It’s hard to argue with the logic.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The governor and attorney general of Texas are moving to ban most abortions in the state during the coronavirus outbreak, declaring they don’t qualify as essential surgeries.
Attorney General Ken Paxton said Monday that the order issued over the weekend by Gov. Greg Abbott barred “any type of abortion that is not medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”
Failure to comply with the order can result in penalties of up to $1,000 or 180 days of jail time, Paxton said.
“No one is exempt from the governor’s executive order on medically unnecessary surgeries and procedures, including abortion providers,” Paxton said. “Those who violate the governor’s order will be met with the full force of the law.”[…]
“If abortion is a ‘choice’ then abortion is an elective procedure,” said Mark Harrington, president of the anti-abortion group Created Equal.
That will be one thing Evers (WEAC-WEAC) won’t copy from Ohio.
Evers has a,chance to save some innocent lives by banning baby killing.
Liberals will keep the killing camps going with cheer.
Awful. Just awful.
Head-spin; Just a few posts ago, B&S was worried about authoritarians make over-broad restrictions on otherwise legal activity. Abortion is a form of health care.
Baby killing as health care….good one.
Why are you so racist and sexist?
50% of babies killed are women.
Nearly 1/3 of babies killed are African American, despite African American moms being only 11% of the mothers.
You should repent of your racism and sexism. Be more enlightened.
Awful. Just awful.
jjf, getting a knee replacement surgery is also a form of health care and and those surgeries are also being cancelled.
Kind of sucks, jjf, when the left is beaten by conservatives again. And again.and again.
Why do those women have abortions, Kevin?
Yes, Mar, it’s almost as if some are taking this seriously.
What does that have to do with your racist and sexist baby kiling advocacy?
Anything to avoid talking about the Trump virus, right Kev?
Just pointing out where lives are being saved from the awful leftist virus.
That is a GOOD thing…why do you snear at babies being saved?
And this is exactly how and why Americans are letting go of their liberties. One of Kevin’s beliefs can be forwarded by giving up liberties? He’s in! And Gov’t will ‘let the voters be heard’ by taking more and more away. And you shouldn’t say ‘just liberals are doing it’ any more Kev. (I would have written ‘and you can’t say it any more Kev’, but everyone knows that ain’t gonna happen.)
What a slimy thing to do Texas, keep on showing off that integrity and those ‘conservative values’.
Baby killing is not a “Liberty”.
It is a monstrous evil.
If we can stop that evil because of this virus…that is just a welcome bonus.
Kev, maybe you can get Dad29 to dig deep into Catholic thought and ethics history, tell us what they’d prescribe in this situation.
Why would we take the focus off your bigoted and sexist baby killing advocacy in the here and now?
jjf, it seems would like to put abortion providers, their employees and their patients at risk to the virus and use up needed medical supplies just so a woman can have an abortion. And that puts their families and friends at risk.
I guess, he is willing to risk the lives of others, so abortion can go on, so that is his acceptable death rate.
Mar, no, it’s just a politician messing with the process. It’s not about health, obviously, if other procedures are still open.
“if other procedures are still open.”
If elective procedures are still being done, then, yes it is political, and sadly, I would disagree with the new policy.
If elective surgeries are not being done, then neither should abortions except in case where the mother’s life is truly in danger and that the abortion should be done in a hospital.
Elective, perhaps, but also the very definition of time-sensitive.
No apology for your bigoted and sexist baby killing advocacy?
No cheer for innocent babies saved?
No apologies from me in agreeing with jjf. No babies saved either, most likely. A delay in abortion just makes it more dangerous, not illegal. There is probably a date in Texas where it becomes illegal, but most women who want an abortion get it as quickly as possible to minimize danger to them. If the danger increases with time, I’d call it essential or it can become essential to have it done by a certain point in the pregnancy. And there is no doubt it must be legal.
This was a political tactic/abuse, pure and simple.
The racist and sexist baby killing advocates pretending to care about life in a COVID 19 society.
It’s cringeworthy like Biden.
They don’t want inconvenience–namely, their child.
Don’t feed me that “health” line of BS, either. Roe was based on a lie, and the lying continues. Proves the old adage: murder and lying are house-mates.
But hey, Dad29, now we can balance lives against the economy! Sort of like the math a woman does when she’s deciding to get an abortion.
Abortion = elective.
Chinese Flu = NOT elective.
See if you can figure out the difference all by yourself.
Also things that aren’t “elective”: rape, failed birth control, various medical conditions. But who’s counting?
And Mar told me he’s just living his life as normal and he’ll avoid it.
That was a reprehensible comnent…even by awful liberal standards.
Deliberately choosing a clear moral evil–killing a child via abortion–is FAR different from choosing a neutral such as national economic survival. Does that help you in your muddle?
Keep telling yourself that the “lift the lockdown” folks aren’t advocating for more deaths. You’re in a death cult. Enjoy the ride!
For the record, Dad29, I hope that olds like you don’t die. What’s your odds? 1 in 8 you don’t make it?
There are a couple of assumptions in your statement that you just don’t/can’t know.
1) You assume that all of the lockdown measures will actually save lives. It might. But the data we are seeing from other countries suggests that other factors (lifestyle, age, smoking history, culture, etc.) have a much greater impact on the death rate than government isolation measures. So shutting down the economy may help a little, but not as much as you think.
2) You are not counting the increase in death from other causes that are aggravated by economic depression. Rates of infant mortality, suicide, overdoses, violence, abortion, etc. will all increase in a recession/depression. What you are advocating may just be trading a death by suicide for a death by Covid. Or it might be trading a dead malnourished baby for a 96-year-old man with lung disease.
