Oklahoma Legislature passes bill that would criminalizing abortion procedures except to save a mother's life.


Recommended Posts

Just now, Gary7 said:

I am glad that you posted this as I wanted to explain. The show that I was watching at the Time was Greta Vansustern and she said it was breaking news so after I watched that I posted it. If you want to she can be reached at:  @greta and #greta !

:p

And it's not like she's clueless; she's one of those SmartBlondes that have become a trend as of late (and no - not ALL SmartBlondes are female; two of them - the Doocy Brothers, Steve and Peter - are, in fact, quite male).

 

8 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

And it's not like she's clueless; she's one of those SmartBlondes that have become a trend as of late (and no - not ALL SmartBlondes are female; two of them - the Doocy Brothers, Steve and Peter - are, in fact, quite male).

 

She is an Attorney and former Prosecutor and she won some kind of award the other day. Her hair has more of a reddish cast to it and she is not as attractive as Meghan Kelly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Raze said:

Stand still, I want this to be a clean, single shot kill.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

oODGOyf.gif

 

 

:p

 

Greta-Van-Susteren.jpgmk.jpg

30 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

No solution is perfect, the fact it's not perfect isn't an argument to approve of it. Just like the fact we can't stop all cocaine use in the US doesn't mean we should legalize it and make it entirely unregulated. I am also not reducing women to anything, not sure where you got that idea.

Forcing women to carry pregnancy to term is a bigger burden on them compared to an abortion and is a form of denial of their own personal responsibility on their own body.

 

30 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

There are people in this world who have suffered more than you can imagine in their entire lives and if you asked them "would you rather have never lived your life at all?" they'd probably laugh at you for even asking. The point is here despite all the suffering and pain someone may or may not go through, sometimes they feel it's worth it. That's their decision to make, not yours as their parent.

Ah, that is quite new: foetuses can decide for themselves ....

 

 

30 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

And single mothers raise their children all the time with two or even three jobs, I'm sure even you won't assert that such things aren't possible. And also, if they can't take care of the child they can always put it up for adoption. They aren't completely out of options here. I also don't believe the solution to bad parenting is abortions. Just another example of an extreme solution for a problem that has other options.

It is not a question of bad parenting: it is a question of present parents: studies have that there is a link between the wellness of a child and his development and the presence of parents.

- http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/effects-parents-being-absent-home-4321.html

- http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/absent-parent-selfesteem-children-9297.html

- http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/07/15-children-absent-fathers-sawhill

 

30 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

You're taking this a bit out of context. This was in reply to being accused of not being an authority on the matter or having authority to make such statements. I don't need to be an authority to offer up my input. However, in regards to freedom we can all accept that freedom comes with limitations. For example, I can't steal things from the store without ramifications. I can't murder my neighbor's dog without consequences. I think abortions have a time and place, and should be regulated as any medical procedure should be. This isn't cosmetic surgery, there is a huge moral and ethical dilemma behind it.

You do not want abortions to be regulated, you want abortions to be forbidden. Stop trying wiggling around it.

 

4 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Forcing women to carry pregnancy to term is a bigger burden on them compared to an abortion and is a form of denial of their own personal responsibility on their own body.

 

 

4 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Ah, that is quite new: foetuses can decide for themselves ..

 

4 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

You do not want abortions to be regulated, you want abortions to be forbidden. Stop trying wiggling around it.

 

BS to all three. No one Forces a women to carry to term, Roe v Wade fixed that. Fetuses  can probably think better than Politicians.

1 minute ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Forcing women to carry pregnancy to term is a bigger burden on them compared to an abortion and is a form of denial of their own personal responsibility on their own body.

 

They also have a responsibility to their offspring and to take proper steps to not getting pregnant. It's incorrect to reduce the responsibility of pregnancy to just the mother.
 

3 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Ah, that is quite new: foetuses can decide for themselves ....

You're missing the point, I was illustrating that you as an outside party do not have the authority to dictate whether or not someone's life is going to contain too much suffering for them to handle. Upon taking that step, you are assigning specific requirements for a life to be worth living and that falls directly into eugenics practices.
 

9 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

It is not a question of bad parenting: it is a question of present parents: studies have that there is a link between the wellness of a child and his development and the presence of parents.

- http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/effects-parents-being-absent-home-4321.html

- http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/absent-parent-selfesteem-children-9297.html

- http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/07/15-children-absent-fathers-sawhill

So... because their parents will be absent it is therefore justifiable to prevent their life? I'd love for you to argue that one. I think you need to know that a "chance" is not a "guarantee". Abortions seem like a pretty final solution to something that isn't of absolute certainty (which can never be when it comes to an individual person/child/life).
 

15 minutes ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

You do not want abortions to be regulated, you want abortions to be forbidden. Stop trying wiggling around it.

I said I want it to be regulated. You have no reason to ignore my actual statement and assert I want something otherwise. Don't be one of those people who ignore what others say and superimpose a narrative that isn't present.

