T1B

or so.

The Texas Legislature is set to pass new rules regarding abortions within the state of Texas. The rules would prevent abortion for any reason after twenty weeks. Opponents wanted a waiver for cases of incest or rape, but the Bill's author shot that down saying 4 plus months is enough time to make that decision.

Other rules would require all abortions to take place in surgical centers, for the Dr performing the abortion to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion site, and for the Dr to be present and to administer the drugs that induce the labor. The Bill's author a female Dr is using the Philadelphia abortion conviction as the basis for this bill. She is also using Planned Parenthood, and other pro choice groups calls for safe, clean, regulated clinics as the need for this bill. The result is all but 5 clinics in Texas would not meet the new standards and be forced to close or spend money to meet the new standards.

Of course the pro choice crowd sees this as an unfair restriction on abortion and plans to fight it. Wendy Davis a Senator successfully fillabustered the first attempt at passage and became a hero of many on the left. She is being hailed for her courage to fillabuster the first attempt (why is it courage in this case and obstruction when the other side does it) and is being encouraged to run for Texas Gov since our current idiot will not seek re-election. Never mind the fact that she is the product of a teenage mother and was a teenage mother herself.

Pro-choice groups already have people lined up to sue upon this bill becoming law under the grounds that it unfairly restricts abortion and is only an attempt to eat away at Roe v Wade.

Pro-lifers are ready for this and are working to ensure these cases are heard in state courts when many pro life rebuplicans have been elected in recent decades. (No Democrat has been elected to a statewide office in Texas since 1993, an amazing 0-187 streak.)

Also adding to the battleground here is a convicted murderer who was found guilty of not only killing the mother but the unborn baby who was 21 weeks old. He has a legal team that is going to challenge the conviction of the killing of the unborn baby. They will argue that he can't be held responsible for the baby since the mother could legally have done the same thing.

On top of all that there have been a few cases of local prosecutors trying women for the killing of their unborn babies due to drug overdoses.

As Jsc has told us many times, life begins at birth. If we use that as our basis, then we need to overturn the laws that make killing an unborn baby a crime. We also can't prosecute a woman who causes the termination of her pregnancy because of a drug overdose.

However, there are pro-choice people that continue to say we should allow abortions at any time for any reason since it is the mother's choice, but also put murder charges on those who are responsible for ending a pregnancy prior to birth if it is against a mother's wish. This point of view makes no sense to me.

The chum has been tossed into the proverbial T1B abortion threads. jsc, Wags, Truman, all the usual suspects need to forget the shit you had planned for tonight and tomorrow, and weigh in on this.

I call this thread to go at least 5 pages.

Way to go Lefty...now you got all those dudes frothing again.

Does this also mean that other outpatient facilities will need to comply with the 30 mile rule? Or is it only meant to apply to abortions. Because if it is the later, look for that provision to be bounced immediately. The same applies for the facility requirements. If that applies to all other outpatient surgical centers, then fine. If not, it isn't going to last very long.

Jsc810 wrote: Having failed on same sex marriage, the right wingers now shift to abortion.

Failed?

Last I checked, it's still illegal in 37 states and that's not likely to change anytime soon. What Texas is doing is well within their right and a hearty "Fuck You" to a SCOTUS that thinks it can also legislate. Look for other states to follow.

Hillary appreciates making her campaign easier.

That thought makes your pussy wet, doesn't it? Forget about it, America won't stand for another Dem president after 8 years of Obumble, especially not for that bag of shit.

Jsc810 wrote:I'm going fishing on Sunday morning, so no, I am not going to forget about those plans.

Having failed on same sex marriage, the right wingers now shift to abortion. Ok. As someone who wants the current Republicans and Tea Party derps to be defeated, I am delighted that they are making a big issue out of abortion again. So please, carry on. Hillary appreciates making her campaign easier.

The rules would prevent abortion for any reason after twenty weeks. Other rules would require all abortions to take place in surgical centers, for the Dr performing the abortion to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion site, and for the Dr to be present and to administer the drugs that induce the labor.

So what is the problem? Please highlight and support your objections in specific detail or go fuck yourself.

BSmack wrote:Does this also mean that other outpatient facilities will need to comply with the 30 mile rule? Or is it only meant to apply to abortions. Because if it is the later, look for that provision to be bounced immediately. The same applies for the facility requirements. If that applies to all other outpatient surgical centers, then fine. If not, it isn't going to last very long.

The state of Texas can regulate outpatient surgical facilities however the fuck they please, asshole.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Does this also mean that other outpatient facilities will need to comply with the 30 mile rule? Or is it only meant to apply to abortions. Because if it is the later, look for that provision to be bounced immediately. The same applies for the facility requirements. If that applies to all other outpatient surgical centers, then fine. If not, it isn't going to last very long.

