Hello:

Fox News Eric Bolling said (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-eric-bolling-more-women-in-the-workplace-will-lead-to-more-abortions/),
.. that the reason 4 out of 10 women are the primary provider for their families is “the breakdown of the American family.” He continued, saying, “Women are forced to go out and be the breadwinners for the families and that is why the numbers are higher now — single moms.”

But it was the question Bolling asked next that really made a leap to new territory. “If you are a single mom, breadwinner of the family, and you get pregnant, aren't we pushing towards more abortions? It seems like we are."Right winger, Eric Erickson said, (http://www.mediaite.com/online/dont-get-your-panties-in-a-wad-erick-erickson-defends-himself-against-feminists-and-lefties/)
I'm so used to liberals telling conservatives that they're anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it's not antithesis, or it's not competing, it's a complementary role.Right winger, Megan Kelly confronts uber right winger, Lou Dobbs, (http://www.businessinsider.com/megyn-kelly-erick-erickson-lou-dobbs-breadwinning-poll-2013-5)
over his comments attributing women's role in the workplace to marriages "shattering" in society.Right wing governor Phil Bryant, Mississippi, said (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/04/mississippi-governor-educational-troubles-began-when-mom-got-in-the-workplace/)
America's educational troubles began when women began working outside the home in large numbers.Right wing retiring senator, Saxby Chandliss said (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/04/chambliss-blames-military-rapes-on-the-hormone-level-created-by-nature/),
that the “hormone level created by nature” was to blame for rapes in the military and that all pregnant servicewomen should be investigated to make sure their condition was the result of consensual sex.

But, there's no war on women...

Excon

Of course there isn't it is all in your mind, or their's, it's like the glass ceiling, if they can't get the top job someone is biased, no it's just they don't have the ability

Still waiting for Planned Parenthood and Naral to support standards for abortion clinics. Meanwhile:

Man Takes 12-Year-Old to Planned Parenthood for Abortion to Hide Rape (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/19/man-takes-14-year-old-to-planned-parenthood-for-abortion-to-hide-rape/)

Those were outstanding comments made in testimony too ! Wish I could've watched the hearings yesterday .

For the first time since 1950 there will be no swimsuit competition at the Miss World pageant thanks to the religion of perpetual outrage. Instead they'll wear beach sarongs, whatever that is.

Miss World pageant buckles to pressure from Muslim hardliners in Indonesia, nixes bikini competition - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57587968/miss-world-pageant-buckles-to-pressure-from-muslim-hardliners-in-indonesia-nixes-bikini-competition/)

All you "war on women" and "turn back the clock" folks have the wrong people in your sights, but I don't expect you to criticize the religion of perpetual outrage any time soon, you're afraid the next fatwa will be directed at you.

They should just abolish the pageants outright in my opinion.

They should just abolish the pageants outright in my opinion.

Some time you have to be inclusive, abolution of swin suit contestes does nothing now abolution of the hijab...

Whoa, which religion of outrage are we talking about? They all seem outraged about something? They all want to control their masses. Especially the female masses.

Whoa, which religion of outrage are we talking about? They all seem outraged about something? They all want to control their masses. Especially the female masses.

Um Tal, besides being a no-brainer, it was specified.

Miss World pageant buckles to pressure from Muslim hardliners in Indonesia, nixes bikini competition - CBS News

And Baptists don't issue fatwas.

Whoa, which religion of outrage are we talking about? They all seem outraged about something? They all want to control their masses. Especially the female masses.

Have you thought why?

It seems to me the female masses, as you put it, have no respect for the male, they don't recognise we are different ot them, differently motivated or alternatively they seek to dominate us from the cradle to the grave. I have heard the female screem domination but do they understand domnation? Where no decision goes un-challenged, no expenditure is allowed?

It seems to me the female masses, as you put it, have no respect for the male, they don't recognise we are different ot them, differently motivated or alternatively they seek to dominate us from the cradle to the grave. I have heard the female screem domination but do they understand domnation? Where no decision goes un-challenged, no expenditure is allowed?Who are these women you surround yourself with? Or maybe the problem is you, not them?

The Obama admin has dropped it's (half-hearted I'm sure) effort to block OTC sales of the morning after pill to women and girls of any age. Said the protectors of women:


“We will not rest in this fight until the morning-after pill is made available without delay and obstruction,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer and the executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, which represented the plaintiffs in the case.

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood said: “This is a huge breakthrough for access to birth control and a historic moment for women's health and equity.”

Personally, I think this is a historic moment for undermining parental authority but I get it, you lefties don't believe our children belong to us anyway. However, the first time some predator gets caught buying these things to cover for sexual abuse of those children I hope you all have an epiphany on who it is waging a war on women while you share in the shame for allowing this.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/in-reversal-obama-to-end-effort-to-restrict-morning-after-pill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about that. Do you believe a 15 year old boy who impregnates his 15 year old girlfriend is a predator in need of jail time?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about that. Do you believe a 15 year old boy who impregnates his 15 year old girlfriend is a predator in need of jail time?

excon

Or does he believe a female that cannot talk to their parents about sex for whatever reason shouldn't be protected from their own mistakes?

Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about that. Do you believe a 15 year old boy who impregnates his 15 year old girlfriend is a predator in need of jail time?

excon

What on earth makes you think I would believe that? What I believe is that we should not give more tools to embolden that 21-year-old, or that uncle, or that predator stalking that 15 year old in the mall. What I believe is a minor child should still be under the authority of their parents who love them and protect them, and that pathetic groups that cannot recognize the life of a child taken by a butcher, or think that uncle should take them across the state line for an abortion if the parents won't consent have no damn business interfering in how we raise our children.

You, not so much. It's more and more clear that you don't think conservatives and parents have any rights at all.

Or does he believe a female that cannot talk to their parents about sex for whatever reason shouldn't be protected from their own mistakes?

Oh boo hoo, that's a tired old excuse. You're darn right I believe the parents of a minor child have the right to decide if their child can have an abortion or contraceptives. I find it quite pathetic that you don't.

Hello again, Steve:

I've heard this stuff before, but I want to make sure I understand your position... You believe that you should DENY underage pregnant females the RIGHT to buy Plan B, because an abuser would use it to cover up his crime.. And, you believe there are ENOUGH predators out there to justify your position...

I think you've been reading TOOO many detective magazines..

excon

Or does he believe a female that cannot talk to their parents about sex for whatever reason shouldn't be protected from their own mistakes?

Bye bye Roe v Wade. Since you think that children should be allowed to have access to birth control at will because it is their decision then shouldn't the minimum age of consent also be lifted? After all your messing with a woman (cough) girls decision about her body.

Hello again, Steve:

I've heard this stuff before, but I wanna make sure I understand your position... You believe that you should DENY underage pregnant females the RIGHT to buy Plan B, because an abuser would use it to cover up his crime.. And, you believe there are ENOUGH predators out there to justify your position...

I think you've been reading TOOO many detective magazines..

excon

Maybe a little research would have helped here.

Ref:

747,408. That's how many registered sex offenders there are in the United States. And according to new information from National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, that number has increased dramatically since 2006. Here are the details.

Statistic:

56,000: Cases of child sexual abuse were reported and substantiated in 2007, according to the national sex offender website. Approximately 30 percent of child sexual abuse cases are reported to authorities.



33 percent: Sexual assaults occur when the victim is between the ages of 12 and 17, the national website reports. Teens ages 16 to 19 years old are 3 1/2 times more likely than the general population to be the victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.



18 percent: Women report being raped at some point in their lifetime, and 3 percent of men, according to a National Violence Against Women Survey conducted in 2006. 54 percent of female victims and 71 percent of male victims were first raped before their 18th birthday.



Source:

Number of Registered Sex Offenders Increasing (http://news.yahoo.com/number-registered-sex-offenders-increasing-213100455.html)


I think that is plenty that may be out there needing the protection of at least a Doctor to determine what is actually going on.

I didn't say children, I said females. And yes sexually active ones should have the means to protect themselves. And YES 14 year olds are engaging in sex. Yes they should be protected from their mistakes.

Be great if they were abstinent but that's not happening is it, after centuries of preaching and laws against it. That's just reality for me, since the alternative is unwanted pregnancy and abortions, and I don't like those alternatives.

Hello again, Steve:

I've heard this stuff before, but I wanna make sure I understand your position... You believe that you should DENY underage pregnant females the RIGHT to buy Plan B, because an abuser would use it to cover up his crime.. And, you believe there are ENOUGH predators out there to justify your position...

I think you've been reading TOOO many detective magazines..

excon

I think you've been reading too many left-wing blogs.

Sex trafficking in the USA hits close to home (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/09/26/sex-trafficking-in-the-usa/1595489/)

See I know personally a couple that works to rescue these women and girls in New Orleans. I know their M.O. I know how they get their victims and I know it's a HUGE problem in this country.

Aside from the traffickers, if you don't believe there are enough perverts out there to warrant concern you're deluded. Ask the folks in Cleveland, or the family in Iowa (http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/family-of-abducted-iowa-girl-releases-statement/article_12c3b2ec-d139-11e2-b822-001a4bcf887a.html), or West Philly (http://articles.philly.com/2013-05-23/news/39448242_1_5-year-old-girl-christina-regusters-kline).

In my opinion ONE is too many, and given the skill with which the government has handled health care so far, the IRS, our privacy, Benghazi, etc. you can bet they're going to do a bang-up job being parents, too. Me, I'd rather let parents do the job.

I didn't say children, I said females. And yes sexually active ones should have the means to protect themselves. And YES 14 year olds are engaging in sex. Yes they should be protected from their mistakes.

Be great if they were abstinent but that's not happening is it, after centuries of preaching and laws against it. That's just reality for me, since the alternative is unwanted pregnancy and abortions, and I don't like those alternatives.

Here is where I have the problem. You seem to be advocating for the child to make the decisions over and above any safegaurds. In Roe v Wade the only way it passed and was made legal was that a doctor had to be present. It was the doctors decision. Not just that of the patient. In allowing the child to make the decision you are subverting the decisions made under Roe v Wade. Without parental consent nor that of a doctor you stand the chance of hurting the very person you advocate to protect. Lets say for example you have an "active" teen and they think they are pregnant. You know like the many questions we get here on AMHD and most of those are from adults. They can self medicate by going from place to place. No safegaurds. Nothing to protect them from themselves. That to me is a travisty.

Here is where I have the problem. You seem to be advocating for the child to make the decisions over and above any safegaurds. In Roe v Wade the only way it passed and was made legal was that a doctor had to be present. It was the doctors decision. Not just that of the patient. In allowing the child to make the decision you are subverting the decisions made under Roe v Wade. Without parental consent nor that of a doctor you stand the chance of hurting the very person you advocate to protect. Lets say for example you have an "active" teen and they think they are pregnant. You know like the many questions we get here on AMHD and most of those are from adults. They can self medicate by going from place to place. No safegaurds. Nothing to protect them from them selves. That to me is a travisty.

The safeguards Cdad are with the government ensuring a safe product for sale to the public and I too share the safety concerns. Also being doctors follow the law and not just be one of many doctors a patient seeks out unknown to the other doctor. The loophole some people can exploit is they are not connected to a central data base that pharmacist can use to see who is abusing that loophole in the law.

Self medicators are very smart.