Public policy is hard because we have to balance thousands of interests and consequences – many of which are unexpected and unintended. What some of us are saying about the current public policy around Covid is that it is too far tilted in one direction and is ignoring all of the other consequences.
1. Sure, lots of people will get it and lots of people will recover at home. But an unusually large fraction (compared to other viruses) will need to be hospitalized. If your hospitals are overwhelmed, it’s triage and real death panel time.
Surely you aren’t suggesting that it’s OK to let someone die because of lifestyle, age, smoking history, culture, (dog whistle time). Not as much as I think? Who cares what I think? Let’s listen to the epidemiologists.
Neat thought for the day: If you or your loved one goes to the hospital in this situation, they’re going in alone. You don’t get to visit. You don’t get to hold their hand when they die.
2. All that stuff didn’t seem to matter back when (a month or two ago) when we were all supposed to be cheering the rise in our 401-Ks. And in sheer numbers, the trade won’t be one to one, will it? Again with the death trades.
Or as @fordm put it, “I can’t believe this party spent decades lecturing Americans on abortion and euthanasia and stem cells and death panels so it could sacrifice our elders to the Dow Jones Industrial Average.”
The public health people aren’t ignoring consequences. What piffle, what B&S. They’re just not ignoring the consequences that you’d like to ignore in favor of your 401-K. And for what? Because you want to make a political statement.
Kevin – apart from how you feel about embryos, tell me how these are “elective”: rape, failed birth control, various medical conditions.
So many straw men…
Not straw. I addressed your points. But hey, keep talking about malnourished babies and 96 year-olds.
Well, now that the projections are FAR more realistic, all of what Jiffy sloganeers is………..useless.
We didn’t get into the Principle of Double Effect, but the moral neutral of maintaining a viable economy MAY be accompanied by some deaths caused by CovId19. That is a “double effect” which carries no assignment of guilt.
Multiple attempts to comment with zero success. One more try here.
jjf tactics never change.
We all know the vast majority of abortions are elective. Men and woman carelessly produce a baby unintentionally, but they don’t lose any sleep over that, because they can simply get rid of it. The majority of these people are repeat offenders.
Regarding when abortion is not elective, that depends on the ones getting it. With rape, they still could give birth and either keep the baby or give it up to someone who wants it. Failed birth control? Wow, that’s a tough one. The first question would be how did it fail? If your daughter went out and got pregnant because she missed a pill or used a defective condom or didn’t time her ovulation, would you support her abortion? Just snuff that life, because somebody made a mistake?
The only valid justification for abortion would be certain medical conditions.
You talk like all of the above is commonplace and represents the majority of abortions. A huge milestone here would be if people supporting abortion would accept that this simply isn’t the case.
Regarding the risk of not aborting early, because it’s an elective procedure, maybe they would reconsider and actually go forward with having the baby and actually keeping it instead of murdering it in the heat of the moment. Maybe they would actually consider that alternative.
They won’t because the whole damn house of cards will topple. That will create a bigger problem: their project of making amorality the norm, both private and public, will be the next to fall.
Fake news, Dad29!
Who cares what I think? Let’s listen to the epidemiologists.
How many epidemiologists have you heard of that are also economists? The point Owen was specifically making was that we are only listening to epidemiologists and their orders do not take any other factors that can cause death and ruin into account. Orders that will save an incalculable number of lives through isolation will also cause incalculable harm and death through loss of livelihood, opportunity, depression and freedoms. Everyone should be able to see there is a valid opposite view when both sides are weighing two different incalulables.
What makes you think the decision-makers didn’t consider the possible harm to the economy?
Another huge milestone would be if pro-lifers would accept that there are any valid reasons for an abortion. I doubt you could get Kevin or Dad29 to agree with your justification above. Especially since that opens up the question: If there are any justifiable reasons for abortions, then where do we draw the line legally? Much easier to say “Every sperm is sacred” (metaphorically means: No abortions ever!) and that is where every pro-lifer I have ever talked to starts from. Similarly, it is much easier to allow all abortions rather than some.
What if a doctor said there was no better than a 50% chance for the Mother’s survival?
50% of the baby’s survival?
If raped, what if the Psychologist recommends abortion to prevent lifelong PTSD in her opinion?
How would that play out, do you think?
I fully agree that there are valid medical conditions that justify abortion, but who would draw those lines? Would all those laws simply be based on the beliefs of the physicians, the politicians?
If the defaults are to be any abortion or no abortion, I pick the rights of the woman exclusively because there are medical conditions that require abortion. Freedoms are a great little extra to the pro-abortion platform, but they are not the reason to support abortion. After all, the child has rights too doesn’t it? If you acknowledge that there are any reasons for abortion, you then have to litigate and draw lines of what is legal and what is not…and that is not going to happen, nor do I think it is possible.
I believe in God and would attempt to convince any acquaintance of mine to have an unintentional baby, but the decision is not a religious one and should not be one, it is secular. Therefore, a Christian follows the law of the land, so the choice is theirs. If abortions became illegal, it would not be theirs.
And then there’s this GOP-connected doctor, testing the drug on old people without patient consent.
Right, jjf, and what drugs have been officially approved so far?
So, NPR is one of your liberal overlords where they tell you what to say?
You are really brainwashed.
And jjf, you claim that you don’t want to see a lit of deaths, but your post just proved you do want more people to die.
Your a very sick person.