Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×
guests can now post ×
welcome guests . feel free to test the waters. ×

‘Fundamental Right’: Defiant Texas Doctor Goes Public About Abortion He Provided


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Remember, this would be a civil action...not a criminal case.  Very few state civil cases make it into federal courts.

He's arguing a constitutional matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zaro said:

He's arguing a constitutional matter

 

But if he is sued...it would be a Texas civil matter.  I did not say he would not be charged with a crime, I said he would be sued.  Now, if he is charged with a crime his avenues of appeal broaden.  But if it's just a lawsuit filed be an individual, it would probably stay out of federal courts.

 

I know the liberal talking point is that the law prohibits abortions after a heartbeat is detected.  What it actually says is the doctors, clinics and those who help facilitate an abortion after a heartbeat is detected can be sued (not "will" be sued) and the complainant, if they prevail, shall be awarded at least $10,000.  The defendant in this civil matters do not face criminal charges.  Said differently, they can still choose to perform an abortion if they are willing to risk possible civil litigation.

 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, drvoke said:

 

 

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

Isn't it interesting that it took our liberal courts a couple hundred years to finally figure out that a woman has the right to kill a baby. Another human being. Then decades more before Hillary and her ilk championed the "right" to kill that child right up until the day before birth. The right to destroy another person's God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by killing them. So what is the back story behind those that it was supposedly litigated on behalf of?

 

The popular media spiked the news that Norma McCorvey, who was "Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade, and Sandra Cano who was "Mary Doe" in Doe vs. Bolton of the companion case, both filed motions in Federal court to set aside the landmark U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in their cases.

 

"1. Sandra Cano did not want an abortion.

Cano did not actually want an abortion, but was seeking legal help to get custody of her children in foster care while she was pregnant with her fourth child and divorcing her husband, as detailed by EndRoe.org. Cano believed:

… [H]er lawyer, Margie Pitts Hames, tricked her into signing the affidavit that formed the basis of the plaintiff’s charges in Doe. “I do not believe it is my signature on the affidavit, and Margie either forged my signature or slipped this document in with other papers while I was signing divorce papers. I never told Margie that I wanted an abortion. The facts stated in the affidavit in Doe v. Bolton are not true.”

https://www.liveaction.org/news/woman-behind-doe-v-bolton/

 

And the other:

https://www.leaderu.com/common/roev.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

But if he is sued...it would be a Texas civil matter.  I did not say he would not be charged with a crime, I said he would be sued.  Now, if he is charged with a crime his avenues of appeal broaden.  But if it's just a lawsuit filed be an individual, it would probably stay out of federal courts.

 

I know the liberal talking point is that the law prohibits abortions after a heartbeat is detected.  What it actually says is the doctors, clinics and those who help facilitate an abortion after a heartbeat is detected can be sued (not "will" be sued) and the complainant, if they prevail, shall be awarded at least $10,000.  The defendant in this civil matters do not face criminal charges.  Said differently, they can still choose to perform an abortion if they are willing to risk possible civil litigation.

 

 

It's hard to believe that you people can't recognize that you are completely insane. The entire world will be watching this ridiculous freak show. The judge will not award a penny or they will become an infamous laughingstock. And even if he is a nutcase and does, the doctor should simply not pay it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, drvoke said:

 

It's hard to believe that you people can't recognize that you are completely insane. The entire world will be watching this ridiculous freak show. The judge will not award a penny or they will become an infamous laughingstock. And even if he is a nutcase and does, the doctor should simply not pay it.

 

 

 

If the doctor doesn't pay...they can put a lien on his practice.  He may not care...now...but they can cause problems later. 

 

I wonder how non-stop protest (complete with video recordings) in front of his office would impact business?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zaro said:

He's arguing a constitutional matter

 

Abortion is Legal.

 

Child Murder and Dismemberment, for Fun and Profit... is not.

 

If there was a heartbeat, then he will lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if he is sued he can make the argument that the state of Texas has arrogated to civil action what should be a function of the state and in doing so violated the due process clause of the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, slideman said:

I think if he is sued he can make the argument that the state of Texas has arrogated to civil action what should be a function of the state and in doing so violated the due process clause of the Constitution.

 

Abortion is not a Constitutional right.