Why should little girls need emergency contraception, Tal? Why should a six-year-old girl have access to emergency contraception? Do you really not see a problem here one way or another?

6 year old girls? Where did you get that from? Not me.

6 year old girls? where did you get that from? Not me.

The judge's order was to make it available without age restriction. To their credit the administration tried for limiting it to 17 and older, the FDA offered 15 and older but the judge said no dice, no restrictions, and Obama caved.

So tell me, why do little girls need access to emergency contraception? Why would a six year old need access to emergency contraception, Tal?

Why would a six year old need access to emergency contraceptionSix year old can't get pregnant - basic biology. Not sure why you're setting up that red herring.

Six year old can't get pregnant - basic biology. Not sure why you're setting up that red herring.

OK, make it 10, or 12, or...

List of youngest birth mothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers)

1 Age 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers#Age_5)
2 Age 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers#Age_6)
3 Age 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers#Age_8)
4 Age 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers#Age_9)
5 Age 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers#Age_10)

Apparently they can.

Maybe the judge was thinking of 13, and 14 year olds that are sexually active, but are you really worried about 6 year olds? Okay just read your links and agree with the judge. That's really creepy about those young mothers. OUTRAGEOUS is a good word for what happened to them.

Maybe the judge was thinking of 13, and 14 year olds that are sexually active, but are you really worried about 6 year olds?

I think any girl pregnant under the legal age of consent needs to have some sort of protection in place. Its obvious by the behavior that there isn't a safegaurd for the child already. Also I understand how they bend the rules in many states but how many do we as a nation want to put at risk?

There is a reason they don't let children make decisions in a court room and reasons for an adult to be held accountable for that child.

It's a world problem from the links, and an old one. Damn scary too.

Maybe the judge was thinking of 13, and 14 year olds that are sexually active, but are you really worried about 6 year olds? Okay just read your links and agree with the judge. That's really creepy about those young mothers. OUTRAGEOUS is a good word for what happened to them.

I don't care what the judge was thinking, a 13-year-old girl should not be able to buy emergency contraception and parent should still have rights.

I don't care what the judge was thinking, a 13-year-old girl should not be able to buy emergency contraception and parent should still have rights.
If she is having unprotected sex, what do you suggest she do if she thinks rationally the next morning about possible pregnancy?

Responsible parents do have rights. Obviously you assume all13 year old have responsible parents, many do not. Too many.

If she is having unprotected sex, what do you suggest she do if she thinks rationally the next morning about possible pregnancy?

Talk to her parents.

Responsible parents do have rights. Obviously you assume all13 year old have responsible parents, many do not. Too many.

That was predictable. Many a 13-year-old is also quite manipulative, they're not stupid. I guess you've never heard of a kid going to PP, or an uncle, or an aunt or someone else and put on the "I can't talk to my parents" show. Parents deserve the benefit of the doubt, they should not be bypassed when it comes to their children.

Talk to her parents.
The parents are the last to know what their daughter is doing -- and too often don't care.

Weeding out the good from the bad parents, and the bad kids from the good ones is also a big problem.

Julia Gillard's war on men has back fired an turned into a war on women

PM targets 'men in blue ties' (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-targets-men-in-blue-ties-20130611-2o26s.html)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-12/opposition-on-back-foot-in-sexism-row-after-menu-published-onli/4748826

A would be politician targets Gillards feminie characteristic at a political fun raiser and all sorts of politicians are ducking for cover it seems when you paly the gender card things turn nasty

Haa haa haa, the quail with the littlered box was joke, what a cover up and to think this dill wants to be leader, give me a break, how to sink you chances?

I think this is a put up job, too fortuitous, just when Julia had embarrassed herself by playing the gender card, now she is the victim. Dirty tricks start early in this campaign


All I can say is down, down, the price of quail is down, down

Hello again, Steve:


Talk to her parents.Let's say your 13 year old talks to you... So what? Are you going to BUY her Plan B, or make her bear the child?

If she KNOWS that you're going to MAKE her have the child and she doesn't want to, OF COURSE, she's not going to talk to you.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Let's say your 13 year old talks to you... So what? Are you gonna BUY her Plan B, or make her bare the child??

If she KNOWS that you're gonna MAKE her have the child and she doesn't want to, OF COURSE, she's not gonna talk to you.

excon

Is that the only option, abortion?

Again, I really don't care what your argument is, in a sane world parental consent should still be required for any abortive procedure with few, narrow exceptions. What I find disturbing is your side has devalued innocent life so much that guys like you can't seem to find any rationale for advocating for the innocent child that was the product of the encounter. Shameful.

When presented with the option of the morning after pill by your pregnant child would you support it or not?

Hello again, Steve:


in a sane world parental consent should still be required for any abortive procedure I got it. Avoiding the question, huh? I would too if I argued your position.

In your sane world, would you, or would you not take your 13 year old daughter to the drug store and treat her to a milk shake and some Plan B?

Excon

What I find disturbing is your side has devalued innocent life so much that guys like you can't seem to find any rationale for advocating for the innocent child that was the product of the encounter. Shameful.
So she has the baby and decides to keep it. Now she has become one of those worthless single moms sucking on the government teat, right?

Or she puts the baby up for adoption and a same-sex (legally married OR unmarried) couple wants to adopt it. *hands covering both ears la la la la la la la*

What oh what can this 13-year-old do about her unwanted pregnancy (if she lives through it)?

When presented with the option of the morning after pill by your pregnant child would you support it or not?

Absolutely not, I am unequivocally pro-life. I guess that make me a bad parent.

Hello again, Steve:

I got it. Avoiding the question, huh? I would too if I argued your position.

In your sane world, would you, or would you not take your 13 year old daughter to the drug store and treat her to a milk shake and some Plan B?

excon

OK, I have answered but you knew it already, your turn. Is abortion the only option?

Is abortion the only option?

Answered here:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-4-6-a-752264-5.html#post3483236

So she has the baby and decides to keep it. Now she has become one of those worthless single moms sucking on the government teat, right?

Or she puts the baby up for adoption and a same-sex (legally married OR unmarried) couple wants to adopt it. *hands covering both ears la la la la la la la*

What oh what can this 13-year-old do about her unwanted pregnancy (if she lives through it)?

You guys have regurgitated these pathetic talking points this so often it's really become lame. Is abortion the only option? Who here will advocate for the innocent child?

Answered here:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-4-6-a-752264-5.html#post3483236

No it wasn't and I didn't ask you.

Is abortion the only option? Who here will advocate for the innocent child?She answered the question. What options are you advocating?

She answered the question. What options are you advocating?

Do you have a problem with letting people answer the questions asked of them?

But they do answer the question and you still badger them because it's not the answer you want to hear.

You guys have regurgitated these pathetic talking points this so often it's really become lame. Is abortion the only option? Who here will advocate for the innocent child?
YOU are the one talking about worthless single moms sucking on the government teat (ask me about my bil's TWO teen daughters who were not allowed by their parents to have abortions and are now sucking -- my tax dollars at work). YOU are the one refusing to consider that a gay couple could adopt a baby and actually do a good job raising it (ask me about my lesbian sil and her partner and their adopted son).

What do you suggest for this young pregnant teen?

Hello again, Steve:

You ask if I should advocate for the child.. With Plan B, there IS no child. The mother is NOT pregnant, or at least she doesn't KNOW if she's pregnant, and Plan B will prevent her from getting pregnant.. So, Plan B is more like a contraceptive. I'm sure that doesn't make you feel any better, but if your problem is with KILLING children, Plan B doesn't DO that.

Second is the fact that your 13 year old KNOWS what you'll do if she talks to you, so she's not going to, is she? What makes you think she would?

excon

But they do answer the question and you still badger them because it's not the answer you want to hear.

Do you just get off an being an jerk or more likely your obsession with me is pathological? If it were me I'd boot your sorry a$$ off the site, you offer nothing useful here.

Absolutely not, I am unequivocally pro-life. I guess that make me a bad parent.

Now you know why pregnant daughters don't come to their parents. And you are a good parent. Even if you have taken all the options to abortion off the table in one sentence.

YOU are the one talking about worthless single moms sucking on the government teat (ask me about my bil's TWO teen daughters who were not allowed by their parents to have abortions and are now sucking -- my tax dollars at work). YOU are the one refusing to consider that a gay couple could adopt a baby and actually do a good job raising it (ask me about my lesbian sil and her partner and their adopted son).

What do you suggest for this young pregnant teen?

I have never said anything of the sort. I have never called a struggling mom "worthless," condemned them for "sucking off the government teat" or said a gay couple couldn't adopt a child. This is why arguing with you and the lefties here is pointless, you won't argue based on reality and assign whatever position to us bolsters your point at the time.

My actual positions are obviously irrelevant to you as you seem to be blinded by the leftist meme that conservatives are uncaring, heartless b@stards that don't believe in a government safety net or taking care of the child after birth. Enough of that bullsh*t Carol.

Hello again, Steve:

You ask if I should advocate for the child.. With Plan B, there IS no child. The mother is NOT pregnant, or at least she doesn't KNOW if she's pregnant, and Plan B will prevent her from getting pregnant.. So, Plan B is more like a contraceptive. I'm sure that doesn't make you feel any better, but if your problem is with KILLING children, Plan B doesn't DO that.

Second is the fact that your 13 year old KNOWS what you'll do if she talks to you, so she's not gonna, is she? What makes you think she would?

excon

I believe I answered that clearly enough, parents have rights. Period. Do you believe they don't? Do you believe that in most cases the parent is not the obvious go to person to do what's best for their child and make the right decision? Or do you believe the only right decision is abortion? What other drugs should we make available to kids of any age over the counter? I want to know how far you're ready to take this.

It's funny how the righties will pester you for answers but yet they have none.

Now you know why pregnant daughters don't come to their parents. And you are a good parent. Even if you have taken all the options to abortion off the table in one sentence.

It's not that cut and dried, Tal and you know it. The culture crafted by the left has made parents the bad guy, it's decades of Planned Parenthood telling kids they don't have to have babies, they don't need their parents' permission, they have the right to have as much sex of whatever type they want, that they'll fight for their right to have an abortion. It's the Hillary Clintons and Melissa Harris-Perrys telling us our kids don't belong to us and schools stepping in where they don't belong.

THAT"S why kids won't talk to their parents, you don't want them to.

It's funny how the righties will pester you for answers but yet they have none.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Hello again, Steve:


It's not that cut and dried, Tal and you know it. The culture crafted by the left has made parents the bad guy, it's decades of Planned Parenthood telling kids they don't have to have babies, they don't need their parents' permission,Yes, it pretty much is that cut and dried..

If you're half the parent you think you are, you'll have MUCH more influence over your children than ANY outside left wing factors. Of course, I LIVE in an environment that SUPPORTS my beliefs.

You do too. You live in Texas, and your children go to Texas schools, and belong to Christian, conservative clubs (boy scouts), and you take them to church regularly... You don't let the school teach them about sex, and you're FINE with them teaching Intelligent Design...

That IS what they do, in Texas, no? Plus, you probably monitor their phone calls and won't let them see R rated movies and television. Where are they getting these far left signals from, and why can't you counter them with good old fashioned Christian, right wing solutions?

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, it pretty much is that cut and dried.. If you're half the parent you think you are, you'll have MUCH more influence over your children than ANY outside left wing factors.

