Abortion is illegal in Texas

Roller

Elite Member
Posts
1,443
Reaction score
2,813
On point one - if somebody sues somebody who had an abortion when this electrical signal was detected, but the defendant successfully argues that signal is not an actual heartbeat at the trial, would that automatically push back the 6-week ban to an actual ban of when the fetus is formed and an actual heartbeat is detected?

Kind of weird that the law is based on a “fetal heartbeat” but 6 weeks is before the embryo even becomes a fetus. Seems like the whole thing would fall apart to doctor testimony in court.
I read this NPR piece and was surprised to see that it contained some inaccuracies.

Contrary to an assertion in the article, cardiac activity detected early in the first trimester of pregnancy is not "electrical signals." It represents actual motion of the embryonic structures that will go on to form the fetal heart and is best detected by transvaginal ultrasound. Generally, cardiac activity is seen by the time the embryo measures 6 mm, which corresponds to 6-7 weeks gestational age. However, visibility can be reduced by various factors, including the quality of the ultrasound machine, the operator's skill, and the woman's anatomy.

Interestingly, the term gestational age itself is sometimes misunderstood. It refers to the first date of the last menstrual period, which is generally about two weeks prior to conception, which is when the pregnancy actually begins. However, dating a pregnancy this way can be inaccurate. Among other things, a pregnant woman may misinterpret the bleeding that sometimes occurs when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine lining as a period. That's why ultrasound dating in the first trimester is considered the most accurate method.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
Based on this SCOTUS decision, can states pass any unconstitutional law they want if the enforcement method is a private lawsuit? That does seem to be the logical conclusion.

Pass a law that bans any religion other than Christianity. Sure, it’s unconstitutional, but I think it’s fine to let the law stand until somebody challenges it. Let’s just ban everything in the bill of rights. The SCOTUS claims they cannot do anything about it.
 

Yoused

up
Posts
5,624
Reaction score
8,943
Location
knee deep in the road apples of the 4 horsemen
I find it a bit humorous that when when the R's call people like Cheney and Romney RINO's because they buck the party, that's OK, but when a Dem does the exact same thing, they are traitors.

I do not recall people using extreme language like "traitor". Because,

1jxneo.jpg

( ETA: – Will Rogers, ICYMI)​
 
Last edited:

Herdfan

Resident Redneck
Posts
4,776
Reaction score
3,673
I find it sad that a majority of people in a State with a struggling economy see benefit in voting for a bunch of con artists. I guess that makes them the perfect rubes, outstanding targets for the likes of the GOP. That‘s why coal miners voted for Trump. He had their number, his orange Koolaid was too sweet to resist. 👀
I guess you forgot about Hillary saying that they were going to put a whole lot of coal miners out of business................

I realize Trump wasn't able to save coal, but at least he wasn't actively trying to kill it.

But there is another issue in play. While I realize, even if I don't necessarily understand it, that some people want government more involved in their lives, I am not sure some even realize, much less understand, that some people simply don't. They want as little government in their lives as possible. And that is how they vote. It used to be easy to distinguish between the two, one side wanted more spending, the other less as if that equated how much government was in people's lives. Sadly now that both sides seem to want to spend like drunken sailors, it is harder to figure out what is what. Fortunately COVID has provided a lot of people with that answer.


I am trying to recall Romney or Cheney intentionally torpedo-ing legislation supported by the rest of the party. Refresh my memory.
I could have posted screen shots, but they would have been huge. Here are links:



But to summarize, Romney voted against the party 4.5% of the time vs. the average of 3.9% & Cheney voted against the party 7.0% vs the average of 6.1%.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
I guess you forgot about Hillary saying that they were going to put a whole lot of coal miners out of business................

I realize Trump wasn't able to save coal, but at least he wasn't actively trying to kill it.

But there is another issue in play. While I realize, even if I don't necessarily understand it, that some people want government more involved in their lives, I am not sure some even realize, much less understand, that some people simply don't. They want as little government in their lives as possible. And that is how they vote. It used to be easy to distinguish between the two, one side wanted more spending, the other less as if that equated how much government was in people's lives. Sadly now that both sides seem to want to spend like drunken sailors, it is harder to figure out what is what. Fortunately COVID has provided a lot of people with that answer.



I could have posted screen shots, but they would have been huge. Here are links:



But to summarize, Romney voted against the party 4.5% of the time vs. the average of 3.9% & Cheney voted against the party 7.0% vs the average of 6.1%.
You didn’t answer the question. When did they torpedo legislation? And pointing out that they voted with the party over 90% of the time makes it seem really silly to call them RINOs. And why would the party pick a presidential candidate who is a RINO (Romney)?