 

If anything, the Rights of the Child have been violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blue Devil said:

 

Abortion is not a Constitutional right.

 

If anything, the Rights of the Child have been violated.

A fetus that is not yet viable is not a child.

It is part of the mother

It cannot survive on its own

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, slideman said:

A fetus that is not yet viable is not a child.

It is part of the mother

It cannot survive on its own

 

That is an antiquated scientific belief.

 

The mother supports the child.

 

Heartbeat - now defines human life.

 

There are many situations where humans can not survive on their own.

 

... that does not give you the right to murder them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blue Devil said:

 

That is an antiquated scientific belief.

 

Heartbeat - now defines human life.

 

There are many situations where humans can not survive on their own.

 

... that does not give you the right to murder them.

In the minds of Antiabortion fanatics who want to control women's bodies yes in actuality no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, slideman said:

In the minds of Antiabortion fanatics who want to control women's bodies yes in actuality no

 

Propaganda anus.

 

The mother supports the baby after heartbeat begins.

 

Can a mother choose to not breastfeed a baby, and let them die?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Propaganda anus.

 

The mother supports the baby after heartbeat begins.

 

Can a mother choose to not breastfeed a baby, and let them die?

A fetus that is not viable and is incapable of surviving on its own is not a baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, slideman said:

A fetus that is not viable and is incapable of surviving on its own is not a baby.

 

Again, an antiquated scientific concept.

 

A newborn baby is also incapable of surviving w/o the support of the mother.

 

Can the mother choose to murder them?

 

Where the baby resides, once the heart starts beating... is immaterial.

 

From that point on, the Mother is responsible for that Human Child's life.

 

Get it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

If the doctor doesn't pay...they can put a lien on his practice.  He may not care...now...but they can cause problems later. 

 

I wonder how non-stop protest (complete with video recordings) in front of his office would impact business?

 

 

 

Abortion providers are used to that. It won't dissuade them. Plus, there are people like me that drive through mudpuddles and hose them down for fun.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Again, an antiquated scientific concept.

 

A newborn baby is also incapable of surviving w/o the support of the mother.

 

Can the mother choose to murder them?

 

Where the baby resides, once the heart starts beating... is immaterial.

 

From that point on, the Mother is responsible for that Human Child's life.

 

Get it.

 

A newborn baby is not dependent on the support of the mother.

Anyone can feed a newborn.

A nonviable fetus is not a being separate from the mother.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, slideman said:

But that is wrong on all three counts

 

I go to Great pains to educate myself.

I'm not queer

 

And I'm a grown man

 

It is you who fails

You are a queerboy.

 

You are IGNORANT.

 

You were run out of Texas and can never return.

 

Got it, queerboy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mirabeau said:

You are a queerboy.

 

You are IGNORANT.

 

You were run out of Texas and can never return.

 

Got it, queerboy?

I've been back to Texas many times I still have relatives there.

I am not queer it is you who has latent homosexual tendencies.

I am probably as educated as anyone you know

 

Autodidact and all that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, drvoke said:

 

Let me connect the dots:

 

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.

 

U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion.

 

 

FAIL!

 

The Declaration of Independence has NOTHING to do with the Constitution of the United States of America, DUMBASS!

 

You have REPEATEDLY FAILED to provide the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHICH GRANTS A WOMAN THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION.

 

Either PROVIDE IT, NOW, or ADMIT THAT THE LANGUAGE IS NOT THERE.

 

Got it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, slideman said:

There you go expressing your latent homosexuality again.

It must be tough living with those urges and desires which you feel compelled to suppress.

Your obsession with gayness is plain.

According to the Supreme Court it's the 14th amendments due process clause that guarantees a right to privacy that gives women the right to abortion

 

I'm sure you know better than the justices

Mirabeau knows that there in no language in the Constitution granting a woman the right to an abortion.

 

So, Mirabeau DOES KNOW BETTER than the justices, QUEERBOY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mirabeau said:

Mirabeau knows that there in no language in the Constitution granting a woman the right to an abortion.

 

So, Mirabeau DOES KNOW BETTER than the justices, QUEERBOY!

The 14th amendment is quite clear that the state cannot encroach on the private prerogatives of citizens.

You are apparently too stupid to understand that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...