Of course, I LIVE in an environment that SUPPORTS my beliefs. You do too. You live in Texas, and your children go to Texas schools, and belong to Christian, conservative clubs (boy scouts), and you take them to church regularly... You don't let the school teach them about sex, and you're FINE with them teaching Intelligent Design...

That IS what they do, in Texas, no? Plus, you probably monitor their phone calls and won't let them see R rated movies and television. Where are they getting these far left signals from, and why can't you counter them with good old fashioned Christian, right wing solutions?

excon

Like I told Wondergirl, if you can't argue based on reality and not whatever the hell you want to assign to me then there is no point in this discussion. And you sir, you know I am not the person you describe so quit pretending otherwise.

I maintain that parents have rights, and none of your bullsh*t justifies destroying those rights. Period.

THAT"S why kids won't talk to their parents, you don't want them to.
Ummmm, kids weren't talking to their parents back in the 1950s (and before that). It's not what kids do, especially if they are sneaking around and having sex.

With parental rights its also a parents responsibility to love and nurture and have band aids for their boo-boo's. And teach them how to protect themselves in the mean old world and think for themselves when they deal with others, and not just the ones they went to church with.

It's a lifetime job, teaching your kids the tools to survive and thrive, and if parents don't have those tools themselves then the kids cannot be taught. Now you can blame everybody else if you want to, but they do, and will, make their own choices (and mistakes, just like you did) and replace the parents they don't trust with somebody they do trust, especially if they have made a big boo-boo.

LOL, neither my wife or myself agrees with abortion, but you have to deal with reality, facts, and truth, and that is properly educating your kids so they have better options than an abortion, or paying for their boo-boos for a lifetime. No, kids can't have all the sex they want without consequence can they? Some learn the hard way about that truth. Some never recover from their boo-boo's.

Its worse when some parents don't know how to help.

My actual positions are obviously irrelevant to you as you seem to be blinded by the leftist meme that conservatives are uncaring, heartless b@stards that don't believe in a government safety net or taking care of the child after birth.
So you have no suggestions to help the 13-year-old who had sex with her 14-year-old boyfriend last night. Of course in a perfect world, she wouldn't have had sex last night but would have been at home crocheting afghans for Christmas gifts. In my day, if she got pregnant, she would have been whisked off to Aunt Dorothy's in Idaho for an 8-month vacation.

So now you are saying government safety nets for all those teen moms are good?

Come on, don't patronize me any more, any of you. It boils down to this, do parents have rights or not? Yes or no, it's a simple question.

Come on, don't patronize me any more, any of you. It boils down to this, do parents have rights or not? Yes or no, it's a simple question.
Of course, parents have rights. But when their daughter sneaks around having sex without their knowledge, then what?

Hello again, Steve:


It boils down to this, do parents have rights or not? Yes or no, it's a simple question.No, it's NOT a simple question.

When parents rights bump up against the rights of their children, parents don't always win. Does a parent have the right to put a chastity belt on their children? Does a parent have a right to CHOOSE who his children date? Does a parent have the RIGHT to refuse his maybe pregnant daughter, access to Plan B?

The answers to the above, are NO. A parent's right does NOT trump his children's rights.

Excon
__________________

Does a parent have a right to CHOOSE who his children date?
And the more a parent says no, the more attractive that person is. Like a moth to a flame.

Hello again, Steve:

No, it's NOT a simple question.

When parents rights bump up against the rights of their children, parents don't always win. Does a parent have the right to put a chastity belt on their children? Does a parent have a right to CHOOSE who his children date? Does a parent have the RIGHT to refuse his maybe pregnant daughter, access to Plan B?

The answers to the above, are NO. A parent's right does NOT trump his children's rights.

excon
__________________

They don't always win? No kidding.

I sorely disagree, but that's not surprising as you advocate the same kind of liberal bullsh*t that put us here. The answers to your questions aren't so simple either. I bet if you asked those questions of America most parents would side with me, yes we have the right to determine who our MINOR children date and set the rules, though I know of no one who has a chastity belt in mind so that's rather stupid. But so is this idea that the state owns your kids and makes a better parent.

yes we have the right to determine who our MINOR children date and set the rules
I agree. But you are not with them 24/7, and kids are kids and do what they can get away with. It's amazing how creative minor daughters can get when they want to attract and keep and amuse a boyfriend. If I had a dollar for every question that gets posted on this site, "I'm only 13 and had unprotected sex last night [or last week or last month]. Could I be pregnant? I'm scared to talk to my parents," I could move to Colorado.

I of course agree with speech . Your side has marginalized parental authority and substituted it for the "Village " commons. Then when the inevidible fallout of that failed premise rears it's ugly head ,you offer more big government solution.

I'm quite certain that the very small minority of all pre-teen girls that end up in these situations have parents that run the gamut of political inclinations. Being liberal or conservative isn't a solution or the cause. It must be something else.

I think the point us liberals try to make is us parents have to work together to watch over and protect our kids. Teachers, parents, and neighbors, aunts, uncles grandparents. Buts its not just liberals as many of my conservative friends think the same way.

I'm quite certain that the very small minority of all pre-teen girls that end up in these situations have parents that run the gamut of political inclinations. Being liberal or conservative isn't a solution or the cause. It must be something else.
I was the daughter of very conservative Republican parents (father a Lutheran pastor). It would not have been all that difficult for me to have had sex even back in the early '60s (slip away from the church youth group square dance and into the hay loft?), despite my parents' excellent parenting. I lived in a Republican town and county with heavy parental oversight of their daughters, some of whom DID get pregnant during their teens.

I agree that it must be "something else."

I think the point us liberals try to make is us parents have to work together to watch over and protect our kids. Teachers, parents, and neighbors, aunts, uncles grandparents. Buts its not just liberals as many of my conservative friends think the same way.

And then you undermine that parental /family authority by taking decisions away from them. The child is not compelled to listen to their parents .All options for an alternate can be found at the local drug store. It won't be long before it's completely "free" too .

I'm quite certain that the very small minority of all pre-teen girls that end up in these situations have parents that run the gamut of political inclinations. Being liberal or conservative isn't a solution or the cause. It must be something else.

Well that was irrelevant to anything that was said.

Well that was irrelevant to anything that was said.Don't think I've met anyone as bitter as yourself.
I guess you feel that all bad things must have a political motivation and someone is to blame. I don't share that train of thought.

Don't think I've met anyone as bitter as yourself.
I guess you feel that all bad things must have a political motivation and someone is to blame. I don't share that train of thought.

LOL, you don't know a thing about me and everything you convince yourself of is wrong. Get a grip, dude, I'm just correcting your mistakes. No one said anything about parents' political persuasion. The reference was to the culture that got us here and yes indeed that is political in nature.

If you cared to check anything that doesn't match your preconceived notions or take things out of context you'd find that I have consistently defended the rights of parents regardless of their political beliefs. Even though I don't believe Plan B should be available OTC without age restriction and I believe there should be reasonable abortion restrictions, if someone wants to get their kid Plan B, force them to have an abortion, let them have sex with whoever they want that's none of my business. In return I expect the same respect for my way of parenting - i.e. don't undermine me based on YOUR political beliefs and morals.

Feel free to explain to me how that's unfair or unreasonable. Given that REALITY if you do interfere you can damn well expect me to be bitter, and be ready for a fight. Unlike you I respect people who stand up for what they believe in even if I disagree. I don't have to respect their beliefs but I do respect their right to believe it.

I expect no less in return. Got it?

LOL, you don't know a thing about me and everything you convince yourself of is wrong. Get a grip, dude, I'm just correcting your mistakes. No one said anything about parents' political persuasion. The reference was to the culture that got us here and yes indeed that is political in nature.

If you cared to check anything that doesn't match your preconceived notions or take things out of context you'd find that I have consistently defended the rights of parents regardless of their political beliefs. Even though I don't believe Plan B should be available OTC without age restriction and I believe there should be reasonable abortion restrictions, if someone wants to get their kid Plan B, force them to have an abortion, let them have sex with whoever they want that's none of my business. In return I expect the same respect for my way of parenting - i.e. don't undermine me based on YOUR political beliefs and morals.

Feel free to explain to me how that's unfair or unreasonable. Given that REALITY if you do interfere you can damn well expect me to be bitter, and be ready for a fight. Unlike you I respect people who stand up for what they believe in even if I disagree. I don't have to respect their beliefs but I do respect their right to believe it.

I expect no less in return. Got it?

Are you saying that by providing services to young people this is tantamount to by-passing parental authority?

Are you also saying that if we do away with these so-called anti-parenting services, then this will go a long way into reasserting parental authority once again?

Are you saying that by providing services to young people this is tantamount to by-passing parental authority?

No, eliminating or bypassing parental consent requirements for minor children undermines parental rights.


Are you also saying that if we do away with these so-called anti-parenting services, then this will go a long way into reasserting parental authority once again?

I don't believe I've even remotely attempted that connection.

They live in afantasy world, tutt, they fail to realise that the new generation wants to explore without parental help and the only thing you can do is quaranteen them until they are 25

PM asked 'absurd' question in interview (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-asked-absurd-question-in-interview-20130613-2o71q.html)

The war on women stretches a little further with Gillards consort being accused of being gay, well he is certainly pu$sy whipped

No, eliminating or bypassing parental consent requirements for minor children undermines parental rights.


Yes, you certainly do things differently over there.




I don't believe I've even remotely attempted that connection.

Yes, I know. So I can take it that there is no conncetion?

Hello again,


GOP congressman Trent Franks (GOP congressman Trent Franks: It’s hard to get pregnant from rape): It’s hard to get pregnant from rapeI didn't know that.. Did you?

So, instead of working on jobs, your GOP is working on abortion WITHOUT an exception for rape. They just passed ANOTHER un-Constitutional bill that'll go NOWHERE. Oh, yeah. It includes medically unneeded ultrasound PROBING..

But, there's no war on women...

Excon

Hello again,

I didn't know that.. Did you?

So, instead of working on jobs, your GOP is working on abortion WITHOUT an exception for rape. They just passed ANOTHER un-Constitutional bill that'll go NOWHERE. Oh, yeah. It includes medically unneeded ultrasound PROBING..

But, there's no war on women...

excon

Oh yes ex didn't you know the girl has to consent to get pregnant

Yes, you certainly do things differently over there.

You mean parents aren't parents where you are?


Yes, I know. So I can take it that there is no conncetion?

Tut, I don't even know what an "anti-parenting service" is. My contention is there has been a systematic effort by the left to undermine parental rights. I've previously elaborated on methods many times but no, the connecting issue is consent, not the availability of the service.

Anybody can buy condoms at any age.

Anybody can buy condoms at any age.

Well sir, maybe that's because it's basically a balloon or a large finger cot Hopefully most people won't ingest them or use them to end a pregnancy, Though if it weren't for the fact they were condoms I could see the nanny staters trying to protect us from them. Choking hazard, bad for the environment and especially dangerous as a water balloon - not to mention the biohazard of used condoms on public beaches and such.

Well sir, maybe that's because it's basically a balloon or a large finger cot Hopefully most people won't ingest them or use them to end a pregnancy, Though if it weren't for the fact they were condoms I could see the nanny staters trying to protect us from them. Choking hazard, bad for the environment and especially dangerous as a water balloon - not to mention the biohazard of used condoms on public beaches and such.
But 6-year-old children can buy them!