The state of Texas can regulate outpatient surgical facilities however the fuck they please, asshole.

The issue is equal protection. How is imposing a 30 mile rule for abortions, but for no other surgical procedure, rationally related to a legitimate state interest?

Even if you limit the class considered to abortion patients, rather than all surgical patients, the 30 mile rule could be problematic from an equal protection standpoint. It's probably no big deal if you live in or near Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, etc. But if you live in a more rural area of the state, it could be a huge problem.

The big issue with the 20-week rule, of course, is for situations where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. I didn't see anything in Lefty's original post that would provide for an exception for that.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
The issue is equal protection. How is imposing a 30 mile rule for abortions, but for no other surgical procedure, rationally related to a legitimate state interest?

The big issue with the 20-week rule, of course, is for situations where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. I didn't see anything in Lefty's original post that would provide for an exception for that.

Good points Terry and let me expand upon them.

Texas already requires Drs working out of these surgical centers to have admitting privileges at hospitals within a 30 mile radius. For example, my father in law is going to have a minor shoulder surgery later this week. The Dr gave him the option of locations for the surgery. There is a surgical center about 4 miles from his house and there is a hospital about 20 miles from his house. He opted for the closer location, and the Dr outlined what would happen if he needed to go to the hospital. So, this bill just brings abortion clinics into line with many other procedures in the state.

As for the mother's life being in danger I don't know but I will see what the bill says on that. I did a quick search and less than one tenth of one percent of abortions are performed after 22 weeks because of danger to the mother. So I don't think we are actually looking at any sort of real numbers. I would imagine that very few would have an issue with adding that language to the bill though.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The issue is equal protection.

No, it isn't. Surgical procedures don't get "equal protection," you stupid asshole. And, in this case, they are simply bringing abortion in line with the rest of the outpatient surgical facilities.

So, basically, they are just asking abortion mills to at least pretend to be actual medical facilities.

As for comparing it to other surgical facilities, you need to look at the actual procedure. An abortion runs the risk of going very, very wrong, especially if the fetus ismuch more than a few weeks along. Some other procedures don't run this risk. In cases where they don't, the state should have the ability to wave hospital location rules.

smackaholic wrote:So, basically, they are just asking abortion mills to at least pretend to be actual medical facilities.

As for comparing it to other surgical facilities, you need to look at the actual procedure. An abortion runs the risk of going very, very wrong, especially if the fetus ismuch more than a few weeks along. Some other procedures don't run this risk. In cases where they don't, the state should have the ability to wave hospital location rules.

You really think that's what this is about..."protecting the mother"?

Give me a fukking break. If you want to make abortion illegal, fine. But at least be honest about it.

Jsc810 wrote:Before Roe v Wade

Are you attempting to make a point here? If so, you are failing badly. Try again, idiot.

Now that they've taken care of the REALLY important stuff, maybe they can consider some of the minor issues at hand.

Like exploding fertilizer plants. Don't want to be too intrusive, though.

Lawmakers in Austin have a handy excuse for punting on new fertilizer regulations: That would be intrusive. State Sen. Donna Campbell, the Republican who helped to shut down Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster of the abortion bill on procedural grounds, told the New York Times that lawmakers should be wary of monitoring chemical plants more closely because there's "a point at which you can overregulate."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ation-laws

One big issue you missed here Mikey. The TCEQ which is the main state agency that would oversee such plants is secondary to the EPA. Any new regulations would have to be approved by the EPA and would be secondary to their regulations. The point she was trying to make, at least from the interview that ran on TV here, was additional state regulations would not have prevented this from occurring. The EPA is already far more restrictive. The over regulation also makes it difficult for state and federal inspectors to do their job.

She made an excellent point in comparing the existing regulations to traffic laws.

Take an interstate highway with a speed limt of 75 mph. The law is written so that it is simple and straightforward. The maximum speed allowed is 75 mph. We all understand that traveling any faster is breaking the speed regulation for said stretch of road.

However, when it comes to the EPA they would write the same law in such a manner:

Driving 76 mph is prohibited
Driving 77 mph is prohibited
Driving 78 mph is prohibited
Driving 79 mph is prohibited
Driving 80 mph is prohibited
Driving 81 mph is prohibited
.
.
.
Driving 409 mph is prohibited

Driving 76mph is prohibited by a personal passenger vehicle
Driving 77 mph is prohibited by a personal passenger vehicle
Driving 78 mph is prohibited by a personal passenger vehicle
.
.
.
Driving 409 mph is prohibited by a personal passenger vehicle



A properly licensed driver is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle at 76 mph
A properly licensed driver is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle at 77 mph
A properly licensed driver is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle at 78 mph
.
.
.
A properly licensed driver is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle at 409 mph


While both approaches make driving faster than 75 illegal the second approach adds many additional regulations which are not necessary. Then imagine as a driver having to prove each time you used the interstate that you complied with each of the regulations and did not speed which is what the EPA requires.

