Poem, I've read way too many of your claims that n
Post# of 65629
(Total Views: 84)
Posted On: 01/13/2019 12:02:19 AM
Poem, I've read way too many of your claims that no 'libs' will EVER respond to your theocratic RW crap posts, while you cower from behind 'ignore'.
I've responded to more of your sh*t than I care to remember.
If you don't like the law, change it. But know that you're pissing against the wind; there will never be enough people who will trust wannabe theocrats to get between them and their doctors to decide FOR them what is best for THEM.
in case you miss the irony, that is the MOST common complaint that righties level against liberals; almost always based upon misinformation.
I've responded to more of your sh*t than I care to remember.
If you don't like the law, change it. But know that you're pissing against the wind; there will never be enough people who will trust wannabe theocrats to get between them and their doctors to decide FOR them what is best for THEM.
in case you miss the irony, that is the MOST common complaint that righties level against liberals; almost always based upon misinformation.
Quote:
Controversy[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_heartbeat_bill
There exists some controversy surrounding fetal heartbeat laws because no one is exactly sure when the earliest point is at which a fetus's heartbeat can be detected; when the Wyoming state legislature was debating the bill mentioned above, Norine Kasperik "noted that during the discussion, she heard different answers to when a heartbeat is detectable.
To her, there seemed to be variation by medical equipment used." Similarly, Mary Throne inquired, "Is this abortion illegal at 22 days with a highly invasive ultrasound or is it illegal at 9 weeks when we hear a heartbeat with a stethoscope?"[38]
Furthermore, some critics of these bills have claimed that they ignore that not all fetuses' heartbeats become detectable at the same time, even when measured using the same methods, since, according to Mother Jones, this varies depending on "the embryo's position in the uterus, a woman's body fat percentage, and a dozen other variables."[46]
On a similar note, the Center for Reproductive Rights has stated that there is some inconsistency with regard to these laws; specifically, "The Arkansas law requires providers to do so with an abdominal ultrasound, and the North Dakota one by any technology available, including a transvaginal probe, which can detect a heartbeat weeks earlier than an abdominal ultrasound."[47]
With specific regard to the North Dakota law, detecting a fetus' heartbeat at six weeks into a pregnancy requires the use of a transvaginal ultrasound, which some members of the pro-choice movement say is unnecessarily invasive.[48]
Furthermore, while the pro-life movement claims that bills mandating a woman listen to her fetus' heartbeat would increase the likelihood of them changing their mind, the pro-choice community, with the support of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, opposes "informed-consent" bills because they threaten to, if passed, "significantly jeopardize the open dialogue within the physician-patient relationship."[49]
Furthermore, some critics of fetal heartbeat bills say that, since Roe v. Wade established that abortion is legal until the point of viability (between 24 and 28 weeks into the pregnancy), that such bills "blatantly contradict" Supreme Court precedent.
As Governor Beebe put it regarding the Arkansas 12-week ban mentioned above, "In short, because it would impose a ban on a woman's right to choose an elective, nontherapeutic abortion well before viability, Senate Bill 134 blatantly contradicts the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court...When I was sworn in as governor I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend both the Arkansas Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
I take that oath seriously."[8] That fetal heartbeat bills are unconstitutional is an opinion with which Judge Hovland agreed with regard to the North Dakota law signed by the governor on March 26, 2013. Hovland wrote that the law was "clearly invalid and unconstitutional based on the United States Supreme Court precedent in Roe V. Wade."[50]
(1)
(0)