Texas Abortion Law Leaves Planned Parenthood in Tears

[iamsoandso]

I am well aware of the use of unreasonable search being the basis for abortion. The government said they would hide their eyes.

It doesn't matter and is not relevant to the Texas law. The Texas law simply states that you must check for a heartbeat first and if there is one you cannot abort without it being considered murder. It is established precedent that the states can decide at which point the baby is a human being and it has always been acceptable that that date is well before the day the baby is born. Also, they aren't making this a criminal complaint, it is a civil complaint. Those involved in the abortion can be sued for malpractice.

Second, it was the Satanist temple that said that abortion is a sacred rite for their religious practice of worshipping Satan. That argument would make the Roe V Wade ruling unconstitutional. The Supreme court has no authority over religious issues. Also to say that Texas can't outlaw it because of that is idiotic. Many states have had blue laws, many states outlaw polygamy even though it is part of the Mormon practice.

In Texas(and many other states) the unborn child is considered alive at "every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth". For instance if an person murders a pregnant women(at any stage of pregnancy) it is double homicide. (it's about 3/4 down the page) https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07

 

[Icedaisey]

No, what is pathetic is that you didn't read the news which I posted a few posts back. I will repost it just for you:

Satanic Temple Attacks Texas Abortion Law, Argues That it Violates Their ‘Religious Freedom’ to ‘Abortion Rituals’

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...fice-abortion-official-ritual-satanic-temple/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-violates-religious-freedom-abortion-rituals/

Educate yourself.

Satanic Temple is Satire!

Think about it. If they were legitimate "baby sacrificing satanists", would they give one whip about the law as it reads concerning abortion?

ST has been in the news for years. Their sole purpose is to upset what they call white lighter sheep.

A milk bath ritual? Satire!

 

[mindfulzen]

No, what is pathetic is that you didn't read the news which I posted a few posts back. I will repost it just for you:

Satanic Temple Attacks Texas Abortion Law, Argues That it Violates Their ‘Religious Freedom’ to ‘Abortion Rituals’

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...fice-abortion-official-ritual-satanic-temple/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-violates-religious-freedom-abortion-rituals/

Educate yourself.

seems a bit phony, this is almost like CNN links if you ask me, just crazy

 

[ZNP]

Satanic Temple is Satire!

Think about it. If they were legitimate "baby sacrificing satanists", would they give one whip about the law as it reads concerning abortion?

ST has been in the news for years. Their sole purpose is to upset what they call white lighter sheep.

A milk bath ritual? Satire!

You think that was funny? I thought it was repulsive, vile, wicked and evil.

 

[ZNP]

seems a bit phony, this is almost like CNN links if you ask me, just crazy

 

[ZNP]

Satanic Temple is Satire!

Think about it. If they were legitimate "baby sacrificing satanists", would they give one whip about the law as it reads concerning abortion?

ST has been in the news for years. Their sole purpose is to upset what they call white lighter sheep.

A milk bath ritual? Satire!

 

[Icedaisey]

In Texas(and many other states) the unborn child is considered alive at "every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth". For instance if an person murders a pregnant women(at any stage of pregnancy) it is double homicide. (it's about 3/4 down the page) https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07

In that section you point out, what is meant here under Sec. 1.07 Definitions : (27)Repealed by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 87, Sec. 25.144, eff. September 1, 2009.

 

[Icedaisey]

"The Satanic Temple being a parody activist group, in their words, “a self described “Yes Men” styled satire/activist group that uses satanic-themed imagery and language to get media and public attention”. " A history of Satanic Temple shenanigans – Aleph's Heretical Domain (wordpress.com)

 

[OIC1965]

It'll be overturned. It's patently unconstitutional. And it's illegal to blanket "deputize" citizens to violate citizens Constitutional rights.

The Deviousness of Texas’s New Abortion Law
The statute is the culmination of a decades-long strategy to end abortion without actually banning abortion.
By Mary Ziegler



Texas law that deputizes private citizens to ban abortion flagrantly violates constitutional rights lawsuit

Where’s it say in the Constitution a woman has a right to murder her baby?

I haven’t seen that one.

 

[OIC1965]

What's strange is how people don't realize Roe v Wade was decided under the Constitutions 4th Amendment.

The Constitution is the highest federal law in the land. Federal law supercedes state law when invoked.

Quite a stretch. Way, way, way, removed from original intent.

 

[Icedaisey]

Quite a stretch. Way, way, way, removed from original intent.