Furthermore I would rather my state Legislature take a pass on additional regulations for some industries, than take up CA type legislation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-575 ... ghts-bill/

So now any child in grades K-12 can choose for themselves what restroom and team they want to play on. All a kid has to do is say he/she identifies with the opposite gender and they will be allowed to use the opposite restroom, locker room, and play on opposite gender teams.

Typical CA though, state is damn near bankrupt but instead of dealing with that they take up gender blurring issues.

Just imagine you are the parent of a 13 year old girl. Your daughter comes home and says a male classmate is using the girls restroom and locker room and you daughter now has to change in front of him.

What does that have to do with exploding fertilizer plants?

BTW, I believe that Texas is projecting about a 24% budget shortfall for the current fiscal year, while California's budget for the coming fiscal year shows a $1.1 billion reserve.

Mikey wrote:What does that have to do with exploding fertilizer plants?

It was an example that even the short bus riders could understand.

Mikey wrote:BTW, I believe that Texas is projecting about a 24% budget shortfall for the current fiscal year, while California's budget for the coming fiscal year shows a $1.1 billion reserve.

And you would be wrong. Texas has a constitutional amendment that prevents the state from spending more than it takes in. We also have a "rainy day" fund with almost $10 Billion in reserve. This past session the Leg allowed $2Billion of that fund to be used for low intrest loans for water infrastructure projects.

In the 2011 session we had to tighten our belt some, but we didn't borrow and in the end we came in much better than projected.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... good-thing

Compare that to CA which has almost zero additional cash on hand and is facing a debt crisis:


$34.7 billion for short-term borrowing by the state
$80.7 billion for State General Obligation Bonds
$28 billion for Trust Fund Loans
$181.2 billion for unfunded retirement and health care liabilities – CalPERS & CalSTRS participants only

I removed any local debt as it wouldn't be a fair comparison. I also removed much of the pension and health care obligations to bring the two states in line on retirement and health care costs. Texas however is removing pension options from new state hires and going to 401K type retirement plans. CA is not.

Left Seater wrote:

Mikey wrote:What does that have to do with exploding fertilizer plants?

It was an example that even the short bus riders could understand.

No, it wasn't. You're comparing California's tendency to pass ridiculous social engineering rules with Texas's refusal to enact or enforce common sense industrial regulations, costing the lives of multiple first-responders as well as $$ millions in property damage, just because it would inconvenience some industrial bigwigs.

If you think there's any reasonable comparison there you're even dumber than I thought.

Mikey wrote: No, it wasn't. You're comparing California's tendency to pass ridiculous social engineering rules with Texas's refusal to enact or enforce common sense industrial regulations, costing the lives of multiple first-responders as well as $$ millions in property damage, just because it would inconvenience some industrial bigwigs.

If you think there's any reasonable comparison there you're even dumber than I thought.

The fact that you used the words in bold proves you are as dumb as we all thought. Why duplicate, triplicate or more regulations? The plant was in violation of multiple EPA and TCEQ regulations. What exactly would additional regulations have done?

There is nothing common sense about redundant regulations.

You do know the definition of the word, enforce, don't you?

I know it's a big two syllable monster, so maybe you should look it up.
I'm pretty sure you won't find any meanings that are synonyms to "additional" or "redundant".

So you quoted the Texas Legislator because your point was enforcement? Well played sir, well played.


The EPA was the primary enforcement agency on this plant and was on site less than a week prior. But yeah, blame the Texas Legislature.

Typical Mikey

Baffle them with bullshit and when that doesn't work, try moving the goalposts.

That's a pretty neat game you guys play.

Republican Congress does everything they can to gut any and all agencies with any regulatory authority, and then blame them for not enforcing the existing regulations.

The Texas state "government" can then abdicate any responsibility because it's the Feds' problem.

In the meantime a fertilizer plant in Texas illegally builds up a 270 ton pile of high explosive ammonium nitrate, which goes off killing 15 people, mostly first responders.

Could Texas do anything to prevent a repeat occurrence, in Texas? Maybe pass a statewide fire code, which apparently they don't have at this point? Of course they could, but it's the Feds' problem and, besides, they don't want to burden industry and they'd rather spend two weeks banning abortion clinics.

The abortion thing passed, everything in industrial safety is status quo, so it's all good.

Until the next plant explodes, and then you can blame the Feds again.

War Wagon wrote:Typical Mikey

Baffle them with bullshit and when that doesn't work, try moving the goalposts.

Not too hard to baffle mental midgets like you.

Mikey wrote:
Could Texas do anything to prevent a repeat occurrence, in Texas? Maybe pass a statewide fire code, which apparently they don't have at this point.