But 6-year-old children can buy them!

Hmm, a piece of latex or chemicals ingested that can cause hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of the face, lips, tongue, or throat, nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, dizziness, fatigue, breast pain or tenderness, changes in your menstrual periods, headache, hypertension, acne and other skin conditions, leukorrhea, vaginitis, dysmenorrhea, breast pain, abnormal pap smear and decreased libido, uterine/vaginal bleeding (including spotting, irregular bleeding, heavy bleeding, oligomenorrhea and amenorrhea), ovarian cysts, upper respiratory infection and sinusitis, weight gain, depression, back pain and angioedema?

That comparison is a little "out there." Maybe you two should try another line of attack.

That comparison is a little "out there." Maybe you two should try another line of attack.
I figured as long as your 6-year-old children are buying Plan B...

AndroGel Side Effects | Drugs.com (http://www.drugs.com/sfx/androgel-side-effects.html)

Aspirin Side Effects | Drugs.com (http://www.drugs.com/sfx/aspirin-side-effects.html)

Everything seems to have a side effect. What do you think the side effects of old white guys telling females and minorities they aren't first class American citizens will be?

Dudes, even if you don't think it's a big deal for THIS particular drug to be available to little girls without age restriction over the counter, what is the problem you have with parents who care about what drugs their minor child ingests?

Hello again, Steve:


what is the problem you have with parents who care about what drugs their minor child ingests?Tell your kids to just say NO.

Excon

Dudes, even if you don't think it's a big deal for THIS particular drug to be available to little girls without age restriction over the counter, what is the problem you have with parents who care about what drugs their minor child ingests?
I have no problem, but you live in a perfect world if you think far too many minor kids are going to listen to their parents and other adults.

There are other drugs to deal with that too.
19 percent of high school-age boys – ages 14 to 17 – in the U.S. have been diagnosed with ADHD and about 10 percent are taking medication for it. Ten percent of high school-age girls have likewise been diagnosed.


The CDC survey completed last year found an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 to 17 had been diagnosed at some point, a 53 percent increase over the past decade. Approximately two-thirds of those currently diagnosed have been prescribed drugs such as Ritalin or Adderall. Those drugs can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms, but they can also cause addiction, anxiety and psychosis.
Radical increase in kids prescribed Ritalin (http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/radical-increase-in-kids-prescribed-ritalin/#1jua6vQCZ2GZW62g.99)

I have no problem with parents who make it a priority to know what their child does and who they do it with. None whatsoever. I wish more would.

Doesn't mean we should deny any female an option to abortions does it?

Your health care providers lie to vulnerable young women /teens about abortions
What is Human? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q04-l2cm1oQ)

You make a good case for the morning after pill.

I have no problem, but you live in a perfect world if you think far too many minor kids are going to listen to their parents and other adults.

Unlike you I don't give up hope in them.

Hope and a prayer - two things you can do that result in nothing being done.

Hope and a prayer - two things you can do that result in nothing being done.

You are sure of that are you? But then you have to try it before you can make that statement, as for me I find the contrary to be true, but understand this; faith is the substance of things hoped for and you exercise faith in prayer

Unlike you I don't give up hope in them.

Lets give them knowledge and good options just in case.

Hope and a prayer - two things you can do that result in nothing being done.

Are you really that clueless as to what hope does? No wonder you are how you are. Pathetic.

Lets give them knowledge and good options just in case.

Come on Tal, enough of this canard that conservatives are anti-knowledge, anti-science, just plain clueless or whatever it is you think. We love options, too, and there much better options than killing off our children or leaving our pregnant kids at the mercy of the abortion absolutists.

Come on Tal, enough of this canard that conservatives are anti-knowledge, anti-science, just plain clueless or whatever it is you think. We love options, too, and there much better options than killing off our children or leaving our pregnant kids at the mercy of the abortion absolutists.

Lol leave it to you to take what I say to some kinds of weird new level of partisan rhetoric. Didn't even mention you, just the kids.

Chill out and explain your options that are better than education and support based on our best science.

Hello again, Steve:


We love options, too,You do. I LOVE this one. You FORCE women to get probed all up in their vaginas, so that she can see a picture of what YOU want her to see..

But, that's not an option you're OFFERING to women. It's an option you're FORCING them to go through.

I believe the House of Representatives just passed a bill doing that very thing. Do I need to link you?

Excon

PS> By the way, it's a totally UNNEEDED medical procedure. Plus, putting the government in charge of EVERY uterus in the nation is ANYTHING, but small government..

what hope doesWhat does hope do?

To keep a 6 year old from buying a day after pill you would not sell them at all? That's some whack logic.

To keep a 6 year old from buying a day after pill you would not sell them at all? That's some whack logic.

I don't believe I've ever said that.

What does hope do?

Not much on psychology are you?

Not much on psychology are you?
I have a master's degree in psychology and am also wondering what hope will do.

Hope is an attitude, but not a replacement for the good orderly direction that requires actions. Sometimes those actions have unintended consequences that have to be dealt with. That requires MORE actions, like it or not. Without being willing to actually do something, then what good is just hope?

I suppose its better than being hope... LESS!

Not much on psychology are you?It's a pretty straightforward and innocent question. It's just to educate myself since you said:

Are you really that clueless as to what hope does?I assume you aren't clueless on this and can tell us.

I don't believe I've ever said that.

I know you didn't, it was the no age restriction for OTC day after pills you cited before, but what 6 year old goes into a drug store with X dollars look for a day after pill?

That's not likely to happen. There is no law on the books that take away parental consent, but kids do know how to get around it, and have for as long as their have been kids. Bet you did it to.

I have a master's degree in psychology and am also wondering what hope will do.

If that's true then you're a lousy psychologist. Just remove hope from the equation and let us know what's left.

I know you didn't, it was the no age restriction for OTC day after pills you cited before, but what 6 year old goes into a drug store with X dollars look for a day after pill?

That's not likely to happen. There is no law on the books that take away parental consent, but kids do know how to get around it, and have for as long as their have been kids. Bet you did it to.

Dude, drop the 6 year old line, I challenged you all to apply this to whatever age of a minor child days ago. And yes of course once and for all also, kids don't always obey their parents, but I don't raise those issues because unlike you I don't waste my time on the no-brainer stuff - you guys harp on it to avoid the bigger issue.

I contend that 13-year-old girls should NOT be able to buy plan B over the counter without permission from their parent or legal guardian. The Obama administration at least fought for a minimum age requirement putting us on the same side. It was the right thing to do - until they dropped their opposition.

We disagree, you think it's good, I think it's throwing girls and parents under the bus.

I contend that 13-year-old girls should NOT be able to buy plan B over the counter without permission from their parent or legal guardian.
1. They have boyfriends their parents don't know about.
2. They're having sex with those boyfriends.
3. They are getting pregnant by those boyfriends.
4, They're either afraid of their parents or don't want to disappoint them or are too embarrassed to talk to their parents about any of the above.

Now what?

Now what?Hope.

1. They have boyfriends their parents don't know about.
2. They're having sex with those boyfriends.
3. They are getting pregnant by those boyfriends.
4, They're either afraid of their parents or don't want to disappoint them or are too embarrassed to talk to their parents about any of the above.

Now what?

Your narrative is not the only narrative. I know you think it is but it isn't. I've made my position clear, you can continue your game with someone else.

Hope.

I'm sorry you have no hope, that must really suck.

Bet if he started praying then hope would follow .

The word "hope" really doesn't mean anything or it can have any meaning you wish to assign to it. It certainly isn't an action word. I prefer to take control of my life, not leave it up to someone else and hope for the best.

My life is quite good actually, so good that I don't come on a forum and about everything that is wrong.

Pray and hope the 13 year old that had sex last night ain't pregnant? Really that's all you got?

Your narrative is not the only narrative. I know you think it is but it isn't. I've made my position clear, you can continue your game with someone else.
Game? You're the one playing the game by being cagey and avoiding responding with a rational answer. I sure wish you would give a definitive idea as to how to deal with 13 year olds (i.e. teens) who get pregnant, and especially those who keep their babies. How are they supposed to financially support them?

The word "hope" really doesn't mean anything or it can have any meaning you wish to assign to it. It certainly isn't an action word. I prefer to take control of my life, not leave it up to someone else and hope for the best.

My life is quite good actually, so good that I don't come on a forum and about everything that is wrong.

Hope for the best, PLAN for the worse is my course of action.

Righties may think they are smarter than a 5th grader, but them 6th graders are where they are lacking.

Game? You're the one playing the game by being cagey and avoiding responding with a rational answer. I sure wish you would give a definitive idea as to how to deal with 13 year olds (i.e., teens) who get pregnant, and especially those who keep their babies. How are they supposed to financially support them?

We've been down that road enough, I have yours and Tal's responses memorized we've been down it so much.

I repeat, the issue is this, I contend that 13-year-old girls should NOT be able to buy plan B over the counter without permission from their parent or legal guardian.

You either agree or you don't.

The word "hope" really doesn't mean anything or it can have any meaning you wish to assign to it. It certainly isn't an action word. I prefer to take control of my life, not leave it up to someone else and hope for the best.

My life is quite good actually, so good that I don't come on a forum and about everything that is wrong.

If I had used the word in the sense of having thrown my hands up and hoping for the best you might have a point, but that was not the usage. You can call it whatever you like but I bet you do the same thing. What, you have no faith in your children? You don't trust, believe, expect, wish, hope etc. that they'll do the right thing, make you proud?

That's what I was talking about, the word can have any number of meanings. If I believe that my kids will do the right thing it's because I have instilled that in them.

We've been down that road enough, I have yours and Tal's responses memorized we've been down it so much.

I repeat, the issue is this, I contend that 13-year-old girls should NOT be able to buy plan B over the counter without permission from their parent or legal guardian.

You either agree or you don't.
I agree. So your 13-year-old daughter has sex and the next morning is worried about pregnancy. She is too scared and embarrassed to talk to you about it. Then what?

That's what I was talking about, the word can have any number of meanings. If I believe that my kids will do the right thing it's because I have instilled that in them.

And I think all of you knew that's what I was referring to.

I agree. So your 13-year-old daughter has sex and the next morning is worried about pregnancy. She is too scared and embarrassed to talk to you about it. Then what?

I trust she'll do as she's been taught. Hopefully she would have no reason to fear coming to us - but in a rational world the law would require parental consent just as they do for so many other things.

I happen to believe parental consent laws are a good thing and there are typically mechanisms to bypass them if necessary. But as I said before there is a systematic effort to take parents out of the equation.


Parental Consent Laws are enacted on a state by state basis. They can be fought state by state too, so get involved. (http://www.positive.org/Resources/consent.html)

Naral sees no use for parents (http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2012/03/house-doubles-d.html), and Planned Parenthood believes requiring parental consent for an abortion is tantamount to "teen endangerment (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/teen-endangerment-9691.htm)." Both see no problem with having a "loving grandmother" or someone whisking the kid across state lines to do that which their parents object to.

Of course neither group saw no problem with referring women to butchers like Gosnell so I'll stick with relying on parents to do what's best for their children. Most Americans agree with me on that:


Planned Parenthood fighting parental consent laws tooth and nail (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-fighting-parental-consent-laws-tooth-and-nail)

by Cassy Fiano

June 3, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - Parental notification laws, where a minor is required to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion, are pretty popular. Most states have some form of them, requiring either that parents be given a heads-up first, or that they are the ones to consent to the procedure. And it makes sense that voters would feel so strongly about these laws: pro-life or pro-abortion, most parents don’t want their child getting a medical procedure of any kind done without their knowledge and consent.