1 hour ago, Gary7 said:

She is an Attorney and former Prosecutor and she won some kind of award the other day. Her hair has more of a reddish cast to it and she is not as attractive as Meghan Kelly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greta-Van-Susteren.jpgmk.jpg

Maybe not - however, she was, in fact, an inspiration TO Kelly - according to no less than Megyn herself.  Greta was one of those legal brains made famous (or infamous) by coverage of the O. J, Simpson trial (she was with CNN at the time) - she got her own show on the cable network out of it ("Burden of Proof") which specialized in hot-button legal issues (not just criminal cases).  Unfortunately for us, like Megyn, she is quite happily married (and - also like Megyn, despite spending most of her legal career in Washington, DC, she's also a fan of the New York Mets).

 

Still, given opportunity, I would not turn down a date with either - and it has nothing to do with their looks or political views - instead, it has to do with their brainpower.  What doubtless drives CNN (and even Bloomberg to an extent) rather barmy is that FOX (News AND Business) has a rather extensive collection of brainpower of the female persuasion (as it turns out, there's another brainy Maria on the FOX payroll OTHER than SweaterGirl Bartiromo - it's meteorologist (and co-host of "FOX and Friends" (and part-time stormchaser)) Maria Molina - who recently married fellow stormchaser Reed Timmer @ Volcanoes National Park; yes - that means that THIS Maria also got away.)

Edited by PGHammer

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

You're missing the point, I was illustrating that you as an outside party do not have the authority to dictate whether or not someone's life is going to contain too much suffering for them to handle. Upon taking that step, you are assigning specific requirements for a life to be worth living and that falls directly into eugenics practices.

Neither politicians or you. it is up to the parents who are responsible to decide with proper information given by medical professionals.

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

So... because their parents will be absent it is therefore justifiable to prevent their life? I'd love for you to argue that one. I think you need to know that a "chance" is not a "guarantee". Abortions seem like a pretty final solution to something that isn't of absolute certainty (which can never be when it comes to an individual person/child/life).

To awfully divert a movie famous line, great parenting comes with great responsibility. Children thrive on nuturing and education from their parents and a safe and stable environment. It is up to the parents to decide in their own consciences if they are able to have and raise a child.

 

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

I said I want it to be regulated. You have no reason to ignore my actual statement and assert I want something otherwise. Don't be one of those people who ignore what others say and superimpose a narrative that isn't present.

You may want to reread your previous prose on the subject.

 

On ‎20‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 11:56 PM, Raze said:

Let's add a bit more context http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/05/21/3780610/oklahoma-abortion-felony-veto/

 

Gov. Mary Fallin (R-OK) has rarely met an abortion restriction she did not like. In 2008, as a member of Congress, she co-sponsored a bill to treat fetuses as people and give them equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. Since she became governor in 2011, she has signed legislation to ban many second trimester abortions, require longer waiting periods, and restrict access to medication abortion — laws that were later found to be unconstitutional.

So it came as something of a surprise when Fallin announced Friday that she had decided to veto a bill to make it a felony for doctors to perform abortions and to revoke their licenses if they carry out the procedure when it is not absolutely necessary to save the life of the woman. She described the bill as “unconstitutional” — a view shared by legal experts.

 

But rather than reject the legislation on the grounds that doctors should be free to do their jobs or that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1991 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling explicitly rejects state abortion laws that impose an “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability,” Fallin made clear that her issue with the measure, Senate Bill 1552, was entirely with its less-than-specific phrasing.

“Although Senate Bill 1552 excludes a mother’s threat of self-harm from the exception preserving the life of the mother, Senate Bill 1552 does not define ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother,'” she wrote in her veto message. “The absence of any definition, analysis or medical standard renders this exception vague, indefinite and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and application.” Fallin added that state court precedent requires that laws be clear enough “that all persons of ordinary intelligence” can understand them.

 

In other words, Fallin objected only to the fact that there might be cases where it was not clear that the procedure was necessary to save a life.

Fallin added that while this law’s language was too “vague and ambiguous,” she supports a “re-examination of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade,” and “the appointment of a conservative, pro-life justice to the United States Supreme Court.”

Even so, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Nathan Dahm (R) blasted the veto “from a person who claims to be pro-life,” and indicated that he hopes the Republican-controlled legislature will attempt to override the veto before the session ends on May 27.

 

So, she did not reject the bill because it was an awful bill, she rejected the bill because it was poorly worded and likely to be torpedoed as soon as it was challenged in courts

 

3 hours ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

Neither politicians or you. it is up to the parents who are responsible to decide with proper information given by medical professionals.

Medical professionals indeed have a say in if it is a good option; medically. But if there is no medical reason

 

3 hours ago, DefyTheOutcome said:

To awfully divert a movie famous line, great parenting comes with great responsibility. Children thrive on nuturing and education from their parents and a safe and stable environment. It is up to the parents to decide in their own consciences if they are able to have and raise a child.

I think our morals and ethics just don't align. You firmly believe that if the parents can't provide what you deem an adequate existence then there's justification to just end the life before it starts. You'll keep them from even having a go at life merely du to some statistical analysis and slippery slope logic.

