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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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!

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Your turn

---

Hello 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.