A minor, almost anywhere in the country, is extremely restricted as to what they can do on their own. They can’t get their ears pierced, get a tattoo, even go to a tanning bed, without a parent’s approval first. Considering all that, it makes sense that parental notification/consent laws usually enjoy widespread voter support.

But for some reason, the abortion industry just cannot abide by them. They want your minor children to be able to come to them for abortions without you ever even knowing. A child can’t even go to the dentist without the parent’s approval, but getting an abortion, where a child will be a killed and the minor’s life will be at risk? Totally cool! The latest group seeking to circumvent the wishes of parents and voters is Planned Parenthood of Montana, which recently filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn two pairs of parental notification laws.

The lawsuit filed in state District Court in Helena targets two recently passed laws:

• One passed by Montana voters in 2012 requiring any girl under 16 to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion. The law, passed as a referendum placed on the ballot by the 2011 Legislature, took effect in January. It passed with 70.5 percent of the voters in favor.

• A bill passed by the 2013 Legislature that would supersede the current law, requiring all girls under 18 to get notarized parental consent before having an abortion. The law is scheduled to take effect July 1.

The suit asked District Judge Mike Menahan to block enforcement of the second law as of July 1 and void both of them as unconstitutional.

Who cares that an overwhelming majority of voters approved the first law? Planned Parenthood doesn’t like it, so by golly, it needs to be gone. It’s not like Planned Parenthood has a history of putting girls at risk by violating statutory rape laws, or giving them inaccurate medical information. Oh, wait…

As per usual, Planned Parenthood likes to pretend that they want to overturn these bills for the good of the minor. They’re just a bunch of big-hearted, caring folks looking out for the best interests of young girls everywhere, who might not be able to get an abortion because their parents are, like, abusive and stuff. Except, er, there are already judicial waivers present to avoid that very issue. Whoops. So what excuse do they really have, beyond that they want more young girls having abortions without their parents knowing about it, or caring about parental authority?

There is literally no other medical procedure that a minor can consent to on their own. Abortion is a purely elective procedure — a 16-year-old couldn’t decide they wanted to get breast implants without their parent’s permission first, or liposuction, or even non-elective procedures like, say, undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer. Why, then, is abortion expected to be so different?

There is a reason that teenagers are not allowed to make virtually any major life decisions on their own. They are literally incapable of making long-term decisions and weighing risks the way that adults are. Their brains are not formed for it yet. A teenager is not likely to know that they could be sending themselves off to be butchered (just ask any number of LeRoy Carhart’s patients — or rather, their surviving families). A teenager is not likely to take the time to research fetal development and find out that the baby’s heart is already beating, or that it already has little fingers and toes.

A teenager is not likely to explore all of their options, like adoption or getting help in order to keep the baby through any number of charitable organizations, before going through with an irreversible action that, for many women, will haunt them the rest of their lives. This is why parental notification laws are needed, and are so popular. Voters like them. Parents like them. But scared teenage girls can bring in a lot of money to abortion centers, so who cares?

The only people against parental notification laws, it turns out, are pro-abortion radicals, to whom abortion is so sacred that nothing must stand in the way — not even common sense.

So who do you trust with a scared teenage girl more, their parents or Planned Parenthood?

I trust she'll do as she's been taught. Hopefully she would have no reason to fear coming to us.
But she IS afraid to come to you. She avoids talking about it, turns out to be pregnant, and is still too scared/embarrassed. Your wife notices your daughter is putting on weight. Now what?

But she IS afraid to come to you. She avoids talking about it, turns out to be pregnant, and is still too scared/embarrassed. Your wife notices your daughter is putting on weight. Now what?

No she isn't and if she is I expect whoever she turns to to come to me. Beyond that we love her and support her as she brings a beautiful baby into the world. That's what we'd do, I don't know what you'd do.

Now answer the question, who do you trust with a scared teenage girl more, their parents or Planned Parenthood?

No she isn't and if she is I expect whoever she turns to to come to me. Beyond that we love her and support her as she brings a beautiful baby into the world. That's what we'd do, I don't know what you'd do.
And you will pay for all the diapers, formula, baby furniture, medical costs, etc.

Now answer the question, who do you trust with a scared teenage girl more, their parents or Planned Parenthood?
Her parents would not know she is scared.

And you will pay for all the diapers, formula, baby furniture, medical costs, etc.

What do you think we'd do?


Her parents would not know she is scared.

So parents are typically stupid?

The question was not would the parents know she's scared, it was who do you trust with a scared teenage girl more, their parents or Planned Parenthood?

Her parents would not know she is scared.

If the girl is so incompetent as you keep describing then she is in no way capable of making a medical decision on her own. If she doesn't "know" how to express fear and how to handle it then she isn't of a mindset to make a decision of such magnitude.

If the girl is so incompetent as you keep describing then she is in no way capable of making a medical decision on her own. If she doesnt "know" how to express fear and how to handle it then she isnt of a mindset to make a decision of such magnitude.

And that was the answer we were looking for.

If the girl is so incompetent as you keep describing then she is in no way capable of making a medical decision on her own. If she doesnt "know" how to express fear and how to handle it then she isnt of a mindset to make a decision of such magnitude.
Tell me if you can imagine any 13-year-old girl who wouldn't be scared out of her wits and afraid to tell her parents she's been having sex and is now pregnant.

So then what?

And that was the answer we were looking for.
Nope. We're only halfway there.

Tell me if you can imagine any 13-year-old girl who wouldn't be scared out of her wits and afraid to tell her parents she's been having sex and is now pregnant.

So then what?

Then she can as was stated tell her story to the courts and seek an abortion. That is her fear and she will have to deal with it. But if she is that afraid it sounds like DNA testing will be ordered after the baby arrives.

Then she can as was stated tell her story to the courts and seek an abortion. That is her fear and she will have to deal with it. But if she is that afraid it sounds like DNA testing will be ordered after the baby arrives.
What?? What courts? She is hiding in her bedroom after school and avoiding her parents.

DNA testing for what?

Nope. We're only halfway there.

Maybe not you but I'm good.

What??? What courts? She is hiding in her bedroom after school and avoiding her parents.

DNA testing for what?

Child support for the baby. Duh !

Maybe not you but I'm good.
The girl is still pregnant and her parents don't know.

Child support for the baby. Duh !
We're still miles away from child support. Only the girl knows she is pregnant. The parents are clueless.

So what does the girl do?

Duh back at you.

What??? What courts? She is hiding in her bedroom after school and avoiding her parents.

DNA testing for what?

OK I'll play along a little more. What if she goes to her "loving grandma" who so generously takes her across state lines where the parents don't have to know, she ends up in a clinic like Gosnell's. The poor girl is now literally scared out of her wits as he pulls the baby out with forceps, snips the breathing, crying infant's neck while the girl bleeds out and dies.

Who's going to bring the daughter back? Who's going to restore the broken relationship between grandma and the grieving, horrified parents?

We're still miles away from child support. Only the girl knows she is pregnant. The parents are clueless.

Duh back at ya.

Actually I think your clueless in what your trying to present. There are ways to circumvent the parental consent laws. Those are already in place. But if this "girl" is so paralyzed with fear that she can not act nor can think then she will end up carrying the child.

Its not rocket science. Its how the law works and how parental consent is involved. If your trying to present a case of abusive parents then she will be whisked away by the system and taken care of. That's why they have 911.

If your trying to present her as helpless as the child she is carrying then your out of luck.

OK I'll play along a little more. What if she goes to her "loving grandma" who so generously takes her across state lines where the parents don't have to know, she ends up in a clinic like Gosnell's. The poor girl is now literally scared out of her wits as he pulls the baby out with forceps, snips the breathing, crying infant's neck while the girl bleeds out and dies.

Who's going to bring the daughter back? Who's going to restore the broken relationship between grandma and the grieving, horrified parents?
No one will be able to bring the daughter back. The relationship will never be restored.

Now, with your Stephen King mind tagging along, let's go back to the girl hiding in her bedroom. What else could happen? What can she do?

No one will be able to bring the daughter back. The relationship will never be restored.

Now, with your Stephen King mind tagging along, let's go back to the girl hiding in her bedroom. What else could happen? What can she do?

She either reaches out or stands alone. Its not up to me. How are you presenting this girl to be?

Actually I think your clueless in what your trying to present. There are ways to circumvent the parental consent laws. Those are already in place. But if this "girl" is so paralyzed with fear that she can not act nor can think then she will end up carrying the child.

Its not rocket science. Its how the law works and how parental consent is involved. If your trying to present a case of abusive parents then she will be whisked away by the system and taken care of. Thats why they have 911.

If your trying to present her as helpless as the child she is carrying then your out of luck.
There is no parental consent or legal anything yet in this situation. Who does this pregnant girl go to (probably AMHD... )?

She either reaches out or stands alone. Its not up to me. How are you presenting this girl to be?
Aaaah, I LOVE you. Who does she reach out to?

Aaaah, I LOVE you. Who does she reach out to?

You pick. Its your girl.

You pick. Its your girl.
No, I think she is speech's. Can't remember who created her.

I would hope she would confide in a trusted adult (teacher, aunt, etc.) who would have her best interests at heart.

No, I think she is speech's. Can't remember who created her.

I would hope she would confide in a trusted adult (teacher, aunt, etc.) who would have her best interests at heart.

Anyone but the mom and/or dad, the people who love her most and know her better than anyone, right?

Anyone but the mom and/or dad, the people who love her most and know her better than anyone, right?
Yes, that is usually what happens. Hopefully (ah, hope!), they will notice her distress and weight gain, and gently question her.

But if that doesn't happen, then what can she do?

Anyone but the mom and/or dad, the people who love her most and know her better than anyone, right?It all depends on her experience with her parents. It is always preferable to keep it in the family as it were.

It all depends on her experience with her parents. It is always preferable to keep it in the family as it were.

I agree, but in a rational world whoever she confides in would involve the parents in most cases, one way or another.

One tough woman won a battle (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19140887-texas-abortion-bill-fails-to-pass-after-epic-filibuster?lite&gt1=43001) in Texas' version of the war on women.


A bill that opponents claimed would virtually ban abortion in Texas failed to pass late Tuesday after lawmakers missed a deadline by just minutes.

There were chaotic scenes after a filibuster attempt fell just short and protesters cheered, clapped and shouted from 11:45 p.m. to midnight and beyond as lawmakers tried to hold the vote before the session ended at midnight (1 a.m. ET).

The filibuster by Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who wore a back brace, lasted almost 11 hours but ended after three challenges to her speech were upheld.

The only way Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate could defeat the measure was by not letting it come to a vote on Tuesday.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, acting as Senate president, initially said the voting began just before midnight, NBCDFW.com reported, and several reports suggested that the bill had been passed after a 19-10 vote and would go to Gov. Rick Perry.

But Dewhurst later announced that the vote had been held too late.

The problem with the bill?


The measure would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and would have required all clinics to be graded as surgical centers, with all doctors required to have admitting privileges at hospitals. It's estimated that nearly all of the state's clinics wouldn't have been able to meet the new standards.