This is effectively the same scenario as a person who is in a coma.  You know they will wake up, you know they will have no memory (retrograde amnesia) but you know they will also suffer upon doing so. By the logic you're providing, if you don't want to care for this person or believe that they won't be able to tolerate the amount of pain and suffering they will be exposed to then you are justified in euthanizing them before they have the chance to awaken.

On 5/20/2016 at 1:56 PM, Stoffel said:

You see this as ending a life, some of us don't feel the same way. If you don't see that fetus as a person/living being yet, there is no selfish reasoning at all.

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

1 hour ago, ctebah said:

Perhaps if more people were educated enough to understand that a fertilized embryo is NOT a human being, we wouldn't have these stupid debates on abortion. 

I agree that a lot of the discussion, and the heavy polarization of the discussion would go away if this was the case. But I don't think it would end all discussion.

9 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

I agree that a lot of the discussion, and the heavy polarization of the discussion would go away if this was the case. But I don't think it would end all discussion.

You're right, I realize there is a lot more to abortions than just that.  And it's not a bad thing to discuss such social issues.

15 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

A heartbeat != life.

  • Like 3
18 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

 

If by first few you mean by week 5 or 6, then yes, that's when the first heartbeats start. For some life begins at conception, for others life begins when the brain is more functional and formed. At what point life begins isn't even an argument for some that still accept abortion as a personal choice. Guilt also plays no part in it for many, so that's a moot point. 

18 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

 

If by first few you mean by week 5 or 6, then yes, that's when the first heartbeats start. For some life begins at conception, for others life begins when the brain is more functional and formed. At what point life begins isn't even an argument for some that still accept abortion as a personal choice. Guilt also plays no part in it for many, so that's a moot point. 

 

 

18 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

but there is a known fact that there's a heartbeat in the first few weeks after conception. so with a heartbeat, there's life. But there are some who use this argument so as to make this feel less guilty. But some folks use abortion as a means of contraception.

I have seen that heat beat on my wife's ultrasound.Once you see that and then have a child, ones feelings about Roe v Wade change for most people. It is the law of the land and a choice which for some is a hard one to make. When abortion is used as a birth control method is what makes me mad.

50 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

I have seen that heat beat on my wife's ultrasound.Once you see that and then have a child, ones feelings about Roe v Wade change for most people. It is the law of the land and a choice which for some is a hard one to make. When abortion is used as a birth control method is what makes me mad.

And how many times is it used as a birth control method versus being anything else? 

 

Have you been counting the people walking into abortion clinics and checking out who's a regular? 

 

Or do you just hear stories from so and so? 

 

Maybe some people just lie about being pregnant and lie about getting the abortion just to get attention. 

1 hour ago, wakjak said:

And how many times is it used as a birth control method versus being anything else? 

 

Have you been counting the people walking into abortion clinics and checking out who's a regular? 

 

Or do you just hear stories from so and so? 

 

Maybe some people just lie about being pregnant and lie about getting the abortion just to get attention. 

76% of abortions (based on a 2004 study) are done because of being "unready", "can't afford it", "parent's/significant other wants an abortion" or "don't want to be a single parent" as the primary reason. So yes, the majority of people are using it as contraception, or in cases where birth control would have prevented it being necessary.  Only 7.5% of abortions are because of rape/incest or medical issues. That's pretty surprising to me, honestly.

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

On 5/19/2016 at 3:53 PM, Emn1ty said:

What do you define as severely impaired? There's plenty of help out there for impaired children. But again, I didn't say "only the mother's life is at risk" I said "a life is at risk", this includes the child. If the child is very unlikely to make it to term then I don't see a reason to prevent abortion. Case by case is always necessary, but case by case requirement is not an argument for anytime/anyplace/any reason abortions across the board.

 

Abortions are a big deal, and they can be quite risky if not done as early as possible. From a purely medical and objective standpoint I see no real reason to have abortions take place at all (sans life threatening scenario or rape), since adoption is always an option. I don't really see why people hate the idea of putting them up for adoption.
 

Is dead impaired enough?

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/03/31/texas-woman-forced-to-deliver-stillborn-baby-due-to-abortion-ban/

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

76% of abortions (based on a 2004 study) are done because of being "unready", "can't afford it", "parent's/significant other wants an abortion" or "don't want to be a single parent" as the primary reason. So yes, the majority of people are using it as contraception, or in cases where birth control would have prevented it being necessary.  Only 7.5% of abortions are because of rape/incest or medical issues. That's pretty surprising to me, honestly.

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Well, it's a good thing that those on the side of banning abortions are very much pro-contracept---  oh wait.

  • Like 2
1 minute ago, soniqstylz said:

You've not read any of what I've posted. I'd say if the baby is already dead, then an abortion is moot. Just as shooting a dead body wouldn't be murder. Law isn't perfect, and it was rightly vetoed due to that fact.

 

1 minute ago, soniqstylz said:

Well, it's a good thing that those on the side of banning abortions are very much pro-contracept---  oh wait.

Those people are not me, so I'm not sure what your point is.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!