Again, this is even more proof that “RINO” means nothing except a refusal to kiss Trump’s ring.
 
Last edited:

Yoused

up
Posts
5,624
Reaction score
8,943
Location
knee deep in the road apples of the 4 horsemen
I realize Trump wasn't able to save coal, but at least he wasn't actively trying to kill it.

Coal needs to die. It is good for coking, for making steel. Its other uses are mostly damaging all the way around. Trying to keep it alive is plain stupid (even if one does live in the heart of coal country).

But there is another issue in play. While I realize, even if I don't necessarily understand it, that some people want government more involved in their lives, I am not sure some even realize, much less understand, that some people simply don't.

I mean, I get how you want to phrase things in a way that places your position in the best light, but it works better if your statement is not mendacious. Literally no one wants "more government in their lives". Many of us feel that there are things private industry does wastefully and a public or GSE alternative is more efficient (business has exactly the same waste, fraud and bureaucracy problems that government does). We do not want more government intrusion, but we do not want to pay the profiteer surcharge for stuff either.

The problem is "freedom!", which means "I get to do whatever I want, so piss off!" No, your freedom does not supersede mine, so we need government, or something very much like it, to keep me from beating you up for idling and revving your car in the back yard for half an hour, filling the whole block with exhaust and pointless noise. You and me just working out our trespasses might happen, but if the government steps in, it probably will happen. Which sounds better, to me, than letting things get worse.
 

Herdfan

Resident Redneck
Posts
4,776
Reaction score
3,673
You didn’t answer the question. When did they torpedo legislation? And pointing out that they voted with the party over 90% of the time makes it seem really silly to call them RINOs. And why would the party pick a presidential candidate who is a RINO (Romney)?

Trust me, not my choice.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Site Donor
Posts
5,289
Reaction score
5,232
Location
The Misty Mountains
I guess you forgot about Hillary saying that they were going to put a whole lot of coal miners out of business................

I realize Trump wasn't able to save coal, but at least he wasn't actively trying to kill it.

But there is another issue in play. While I realize, even if I don't necessarily understand it, that some people want government more involved in their lives, I am not sure some even realize, much less understand, that some people simply don't. They want as little government in their lives as possible. And that is how they vote. It used to be easy to distinguish between the two, one side wanted more spending, the other less as if that equated how much government was in people's lives. Sadly now that both sides seem to want to spend like drunken sailors, it is harder to figure out what is what. Fortunately COVID has provided a lot of people with that answer.



I could have posted screen shots, but they would have been huge. Here are links:



But to summarize, Romney voted against the party 4.5% of the time vs. the average of 3.9% & Cheney voted against the party 7.0% vs the average of 6.1%.
Note it is corporations and the economy leaving coal behind. Blame Hillary for offering an honest appraisal (don’t we hate that in a politician :unsure:) vs Trump lieing his ass off about saving coal and manipulating suckers just to get their vote. And note Hillary offered government sponsored assistance to finance transistions to other lines of work.
 
Last edited:

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
Note it is corporations and the economy leaving coal behind. Blame Hillary offering an honest appraisal (don’t we hate that in a politician :unsure:) vs Trump lieing his ass off about saving coal and manipulating suckers just to get their vote. And note Hillary offered government sponsored assistance to finance transistions to other lines of work.
There are only 50,000 coal jobs in America. It shouldn’t be an issue for a presidential election at all. It’s a symbolic thing for both sides. Democrats know that coal is a major contributor to climate change, so they would like all coal power to go away. Republicans are the party of fossil fuel interests, so they want to protect those interests. So they try to paint it as “oh whatever will happen to the poor coal workers if we stop using coal for electricity generation?” And there’s also an element of “stupid libs, climate change doesn’t exist, burn more coal!”
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
I watched Meet the Press this morning and most of the panelists agreed that the Texas abortion law is backfiring for the GOP. The consensus seemed to be that the ”bounty“ issue is a huge turn-off to voters, and likely will be referred to constantly by Democrats as cruel and un-American in the next election cycle. In addition, it might get Democrats to get motivated the same way Republicans were for the last couple decades: to change the Supreme Court. How many Republicans claimed they didn’t like Trump but they had to vote for him because of the Supreme Court? Now that we have a court apparently forcing far right-wing policies on America, I can see Democrats being very motivated to vote.
 
Top Bottom
1 2