We can't have standards to protect women now can we? OK, so maybe requiring them to graded as surgical centers might be a little extreme, or is it? Would you have a D&C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_curettage) in just any ol' clinic?

Hello again, Steve:

Look. You don't give a sh1t about medical procedures... You're NOT interested in a D&C, or admitting privileges. Why are you talking about them? You're pissed because abortion WASN'T curtailed. Just say it.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Look. You don't give a sh1t about medical procedures... You're NOT interested in a D&C, or admitting privileges. Why are you talking about them? You're pissed because abortion WASN'T curtailed. Just say it.

excon

There you go, try and have a reasonable discussion and you froth at the mouth instead. It was reasonable question, one that deserves to be answered. Do you want women in clinics like Gosnells or do you think abortion clinics should be regulated in any way? Put your money where your mouth is, ex, or like PP is that we want to make abortions "safe and rare" just empty words?

Hello Steve:

No, like ANY supporter of abortion, I want ALL baby's to be torn limb from limb... And, you CARE about women's health and D&C's.

Ok?? Happy now? Do you want to keep bullsh1tting or should we get on with it?

excon

Forgive my naïveté, but before Gosnell I just assumed that abortion clinics were held to some sort of standards, subject to inspections and such - especially those who perform late term abortions. It is SURGERY so why would anyone throw a fit, in fact in this case, totally disrupt the Texas legislature to see to it that women are not protected by a medical standard? Really?? Would you have a colonoscopy at an unregulated clinic?

Would you have a colonoscopy at an unregulated clinic?Hello again, Steve:

If you right wingers OUTLAWED it, what choice would I have?

Excon

PS> Are we still pretending that your position on abortion is based on women's health?? Ok, I'll play along.

I have seen some bad ones myself Speech and I had assumed things had gotten better, but I agree there is a need for more regulation and oversight, but my problem is in the area of compliance because the structural changes as a practical matter cannot happen in the time the states, including Texas is demanding.

Now if your goal is to shut down a specific business immediately, which it is, then denying a proper period of compliance is the tool to use, and that's been the conservative MO for many years. I stop at admitting privileges though, for now.

Hello again, Steve:

If you right wingers OUTLAWED it, what choice would I have?

Excon

You know I have not called for a ban and don't believe that would ever happen.


PS> Are we still pretending that your position on abortion is based on women's health?? Ok, I'll play along.

Uh, we aren't the ones that have been pretending abortion was a "women's health" issue all this time. That's MY point, it either is or it isn't, and if it IS you wouldn't object to making sure their clinics were SAFE. Besides, I thought you guys LOVED regulations.

I have seen some bad ones myself Speech and I had assumed things had gotten better, but I agree there is a need for more regulation and oversight, but my problem is in the area of compliance because the structural changes as a practical matter cannot happen in the time the states, including Texas is demanding.

Now if your goal is to shut down a specific business immediately, which it is, then denying a proper period of compliance is the tool to use, and that's been the conservative MO for many years. I stop at admitting privileges though, for now.

I have never seen anything have no compliance window, care to elaborate?

Hello again, Steve:


You know I have not called for a ban But, you DO support the defeated Texas bill, that would have left the state of Texas with 2 abortion clinics.

For a poor women living across the state, that's a ban. You can call it something else, and you will, but it's a BAN.

Excon

It goes well beyond clean and sanitary as doorways and hallways have to be expanded to meet the NEW compliance codes that Texas is trying to mandate.

Texas Abortion Bill Could Close Most Of State's Clinics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/texas-abortion-bill_n_2918682.html)


part of a growing national trend of so-called "TRAP" (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) bills, would require all abortion clinics in Texas to meet the same physical requirements as ambulatory surgical centers, even if they do not perform surgical abortions. Clinics would have to have surgical operating rooms of at least 240 square feet, specific flooring for janitors' closets, and new ventilation systems that can sterilize operating rooms and regulate the humidity of administrative offices -- all requirements that would be hard to fulfill.


Only five of the 42 clinics in Texas are currently licensed as ambulatory surgical centers, according to a Planned Parenthood spokesperson. If the bill becomes law, the other 37 clinics will either be forced to close down or to undergo costly and extensive building renovations in order to comply. The five clinics that would remain open are in Texas' major metropolitan areas -- Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio -- so women in most rural parts of Texas would have to drive much farther in order to access abortion care.

Texas legislators have already passed a mandatory ultrasound law, a law mandating a 24-hour waiting period before abortions and a law prohibiting Planned Parenthood from participating in the state's low-income Women's Health Program.

Only 11 of the clinics that would be affected by the new TRAP bill are Planned Parenthood clinics -- the rest are independent providers.

It goes well beyond clean and sanitary as doorways and hallways have to be expanded to meet the NEW compliance codes that Texas is trying to mandate.

Texas Abortion Bill Could Close Most Of State's Clinics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/texas-abortion-bill_n_2918682.html)

What did that have to do with a compliance window?

Hello again, Steve:

But, you DO support the defeated Texas bill, that would have left the state of Texas with 2 abortion clinics.

For a poor women living across the state, that's a ban. You can call it something else, and you will, but it's a BAN.

excon

Do you care about the health and safety of women or not? That is the question.

What did that have to do with a compliance window?

Out of compliance is cause for immediate shutdown. There is no clause that allows them time to comply or arrange to comply. That's like your job changes the certification requirements tomorrow and give you until the next day to meet those requirements.

Would that be fair?


Do you care about the health and safety of women or not? That is the question.

I care and I am sure we all do, and speaking for myself, and NOT EX, I think poor women should get the same care as well to do women. The laws by states to limit, or eliminate abortions vastly affects poor women.

That makes you a bully!!

Out of compliance is cause for immediate shutdown. There is no clause that allows them time to comply or arrange to comply. That's like your job changes the certification requirements tomorrow and give you until the next day to meet those requirements.

Would that be fair?

I wasn't taking a position, I was asking you, what does the bill say about a window of compliance? No dancing around, I want to know what the bill says about that and then I will give an answer.


I care and I am sure we all do, and speaking for myself, and NOT EX, I think poor women should get the same care as well to do women. The laws by states to limit, or eliminate abortions vastly affects poor women.

That makes you a bully!!

Oh waaa! You just throw that crap out to try and end the debate and make us look like knuckle draggers which makes YOU the bully. Can you lefties even have a discussion without resorting to such bullsh!t?

It's a simple question, do you think abortion clinics should be subject to standards? Do you think they should be regulated, inspected, what? I mean really Tal, if we can't come to an agreement on making the places safe we can't agree on anything. I'm willing, are you? Or is the institution of abortion more sacred than the lives of the women you claim to protect?

It's a simple question, do you think abortion clinics should be subject to standards?
Hello again, Steve:

Now, you're telling us that you CARE about the size of the hallways in abortion clinics... Who're you trying to kid? You and your state, want 'em CLOSED down.

You ASK about standards, as though they MATTER to you. But, as tal was explaining to you, these AREN'T standards aimed at the health of the woman.. They're aimed at SHUTTING the clinics down..

As long as you PRETEND they're otherwise, you're not going to get serious debate from me because you can't even talk about what's REALLY going on ON the ground...

Over to you, Pretender...

Excon

You can defend yourself against me, but can poor women and children and old people defend themselves against the laws the right wing proposes?

Looking up the time for compliance procedure, which is subject to change from the existing one, if the legislature passes a new law, which would bring existing buildings into the same realm as new ones. Under the old law they are under compliance I will note.

Hello again, Steve:

Now, you're telling us that you CARE about the size of the hallways in abortion clinics... Who're you trying to kid?? You and your state, want 'em CLOSED down.

You ASK about standards, as though they MATTER to you. But, as tal was explaining to you, these AREN'T standards aimed at the health of the woman.. They're aimed at SHUTTING the clinics down..

As long as you PRETEND they're otherwise, you're not going to get serious debate from me because you can't even talk about what's REALLY going on ON the ground...

Over to you, Pretender...

excon

Dude, I repeat - it is not we who have made the issue one about women's health and making abortion "safe and rare." I have always supported that notion in reality, not empty words. Either put up or shut up, do we make sure clinics are safe or not? It's not a hard question.

Signed -not the pretender.

Why even go to a clinic if they can go to a nice clean doctors office? Oh that's right, clinics are for poor people who don't have a doctor.

You can defend yourself against me, but can poor women and children and old people defend themselves against the laws the right wing proposes?

Looking up the time for compliance procedure, which is subject to change from the existing one, if the legislature passes a new law, which would bring existing buildings into the same realm as new ones. Under the old law they are under compliance I will note.

And who protects them from the butcher? I just to know this compliance window because if it's immediate - your claim - that's unreasonable.

Otherwise, a clinic that performs surgical abortions should be subject to the same standards as any other surgery center would be my view. I see no reason the standard should be lower but I'm sure you think access is a good enough reason to jeopardize their lives.

Why even go to a clinic if they can go to a nice clean doctors office? Oh that's right, clinics are for poor people who don't have a doctor.

So you are OK with dirty clinics for poor people? Dude!

So you are OK with dirty clinics for poor people? Dude!Hello again, Pretender:

Still PRETENDING these regulations have ANYTHING to do with dirty clinics or poor people?? Really?? Dude!!

Excon

Hello again, Pretender:

Still PRETENDING these regulations have ANYTHING to do with dirty clinics or poor people?? Really?? Dude!!

Excon

It was an opening and they took it. Happy? Now, can we discuss this or not? I gave my opinion already:


And who protects them from the butcher? I just [want] to know this compliance window because if it's immediate - your claim - that's unreasonable.

Otherwise, a clinic that performs surgical abortions should be subject to the same standards as any other surgery center would be my view. I see no reason the standard should be lower but I'm sure you think access is a good enough reason to jeopardize their lives.

Your turn:

I repeat - it is not we who have made the issue one about women's health and making abortion "safe and rare." I have always supported that notion in reality, not empty words. Either put up or shut up, do we make sure clinics are safe or not? It's not a hard question.

Signed -not the pretender.

Your turnHello not:

I don't know WHAT I'd do if I was a poor woman who lived in the corner of your state where you ELIMINATED abortion clinics. I suppose if I wanted an abortion, I'd be FORCED to go to an unregulated/illegal clinic where it probably ain't too clean...

What do you think a poor woman WOULD do? Have her baby because you took away her access to a SAFE abortion?? Really??

I suppose you do.. You think making pot illegal would STOP people from smoking pot...

Excon

Hello not:

I dunno WHAT I'd do if I was a poor woman who lived in the corner of your state where you ELIMINATED abortion clinics. I suppose if I wanted an abortion, I'd be FORCED to go to an unregulated/illegal clinic where it probably ain't too clean...

What do you think a poor woman WOULD do? Have her baby because you took away her access to a SAFE abortion???? Really???

I suppose you do.. You think making pot illegal would STOP people from smoking pot...

excon

So you don't believe abortion clinics should be regulated to provide a SAFE environment, why didn't you just say so?

Don't you have a better process for regulations that take into account the females affected now? Like a temporary relaxing of regulations that allow doctors and hospitals to help already pregnant woman who need safe care NOW, or in a month?

Why would you object to that if indeed the health and safety of the woman is indeed the priority and NOT the IMMEDIATE closing of clinics that do not meet the new law. At some point between words and actions poor females are left short aren't they.