You are correct, we don't and for good reason. There is this little thing called local control. Something the Dems hate.

A statewide fire code would be complete insanity. Why would a little town like mine, completely surrounded by the City of San Antonio be forced to wade through requirements for the refineries along the Texas coast? Or Nuclear plants. Or huge airport facilities, none of which we have here in Alamo Heights.

That makes about as much sense as having statewide building codes. Might as well require El Paso homes to have hurricane straps for the roof and Brownsville homes to have a reinforced tornado shelter.

I guess your state bureaucrats at too dumb to consider local differences that might be required. Not surprising.

And, so what you're saying is that the status quo regarding industrial safety is just fine.

If the Feds can't afford to enforce the existing federal regulations, then there's no need for Texas to protect its own citizens from blatant stupidity by its industries.
That's cool with me. I don't live there. Enjoy your abortion free state.

Mikey wrote:And, so what you're saying is that the status quo regarding industrial safety is just fine.

Actually it is completely fucked. That plant was reporting the same information to seven different regulatory agencies.

Does that make sense on any level?

Mikey wrote: Maybe pass a statewide fire code, which apparently they don't have at this point? .

How is that California statewide fire code working out these days ?

Derron wrote:
How is that California statewide fire code working out these days ?

Actually it's working out pretty well.
We haven't had any 270 ton ammonia fertilizer explosions this year.

And, if you had half a brain you'd know that all the fire codes in the world aren't going keep wildland fires from starting. You also might know that, to a certain degree, these fires are necessary for the health of the local ecology, and that California Title 24 Part 9 has done a lot to protect structures from these fires and to protect California residents from preventable industrial accidents.

But then, my understanding is that your brain is functioning at slightly less than half or a normal capacity.

Mikey wrote:I guess your state bureaucrats at too dumb to consider local differences that might be required. Not surprising.

And you are too dumb to understand that if you are going to have local differences, then you don't have a statewide code. It becomes local codes.

Left Seater wrote:

Mikey wrote:I guess your state bureaucrats at too dumb to consider local differences that might be required. Not surprising.

And you are too dumb to understand that if you are going to have local differences, then you don't have a statewide code. It becomes local codes.

Uh...no. There are plenty of fire safety rules that should apply everywhere, in fact there are many more in common than would be different by locality. California has plenty of local differences, probably a lot more than Texas does, and the statewide code works just fine. You're the one who's all against "redundant" regulations. Why would you need every town and backwoods Texas shithole to develop their own complete set of codes? Unnecessarily confusing and ridiculously expensive. Or else they just wouldn't do it at all, resulting in more of the dumbfuck West, Texas firestorms that you seem intent on encouraging.

Mikey wrote:
California has plenty of local differences, probably a lot more than Texas does, and the statewide code works just fine. You're the one who's all against "redundant" regulations. Why would you need every town and backwoods Texas shithole to develop their own complete set of codes? Unnecessarily confusing and ridiculously expensive.

I know you aren't this dumb so maybe your just trolling and caught me hook, line and sinker.

In the small chance you aren't trolling, well...


Yes,mI am against redundant regs and having one statewide code is exactly what that would be. Every town should set their own codes since they will be the ones fighting the fire. Please explain how one town having their own codes is more confusing than the state having a statewide code? Further the cost is much smaller for each town to create their own codes to follow than for the state to create one and then have pages upon pages of exceptions. That is when it gets confusing.

I think what Mikey is saying is that the State wide code applies everywhere. However, local codes can be enforced and even be more restrictive than the State's but not less restrictive than the State's, in the Redundancy Department of Redundancy.

A rare moment of lucidity?

Mikey wrote:A rare moment of lucidity?

No. I'm drunk off my ass, have an IV drip of pure alcohol going in. I'm so drunk that I can tell you that I designed Smackaholics boat in KC Scrotes cool pics sans Mtoolio being Mtoolio fucking up that thread.

I understood what you were saying Mikey. I also understand what Lefty is saying with EPA regulations to where it should have made his point. It's just that both of you are talking about two different things, while seemingly related.

Atomic Punk wrote:No. I'm drunk off my ass.

you're not alone, friend.

lovebuzz wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:No. I'm drunk off my ass.

you're not alone, friend.

Totally shocked that either of you are.

Carson wrote:

lovebuzz wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:No. I'm drunk off my ass.

you're not alone, friend.

Totally shocked that either of you are.

I still have no idea who you are or why you pretend that I participate around here enough to warrant such idiotic nipping.
oh, and fuck off, butterknife.

lovebuzz wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:No. I'm drunk off my ass.

you're not alone, friend.

Hi my love! I've missed you oh so much. You know I would never "steer you wrong." Remember that one? I have a video to set the record straight.
http://devour.com/video/how-to-open-a-beer

forgive them buzzer for they know not what they do