, possibly even committing murder, and get away with for very long. Just chanting "Gosnell!" isn't enough.

And whether it's true or not, what does that have to do with anything else? What you're describing is already illegal. You think it should be made more illegal, or you think it's a reason that a 16-year-old shouldn't be able to get a legal abortion at 11 weeks, or what?

Since we have gone around on this point previously, I would like to ask you then, when is the latest in a pregnancy that abortions are available electively? Twenty weeks? Twenty-five weeks? You are convinced it is not shortly before delivery, so what is or should be the cutoff?

It’s based on a medical decision based on the circumstances of each individual case. Not an uninformed (of the individual case) Internet opinion. Or at least it was until the SC idiots threw out 50 years of precedent.

If you followed this and similar threads you will find many instances where late term abortions have been done because of the health of the mother.

What is your cut-off date and what, if anything, would you take into account? Are you happy to see a mother die due to complications of the pregnancy even if the baby would likely survive? I know that some people are.

No profession is without those who do what they shouldn't do. It's called being unethical or breaking the law. And there are consequences for that. But you've yet to produce a single case where a doctor ended a healthy third trimester pregnancy on the whim of the pregnant woman and not based on a medical reason except for Kermit Gosnell who was a criminal serial murderer who was breaking the damn law when he performed them.

Stop shoveling because your hole is only getting deeper.

The word “elective” is usually a red herring as well. Elective implies a choice. Often the mother, because of the absence of the father, the prospect of unemployment or the likelihood of mental health issues arising from an unwanted pregnancy, and many other factors, has no real choice at all.

Not that many conservatives are concerned about the mothers lack of choice.

Oh, and I seriously hope people here don’t post something like “why doesn’t she just adopt”. I’d like to think even conservative members are smarter than that.

Instead of focusing on what doctors do or not do, we should concentrate on what women want and don't want.
the pro-birthers have always focused on the "butcher" doctors who just want to kill the unborn and recently born, probably to sacrifice them to Satan - because blaming women as sluts is more risky, electorally.

But the real question is: is it justified to withhold a drug or medical procedure from a mentally competent adult that, for that adult, is clearly beneficial ?

I'd like to think so, too...but I'm constantly disappointed.

I'm fine with 'viability outside the womb'. But if a physician (or other provider) makes the judgement that someone in the early 3rd trimester, say weeks 29-30 really does need an abortion, that's fine. After that, no.

First: the legislature should not be practicing medicine without a license.

Second: the vast majority of the rare pregnancy terminations in the third trimester are done because the health of the mother or fetus is at risk.

Third: that's why the legislature should not be practicing medicine without a license.

If there is some murderer out there executing near term infants then prosecute those murderers. But the rest of the health care community are not callous murderers for a profit or whatever it is that supposedly leads them to provide late term abortions.

The thing that happens all the time over the entire country has an offender name now for this particular instance:
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/

Will Dumb All Over now claim that Fuentes and his arrest is a made up story?

I predict there'll be an apology when :pigsfly

Apology? I doubt there will even be an acknowledgement.