So clarify your motives instead of questioning everyone else's. So the question becomes what about current poor females who need help? What option do they have while you close their one option?

Don't you have a better process for regulations that take into account the females affected now? Like a temporary relaxing of regulations that allow doctors and hospitals to help already pregnant woman who need safe care NOW, or in a month?

Why would you object to that if indeed the health and safety of the woman is indeed the priority and NOT the IMMEDIATE closing of clinics that do not meet the new law. At some point between words and actions poor females are left short aren't they.

So clarify your motives instead of questioning everyone else's. So the question becomes what about current poor females who need help? What option do they have while you close their one option?

I'm the only one who has been clear here, you and ex have danced all over the place

For the THIRD time:


And who protects them from the butcher? I just [want] to know this compliance window because if it's immediate - your claim - that's unreasonable.

Otherwise, a clinic that performs surgical abortions should be subject to the same standards as any other surgery center would be my view. I see no reason the standard should be lower but I'm sure you think access is a good enough reason to jeopardize their lives.


I repeat - it is not we who have made the issue one about women's health and making abortion "safe and rare." I have always supported that notion in reality, not empty words. Either put up or shut up, do we make sure clinics are safe or not? It's not a hard question.

Signed -not the pretender.

So you pass a law one day, close a clinic the next and nobody gets hurt? What sucks Speech, is there are no in between plan for those caught in the middle of the process like your side doesn't care.

We have agreed in principle on many things, but when it comes to the effects on real people, you guys say though your on your own. Your implementation plans suck.

The war on women is alive and well here no only have they shafted our only female prime minister but they are lamenting a 27% turnout for candidates. I wonder, whose fault is that? Needless to say I am not in favour of affirmative action in parachuting women into seats just to make up the numbers. They should be there on merit just like everyone else

no only have they shafted our only female prime minister
Equal treatment is considered a war on women ? She deserved to be ousted at least as much as KRudd .

So you pass a law one day, close a clinic the next and nobody gets hurt? What sucks Speech, is there are no in between plan for those caught in the middle of the process like your side doesn't care.

We have agreed in principle on many things, but when it comes to the effects on real people, you guys say though your on your own. Your implementation plans suck.

What part me saying having no compliance window is unreasonable (for the 4th time now) are you not understanding? I'm still waiting on you to show me there is no window for compliance.

Beyond that, why should an abortion clinic that performs surgical abortions not be regulated like any other surgery center? If you don't believe they should be then explain why pregnant women deserve less protection than others.

What part me saying having no compliance window is unreasonable (for the 4th time now) are you not understanding? I'm still waiting on you to show me there is no window for compliance.

Beyond that, why should an abortion clinic that performs surgical abortions not be regulated like any other surgery center? If you don't believe they should be then explain why pregnant women deserve less protection than others.

If it wasn't for the fact that these "clinics" provide abortions ,the lefties would demand their immediate closure for the substandard conditions .

Hello again, Steve:


If you don't believe they should be then explain why pregnant women deserve less protection than others.And, if they don't widen the hallways the way YOU want, you'll CLOSE them down, and the women won't get ANY protection...

So, STOP pretending your regulations have ANYTHING to do protecting pregnant women..

What?? Did you think I was going to go away?

Excon

So far it seems to be a matter of what jurisdiction is applying the standards. But the stated goal of the new laws is to close the abortion clinics in Texas. The same tactics other states are using for the same goal which has nothing to do with women's safety.

Like telling an 80 year old for a birth certificate to get an ID to vote. The laws that Perry and the repubs are pushing through in a special session cannot be complied with in a reasonable time frame just because of costs and contracting considerations and they knew full well that compliance is not possible.

Only going by what Perry and his cronies have so far said about what they are doing and how they go about it.

Further it seems that each clinic is physically different, both in size age and location and running down the individual specifics of 37 affected facilities is daunting.

Look I get that safety should be first, but the standards of that safety at this time appears both arbitrary, and capricious designed to eliminate not facilitate.

Hello again, Steve:

And, if they don't widen the hallways the way YOU want, you'll CLOSE them down, and the women won't get ANY protection...

So, STOP pretending your regulations have ANYTHING to do protecting pregnant women..

What??? Did you think I was gonna go away??

excon

I believe it was doorways and why do you think there would be a standard? Maybe some guy like Gosnell botches the thing and someone needs to get the poor thing bleeding to death out of there in a hurry. It's all about emergency access and egress.

You, the guy pitching a fit about "forcing a probe" up someone's vagina apparently think there is no risk involved in scalpels and other surgical instruments up a women's vagina.

So, for at least the FIFTH time, why should they not face the same standards as any other surgical center? Why will you not answer the question?

The same people would close a grocery because it didn't have a handicap ramp.

So far it seems to be a matter of what jurisdiction is applying the standards. But the stated goal of the new laws is to close the abortion clinics in Texas. The same tactics other states are using for the same goal which has nothing to do with women's safety.

Like telling an 80 year old for a birth certificate to get an ID to vote. The laws that Perry and the repubs are pushing thru in a special session cannot be complied with in a reasonable time frame just because of costs and contracting considerations and they knew full well that compliance is not possible.

Only going by what Perry and his cronies have so far said about what they are doing and how they go about it.

Further it seems that each clinic is physically different, both in size age and location and running down the individual specifics of 37 affected facilities is daunting.

Look I get that safety should be first, but the standards of that safety at this time appears both arbitrary, and capricious designed to eliminate not facilitate.

Since you won't answer the question I will assume you don't believe pregnant women deserve protection.

Your assumptions are wrong and its quite a stretch to take questioning of the process as I don't care.

Your assumptions are wrong and its quite a stretch to take questioning of the process as I don't care.

Then how about an answer? It's not like you haven't had opportunity. One more time...

Why should an abortion clinic that performs surgical abortions not be regulated like any other surgery center?

Look I get that safety should be first, but the standards of that safety at this time appears both arbitrary, and capricious designed to eliminate not facilitate.

It should be but to be clearer for you the way Perry and repubs are going about it SUCKS!!

Now what's YOUR plan, or theirs for the servicing the needs of current clients.

It's their plan and to my knowledge there is no contingency for the affected people. Why would that be if they were putting woman first?

It should be but to be clearer for you the way Perry and repubs are going about it SUCKS!!!!!

Now what's YOUR plan, or theirs for the servicing the needs of current clients.

Its their plan and to my knowledge there is no contingency for the affected people. Why would that be if they were putting woman first?

Well that was like pulling teeth, but now we're getting somewhere.

I already said (again something like five times) that if there is no compliance window that's wrong. So what's the compliance window? Been asking that since you said it was "immediate."

Ohio Senate passes budget bill with anti-abortion measures - News - WIN 98.5 Your Country - WNWN FM - Battle Creek, MI (http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2013/jun/06/ohio-senate-passes-budget-bill-with-anti-abortion-measures/)


The Ohio Senate on Thursday passed a $61.7 billion two-year budget which includes controversial amendments that would limit federal funds for Planned Parenthood and ban public hospitals from having patient transfer agreements with abortion clinics... In addition, the bill would prohibit doctors who have rights to practice at a public hospital from also working at an abortion clinic, and block transfer agreements between abortion clinics and public hospitals.

Clinics enter into transfer agreements if more care is needed than the clinic can provide, and cannot operate unless the agreements are in place.

Ohio Abortion Opponents Try New Tactic to Curb Clinics - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-27/ohio-abortion-opponents-try-new-tactic-for-restricting-clinics.html)

So much for health and safety.

Ohio Senate passes budget bill with anti-abortion measures - News - WIN 98.5 Your Country - WNWN FM - Battle Creek, MI (http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2013/jun/06/ohio-senate-passes-budget-bill-with-anti-abortion-measures/)



Ohio Abortion Opponents Try New Tactic to Curb Clinics - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-27/ohio-abortion-opponents-try-new-tactic-for-restricting-clinics.html)

So much for health and safety.

So much for abortion why should it be facilitated

FYI if you didn't know, Texas is taking another shot (http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/18704/#.UctZEC3Sajs.twitter) at protecting the lives of women and ending the death and dismemberment of babies after 20 weeks. I doubt the mob will prevail this time.

Hello again, Pretender:

Texas will probably succeed at closing 50 something abortion clinics, and you can PRETEND that the women who NEEDED them will be very well protected..

But, it makes NO sense to me. Of course, I'm HUMAN.

excon

Hello again, Pretender:

Texas will probably succeed at closing 50 something abortion clinics, and you can PRETEND that the women who NEEDED them will be very well protected..

But, it makes NO sense to me. Of course, I'm HUMAN.

excon

Since abortion is big business I see no problem why they can't make the needed upgrades by September of next year. I mean come on, they are all about women's health CARE and making abortion "safe" and "rare" right?

That is what a HUMAN would do, not throw a temper tantrum to maintain the right to smash, rip and tear 20 week old babies limb from limb.

Hello again, Pretender:


Since abortion is big business I see no problem why they can't make the needed upgrades by September of next year. Providing health care and family services to POOR people is NOT profitable. But, you may PRETEND that it is.

You may also PRETEND that the women you're leaving WITHOUT any health care whatsoever, will bare their babies instead of reaching out for the nearest coat hanger..

Over to you, Pretender.

Excon

Hello again, Pretender:

Providing health care and family services to POOR people is NOT profitable. But, you may PRETEND that it is.

You may also PRETEND that the women you're leaving WITHOUT any health care whatsoever, will bear their babies instead of reaching out for the nearest coat hanger..

Over to you, Pretender.

excon

It's profitable enough that the "non-profit" largest abortion provider in the country can pay its CEO a $400k salary (http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/17/planned-parenthood-ceo-defends-her-400k-salary-and-her-non-profits-federal-funding-video/).

Just admit it dude, you don't think women deserve the same standard of care as everyone else.

It's profitable enough that the "non-profit" largest abortion provider in the country can pay its CEO a $400k salary. That's minuscule compared to what other CEOs get paid.

Need a list of Non-Profit hospital CEO's? How about banks, insurance companies, or Walmart's.

Just admit it dude, you don't think women deserve the same standard of care as everyone else.
If there are no clinics, there is no standard of care. Women are left to their own devices.

That's minuscule compared to what other CEOs get paid.

Ex: "Providing health care and family services to POOR people is NOT profitable"

Apparently it is, what other CEOs make is irrelevant.

The next woman I know who has medical complications I'll remind ...."at least you have abortion rights " .When she gives me a puzzled look I'll remind her that access to abortions is access to women's health.
Women get ill and die from many things . The leading causes are things like heart disease cancer ,strokes.. things like that . Lack of abortion access is probably very low on the list of things that cause women's deaths .

So this rhetoric about denying abortions being equated to denying women health care is spin at best and it comes from this equating pregnancy with a disease I guess.

Apparently it is, what other CEOs make is irrelevant.It is when you want to put things in perspective. It isn't why it derails your point.

And stop stalking me.

the next woman I know who has medical complications I'll remind ...."at least you have abortion rights " .When she gives me a puzzled look I'll remind her that access to abortions is access to women's health.
Women get ill and die from many things . The leading causes are things like heart disease cancer ,strokes ..things like that . Lack of abortion access is probably very low on the list of things that cause womens deaths .

So this rhetoric about denying abortions being equated to denying women health care is spin at best and it comes from this equating pregnancy with a disease I guess.