Supremacy Clause, Article VI, section 2

 

[OIC1965]

In the case of Roe v. Wade the 4th amendment pertained to right to privacy.
In other words, the jurisdiction of the state, and federal government, does not have the right to invade a woman's womb, or her right to medical privacy and choice.

Before Roe V. Wade, many don't know this, birth control was once illegal in the United States. Again, that was a right to privacy issue as well. The overarching point of such laws being primacy of the male sperm over the females personal autonomy. Which made females unequal under such laws.

I predict this Texas fight isn't over yet.

That ruling was just silly. The issue is not whether we should invade a woman’s womb or not. The issue is the practice of abortion.

And 99 percent of the time, pregnancy is the result of a consensual act, so primacy of male sperm over female autonomy I’d utter nonsense.

 

[OIC1965]

Supremacy Clause, Article VI, section 2

Doesn’t change the fact that the the idea that the fourth amendment was intended to protect abortion is ludicrous. Just another example of undermining the Constitution by perverting the meaning of its words.

It’s similar to the way cults twist the words of scripture.

 

[OIC1965]

Doesn’t change the fact that the the idea that the fourth amendment was intended to protect abortion is ludicrous. Just another example of undermining the Constitution by perverting the meaning of its words.

It’s similar to the way cults twist the words of scripture.

The Supreme Court has superseded the original intent of the constitution and amendments in this matter, imo.

 

[Genipher]

If you say that the heartbeat is not important, then you kind of say that I was not alive when I was put into induced coma before a lifesaving operation.

No, I am not not saying that my heart was not beating when I was put in a coma obviously, because that would mean that I am dead now and this is the afterlife, bit logic. If you do not claim that. I had an injury, and I had to be put in a coma to save my life because my body reacted in a way that would do me in before I got operated. I was not concious for many hours or days, depending on when I was woken up after the emergencysurgery. My entire point was that I still had a heartbeat in a coma, which you seem hellbent on missing. Babies still breath through the water in the womb, get nutrition, has a heartrate in the womb, all invoulentary. Same issue. Pick a lane, was I dead or not worthy of the life I was given, as kids are given while being in the womb, or not. Does the heartbeat matter?What constitutes a life for you? And answer my specifics regarding being in a coma, because it is the same thing, unborn babies probably have more brainactivity than I had in the coma. At least after 20 weeks, since babies are programmed to go from oxygen from water to air, and other evolutionary instincts, while my brain just had to be shut off completely to stop a bodily responser, after such programming.

I think we're having a miscommunication issue.

First of all, you seemed to be saying you had no heartbeat when you were in a coma. My apologies if that was not what you were saying.

Secondly, I was trying to show the flaw in the argument that a creature must have a heartbeat to be alive. There are creatures that have no hearts and are considered "alive". Just because it takes "x" amount of time for a human baby to have a heartbeat doesn't mean it isn't alive.

Thirdly, I HAVE picked a lane. Abortion is murder. A baby is a baby from conception. You are worthy of life just as an unborn, newly conceived baby is worthy of life. You and the unborn are both human and both alive.

You think it's an "evolutionary instinct" that a baby goes from breathing amniotic fluid to breathing oxygen? I guess we disagree on that note as I believe God designed us to go from one to the other.

 

[Icedaisey]

Doesn’t change the fact that the the idea that the fourth amendment was intended to protect abortion is ludicrous. Just another example of undermining the Constitution by perverting the meaning of its words.

It’s similar to the way cults twist the words of scripture.

Not true.

 

[OIC1965]

The Supreme Court has superseded the original intent of the constitution and amendments in this matter, imo.

Not true.

I believe that determining original intent is fundamental in interpreting and applying any document.

 

[Icedaisey]

That ruling was just silly. The issue is not whether we should invade a woman’s womb or not. The issue is the practice of abortion.

And 99 percent of the time, pregnancy is the result of a consensual act, so primacy of male sperm over female autonomy I’d utter nonsense.

Show your evidence. Prove your statement that 99 percent of pregnancies are the result of a consensual act.

 

[Icedaisey]

I believe that determining original intent is fundamental in interpreting and applying any document.

And yet you weren't aware of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

What you now claim to believe is able to be ascertained by reading the Doctrine of Original Intent.

 

[OIC1965]

And yet you weren't aware of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

What you now claim to believe is able to be ascertained by reading the Doctrine of Original Intent.

Who said I didn’t know about that?

It’s irrelevant to my argument.