Milla Perry Jones sits on the board of the United Surgical Partners Corporation.
They currently operate 420 surgical centers in the state. Closing 37 of the 42
clinics in Texas significantly eliminates competition and gives the company the
ability to offer and perform abortion procedures at a higher cost. This means
low income women will have to pay more to get an abortion and Rick Perry’s
sister will profit from it.Sounds about right.
OHBU,we will have to wait and see what the SCOTUS says about Texas's
attempts to protect the unborn before we can decide whether the actions Texas
has taken are constitutional or not. In other threads you chastise
Chris B for jumping to conclusions about rioting in the Zimmerman trial, and
here you are jumping to conclusions about Texas's new law.
lost,I stand corrected. However, that does not change my original
argument one bit. Until Congress amends the Constitution, it is the law of the
land, and what states like Texas are doing is unconstitutional, as the
constitution now stands.These types of state laws are really nothing
but pandering, pure and simple. Every politician knows what has to happen to
actually change the law--amend the Constitution. But knowing that they
can't actually get the support to do so (like those who would like to do
away with guns), they resort to petty fights and obstructionism. These types of
laws have been passed time and time again, and they are always eventually ruled
unconstitutional, and the state usually is responsible to pay all legal fees.
It's an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars spent in a PR campaign to get
OHBU,actually the SCOTUS did not reverse Dred Scott, it was either the
13th amendment, which ended slavery, or the 14th, which guaranteed equal
protection. The court was wrong then, as they have been a number of times since
- like when they say affirmative action quotas do not violate the 14th amendment
as long as the government can present a compelling argument. The constitution
does NOT have such qualifiers (like presenting a compelling argument) in its
re: the TruthStudy Roe v Wade--the court said that the 14th
Amendment's protection extended to the mother, until viability (between
20-24 weeks), reasoning that until that point they are still part of the
mother's body. And in cases where the health of the mother is at risk,
there is a choice between two lives, and they allow the mother to make that
choice. As to your "common sense" aspect, the amendment lays out rights
for those born in the US--an unborn baby is by definition, then, not covered.re: lost in DCI said until Congress amends the Constitution OR the
Court reverses itself (like they did on Dred Scott). I never made a judgement
call that it was right, I simply stated that abortion is Constitutionally
protected, if indirectly.
the SCOTUS also said Dred Scot was property
@OHBUCourts do not make law,congress makes law.And congress has not made any law a concerning abortion.The fact
is, according to the 9th and 10th amendments abortion is still up to the
states and the people not the federal government.I see nothing in
14th amendments protecting abortion, quite the contrary it protects the life of
the unborn.Any one with common sense can see and read that, anyone
not with a political agenda.
re: cjbYou are factually incorrect. The right to an abortion is
constitutionally protected. The Constitution explicitly gives the Supreme Court
the authority to interpret the law, and when they do so, it becomes tied to the
Constitution itself. When the court decided in Roe v Wade that the 14th
Amendment covered a woman's right to regulate her own body in the form of
an abortion, then abortion legally, and constitutionally, became a protected
right under the 14th Amendment. Until the Constitution is amended, or the
Supreme Court reverses itself, any law that violates Roe v Wade is a direct
violation of the Constitution.
Hey y'all, this article is about killing defenseless people and not voting
rights and gun control.
"You are forgetting one thing, the right to have a gun is protected by the
constitution, the right to have an abortion isn't."Supreme Court
disagrees with you.But I don't think "Constitutional"
matters anymore. We have to jump through hoops to perform our right to vote.
We used to have an expectation of privacy. The list goes on and on.
Re cjb Moderate said nothing about taking them a way, and yes they
are protected. All he said is that all trainer need's to be a certified
paramedics and all classes need to be taught with in X amount of feet from a
hospital, that can treat gun shoot wounds. And are these not the same actions
that is being ask for in the Texas abortion law? And if it is, why not start
making it in to a law for gun control? And as you can see no one is taking your
guns, and you can still keep them.
Abortion is the most extreme form of selfishness.People are willing to
sacrifice a human for their own pleasure and convenience.
Re ModerateYou are forgetting one thing, the right to have a gun is
protected by the constitution, the right to have an abortion isn't.
Abortiom should be safe legal and rare? Abortion by definition can never be
safe, by definition it is the killing of a baby.
This bill addresses partial birth abortion which involves a viable baby being
partially born and the doctor punctures the brain and sucks out the matter to
kill the baby that would otherwise be born normally. Anyone who understands this
procedure and still opposes restrictions is as bad as the murderer who does it.
These abortion restriction tactics are a good road map for how we can restrict
guns in this country. We don't need sweeping gun reform legislation. Just
little by little, erode things away.For example, require a gun
safety course before getting a gun permit. Then require that gun safety course
instructor be certified as a paramedic in case there is an accident in class.
Then later require that the gun safety class be taught within 1000 yards of a
surgical center, and that the surgical center have an admitting doctor certified
in treating gunshot wounds. Then later require that gun safety courses be
taught in a hospital, but add a restriction that no hospital can receive federal
funds if they choose to sponsor gun safety courses.