So now you tell them what they can have access to? Abortion, and the related complications from pregnancy are but part of the equation. Give it ALL to them, whatever they need when they need it.

So now you tell them what they can have access to? Abortion, and the related complications from pregnancy are but part of the equation. Give it ALL to them, whatever they need when they need it.

Sorry ,got to draw a line on taking someone else's life for the convenience of their parents .

sorry ,gotta draw a line on taking someone elses life for the convenience of their parents .
But when that child is 18, let's send him off to war.

got to draw a line on taking someone else's life Apparently it's not or it would be legally murder. I know we'll never agree on this.

The law says abortions are legal in the first trimester, so the onus is on the female is to be educated about what to do as soon as she knows she is pregnant (typically after 4 weeks approx.) and to me that means consulting her doctor... If she can afford one, or has one.

If not she still needs options. Unbiased knowledgeable options.

I know we'll never agree on this.
Correct

The law says abortions are legal in the first trimester, so the onus is on the female is to be educated about what to do as soon as she knows she is pregnant (typically after 4 weeks approx.) and to me that means consulting her doctor.............................If she can afford one, or has one.

If not she still needs options. Unbiased knowledgeable options.

You mean the law imposed on us by SCOTUS.. but that's another op.

Why are the choices, and options, and opportunities of others, under the law, such an imposition on YOU?

"on me " they are not . I'm interested in protecting the life of the most innocent from arbitrary state sanctioned murder.

At least we've finally found a regulation libs don't love. It just happens to be one that protects women but no biggie there, right?

Dewhurst is looking into reports that media members were inciting the mob at the vote the other day.

Dewhurst: I’ll pass the late-term abortion ban — and “take action against” those who incited demonstration « Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/dewhurst-ill-pass-the-late-term-abortion-ban-and-take-action-against-those-who-incited-demonstration/)

I wouldn't doubt it considering their breathless coverage of the left's war on children. I guess they forgot there are cameras rolling.

In case you missed it the left's newest superstar and media sensation (or do I repeat myself?) made the Sunday show rounds yesterday for all manner of fluff, hero worship, fashion talk and the "how many ways can you avoid saying 'abortion'" game. The money quote (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/06/30/overnight-star-wendy-davis-condemns-politicians-using-abortion-iss)?


WENDY DAVIS: You know, I think really what's happening here, Bob, is politicians are using this issue to boost their own political aspirations, their own political aspirations, their own political ambitions

Ya don't say.

P.S. For those whining about what the width of the doors has to do with this (which I had already answered), a note from David Freddoso (http://washingtonexaminer.com/if-only-kermit-gosnell-had-worn-pink-sneakers-like-wendy-davis/article/2532532) via the Gosnell trial:


The grand jury noted that even after Gosnell's unqualified, unlicensed staff had (at his direction) given her a lethal overdose of local anesthetic, she might have still been saved but for the clinic's "cluttered," "narrow, twisted passageways" which "could not accommodate a stretcher" to get her out. Mongar still had a pulse when paramedics arrived, but they lost a critical 20 minutes just trying to get her out of the building.

But remember, emergency access has nothing to do with protecting the health of the woman.

It's come to this... the pro-abortion mob chants "hail Satan" as pro-life women share their abortion related testimonies and sing Amazing Grace in the Texas capitol's rotunda.

41XENUuwKP8

Yes, really. CNN reported it, too.

No one is ever "pro-abortion". FYI.

No one is ever "pro-abortion". FYI.

Then why the bumper stickers and t-shirts (http://www.cafepress.com/+i-love-abortion+gifts)?

http://i1.cpcache.com/product/74594855/i_love_abortion_baseball_jersey.jpg?color=BlackWhi te&height=460&width=460&qv=90
http://i1.cpcache.com/product/97059006/bumper_sticker.jpg?color=White&height=460&width=460&qv=90

FYI, the reality is they do love abortion but they'll call it anything but (as I noted above) and few admit it outright.

I Love Abortion: Implying Otherwise Accomplishes Nothing for Women’s Rights (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/14/choice-words-about-abortion-0/)

I'm quite certain that the vast majority of women do not share the opinion of the nutcase you dragged out in the open.

I'm quite certain that the vast majority of women do not share the opinion of the nutcase you dragged out in the open.
Yup. No woman I've ever known in my long life --- Christian, Muslim. Hindu, atheist, agnostic -- has ever been pro abortion.

He is right if you dig very deep into the breakdown of America you will see its all playing a part.

I'm quite certain that the vast majority of women do not share the opinion of the nutcase you dragged out in the open.

You guys can play your little games all day on this but I'm right. All this rhetoric about "women's health" and all that nonsense was exposed for the lie it is in light of the response by the pro-abortion crowd to the Gosnell trial. There was no concern for women's health, there was no concern for making abortion "safe and rare, and no sympathy for the child victims just as there was no effort to enforce standards that would have prevented that travesty.

And just as this Texas episode shows and ANY possible attempt at an abortion restriction, preserving the sacrament of abortion at all cost is the only concern. So as long as they misrepresent us and lie to women I will call it pro-abortion if I damn well feel like it. When you take that side to task for their misrepresentations, dodging the issue with all their euphemisms for abortion and the lies about "protecting" women I might consider your point.

P.S. Calling them what they are, pro-abortion is much more civilized than their mob tactics and chanting "hail Satan" at peaceful women exercising their rights, so deal with it.

You guys can play your little games all day on this but I'm right. Ok, you don't need us then, just people that agree with you, regardless of any facts. Enjoy.

Ok, you don't need us then, just people that agree with you, regardless of any facts. Enjoy.

Irony alert, I'm not the one that just dismissed the facts (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3498301-post231.html) but hey, the sooner more people conform to my view the better. Meanwhile, feel free to be wrong all you like.

Ramping up the war on women nationally...

Rubio to Introduce Senate Bill to Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rubio-introduce-senate-bill-ban-abortions-after-20-weeks_738579.html)

So go ahead, tell me why abortions should still be legal after 20 weeks. That's 5 months. Here's an image of the baby at 20 weeks from MedicineNet (http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_development_pictures_slideshow/article.htm) to help you decide.

While you're pondering my last question, more of the pro-abortion crowd keepin' it classy...


State senator Donna Campbell, who issued the third point of order against Davis’s filibuster (which ended it), has also been the target of extensive verbal abuse from pro-choice protesters, according to her spokesman Jon Oliver.

They’ve received Facebook messages and e-mails saying, “I hope you’re raped” and “I hope your daughter’s raped,” Oliver tells me.

“Lots of language — ‘You’re an effin’ blank,’ ‘You are a traitor to women’ — those kind of things,” Oliver says. “I wouldn’t say anything’s necessarily a direct threat, but they’re the kind of e-mails that make you a little nervous, especially when you start talking about family members: ‘I hope your family members are raped.’”

And the photo of the day (https://twitter.com/EthanGehrke/status/352276621400608768/photo/1) courtesy of the pro-abortion protesters.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOOJuIGCEAEJX3L.jpg:large

If you missed it, that's a little girl holding a sign saying "If I wanted the government in my womb I'd F*** a Senator."

I'm quite certain that the vast majority of women do not share the opinion of the nutcase you dragged out in the open.

I guess there is more then one running around these days ?

Girl Scouts Join Planned Parenthood at Huge Pro-Abortion Conference | LifeNews.com (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/31/girl-scouts-join-planned-parenthood-at-huge-pro-abortion-conference/)

Planned Parenthood Admits How Pro-Abortion They Are (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2013/04/planned-parenthood-admits-how-pro-abortion-they-are/)

While waiting on an answer or two as to why abortions should still be legal after 20 weeks or what stage of development a child in the womb deserves protection, if any, chew on this.

The Chicago Tribune, USA Today and the LA Times refused to run a pro-life ad (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/05/major-newspapers-reject-pro-life-ad-image-of-baby-too-controversial/) by Heroic Media allegedly because the image was too controversial. No, it wasn't hacked up aborted babies - it hit home harder than that.

http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/heroicmedia3.png

By the way, my nephew and his wife just became the proud parents of little Penny, born at 25 weeks and weighing 1 lb 13 oz. So when do they deserve to be treated as humans? I leave you with Penny...

Hello again, Steve:

I never minded the 20 week deal.. I mind that you're closing MOST health clinics that poor women depend on. I mind the mandatory vaginal PROBE... I mind the NO EXCEPTIONS for RAPE..

Why don't you defend THOSE?? Oh, that's right you did... You're SOOOOO concerned with women's health that you're going to close their clinics because their doorways aren't wide enough... That'll REALLY help 'em...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I never minded the 20 week deal.. I mind that you're closing MOST health clinics that poor women depend on. I mind the mandatory vaginal PROBE... I mind the NO EXCEPTIONS for RAPE..

Why don't you defend THOSE?? Oh, that's right you did... You're SOOOOO concerned with women's health that you're going to close their clinics because their doorways aren't wide enough... That'll REALLY help 'em...

Excon

Cut the crap, the Texas proposal has all the exceptions you guys demand but the one leaving women subject to unsafe, unregulated clinics, but I've already shown that and the need for door standards (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3497066-post228.html)


The grand jury noted that even after Gosnell's unqualified, unlicensed staff had (at his direction) given her a lethal overdose of local anesthetic, she might have still been saved but for the clinic's "cluttered," "narrow, twisted passageways" which "could not accommodate a stretcher" to get her out. Mongar still had a pulse when paramedics arrived, but they lost a critical 20 minutes just trying to get her out of the building.

But go ahead, keep arguing against women's health and safety. Texas, Wisconsin (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/06/19317652-wisconsin-governor-signs-new-abortion-restrictions-into-law?lite) and others are looking out for them. Unlike you we don't believe poor women should be subject to unsafe standards.

Hello again, Mr. Lover of Regulations:

What's better for woman's health? A clinic with narrow doorways, or no clinic at all?

excon

Hello again, Mr. Lover of Regulations:

What's better for woman's health? A clinic with narrow doorways, or no clinic at all?

excon

They'll have a year to comply. Took me a couple days and a couple hundred bucks to widen my doorway, if they're interested in women's health they'll find a way.

You SAY it's for a woman's safety but where does she go for service after you close the only place she can afford to go?

You SAY it's for a woman's safety but where does she go for service after you close the only place she can afford to go?

Personally I have no problem with abortion clinics closing, I don't consider most abortions to have anything to do with "health care." That's a ruse you've perpetrated on women by calling it anything but abortion and the child anything but a child. I'd rather be honest with women then use them as pawns. But like I said, if their "health" is that important they'll comply and they'll have a year to do so. Figure it out.

I have figured it out and it obvious some women don't agree with you, or intend to let YOU tell them what to do. Maybe you need to figure THAT out.

I have figured it out and it obvious some women don't agree with you, or intend to let YOU tell them what to do. Maybe you need to figure THAT out.

Over 60 percent of Texans believe abortion should be restricted after 20 weeks, and only you and a few wackos believe women don't deserve a safe clinic.

I would say your side's disregard for their safety is surprising but it isn't. It is abortion that they protect at all cost, not women and certainly not children and that's what some women need to figure out - their "protectors" are lying to them and using them.

Over 60 percent of Texans believe abortion should be restricted after 20 weeks
Restricted or forbidden/outlawed?

Why close all the clinics? Why not just say no abortions later than 20 weeks?