You think abortion can't be prosecuted just because the woman crosses state lines?

Would you describe it as vivacious if talking about men? Have you ever read or heard the word promiscuous used to describe men?

This is about not punishing women for doing what men are expected to do, even applauded in many cases. This is just another of many double standards in our society. It may be discouraged, but the man can walk away from an unwanted pregnancy. It's women who must deal with it, and how she deals with it should be none of your business, or mine.

 

Nobody is "searching your uterus." What are you talking about? Additionally, medical procedures can be and are regulated... and so is homicide.

 

No, in that case I would use a more gender-appropriate adjective.

I see, so this goes back to feminism's goal of allowing women to be able to "f(*)(*)(*) like men".

No one condones men going around getting women pregnant knowing they are going to have abortions.
In fact, for a man, it's kind of an awkward embarrassing point if a woman aborts your baby. It's definitely not something to highlight or brag about.

 

No **** they are regulated!

And, that absolutely DOES include searching your uterus.

Reports say a woman in Texas was required to carry a dead fetus for 2 weeks before being allowed medical attention to solve that.

Do you think that was due to HEALTH CARE???

Plus, you can find cases where doctors are now having to consult insurance companies, hospital lawyers, hospital boards, local prosecutors and even politicians to determine whether they can render healthcare.

 

I think that's a separate issue, if you want to discuss it in another thread. I don't think any Pro-Lifers want to force a woman to carry a fetus if it's dead.

I think that's mostly a straw man, brought up to try to stir emotion.

Probably due to poorly written laws that are not the most clear for specific situations. That is an issue that is much wider than just the abortion debate.

This could apply to anything that is regulated.

 

No, they passed law that says a woman can not make that choice.

And, there are many like it. Can a woman choose chemotherapy if she has cancer? How much of a risk to life (from a number of various causes) must a doctor have to prove before the woman gets to be free of that risk?

These are all cases where Republicans have demanded that government gets involved in making medical decisions.

Again, today you can find cases where doctors are wondering how to prove some percentage of risk, when lifesaving healthcare doesn't come in percentages like that. Doctors are having to consult lawyers, insurance agencies, hospital boards, and government prosecutors to see if it is safe for them to administer what they see as the proper healthcare.

I don't agree.

There are ways that government does set parameters for healthcare decision making.

But, what is happening is far beyond that.

 

Good. Then you should start a separate thread (and leave the link here) so we can talk about it.

Otherwise I don't believe you.

 

So, basically, all pregnant mothers who leave the state are either smugglers or kidnappers in your mind.

So walk us through the enforcement stage of your perfect world ... every woman of child bearing age will have to take a pregnancy test
before being allowed to leave the state? Any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage while out of the state will have to undergo an intrusive pelvic
exam to prove the "miscarriage" was not intentional?

I do support the right of women to arm themselves at this point, and to use any "2nd Amendment" remedy they decide on to prevent someone
from forcing them into an unwanted pelvic exam.

 

Yes, I'm wondering the same thing.

Are these states actually planning on hiring investigations to track those who leave the state?

So, these states have so little crime that they can assign their investigators to those out of state?

 

You seem upset. Odd.

 

You want another example of states prosecuting crimes that happen outside their borders?

Several states have laws in place to punish "faithless electors", when the state appoints someone to represent them at the Electoral College to vote for President and that person does not vote the way the state wanted them to.

 

.
No surprise here, complete and utter sexism.

Uh, women have always been able to have sex like men....they, however, were criticized for it and punished for it....and men were(are) applauded for it
Just more sexism.

 

seek counsel from an attorney who can explain the difference

 

The feminist goal? How would you know what a feminist considers as progress? My goal as a long time feminist is put an end to double standards. If that's villainous to you, that's your problem.

I did not say that men walking away from the problem was the norm. I said that it was always within the realm of possibility for the man, but not for the woman.

 

And the only way to end double standards, in your view, is to kill fetuses. Because women have to carry the fetus and men don't.

 

Here's a few questions. What to do about the subpoenaed witnesses that reside in another state, and what to do about the federally protected HIPPA rights according to federal statutes, and what does the ABA / state bar do about doctors who legally provide abortions in one state, and who refuse to cooperate with a subpoena and provide testimony from another.

 

There is obviously no way to subpoena a witness in another state that is not cooperating. Like I explained before, most likely there will be snitches and paid investigators.

If there is a target of a subpoena, it might be possible to put them on a list and, by chance, if, within a certain period of time, they are caught in the state, they could be grabbed and quickly forced to testify. Though I think that is unlikely. It's usually not a good idea to rely on witnesses who do not want to testify.
Another strategy might be to pay for their travel expenses and a little gift certificate to some fun outing to incentivize them to be willing to take the time to travel out of their way to testify.

 

Sounds like a lot of hearsay testimony to me, unless you can get the doctor, or nurse or receptionist to show up - and they won't.

 

There might be secret spies going undercover who are one of the workers there.

 

Now that was outright funny, kaz. Never took you has having a sense of humor about abortion and crime before. Its a good trait in you.

 

It could be one of the abortion workers who was already working there, and another state gets them in their pocket and starts paying them off to provide names and do surveillance of any women coming out of state.

 

That seems about right. If you could fit in something about only defining rape as involving violence as well you would have the full set.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of gun ownership. It is to protect people who matter from 'those people' or whatever gubmint regulation they don't like. Women only matter as a means to gestate a foetus and have no right to protect themselves from intrusive forced physical exams designed to reinforce that role.

 

We could shove a bowling ball up the man's ass and make him carry it for nine moths to make it an equal proposition ... right?
Oh, you think that it is intrusive?

 

We've discussed that before. Please start a separate thread if you wish to go off topic.

I know some people may be too stupid to realize this, but not every thread in the abortion section is "about abortion". This thread has a more specific topic.

If you just try to constantly throw a cornucopia of different abortion arguments at me in every thread, we won't really be able to have any specific debate. (Maybe that's the point?)

 

do you think Republicans will try to force rape victims to have their rapists babies?