General Discussion

zuul

(14,704 posts)

22. I wonder why they excluded pregnant women. Repubes love to punish females.

Fri Sep 3, 2021, 11:02 AM

Sep 2021

It must have been an oversight. They obviously didn't put much thought into this whole thing.

It makes me wonder if they thought SCOTUS would rule against them. Then they could continue whining about abortion and using it as a fund-raising tool.

As supposed "pro-life" advocates, Cruz, McConnell, McCarthy and the rest of the repube leaders sure are silent about their SCOTUS win.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

50 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Elie Mystal, a legal expert, says . . . [View all] Vinca Sep 2021 OP

Need more information as to how this works KS Toronado Sep 2021 #1

Qualified Immunity WHITT Sep 2021 #5

Above the law. SergeStorms Sep 2021 #6

yeah I need more information about "Standing to Sue" DeeNice Sep 2021 #20

Order the Gilead National Guard to set up "field hospitals" in current abortion providers' offices... MrModerate Sep 2021 #2

I like this idea. If it can be done, the wnylib Sep 2021 #47

i'm dying to see what they come up with. mopinko Sep 2021 #3

Interesting Joinfortmill Sep 2021 #4

And how does he propose we protect the person having the abortion? Native Sep 2021 #7

Exactly... this law is not easily undone. berni_mccoy Sep 2021 #8

Deputize them as well. jaxexpat Sep 2021 #9

True they could be given it and then after the procedure is over cstanleytech Sep 2021 #10

No need to withdraw the deputization. jaxexpat Sep 2021 #11

Because it could be abused later by them if it's cstanleytech Sep 2021 #23

And stop the vigilante posse's from going after everyone they know. plimsoll Sep 2021 #14

Federal confidential informant protection, a witness to civil rights violations against themself :) FreepFryer Sep 2021 #16

This law doesn't allow Sur Zobra Sep 2021 #19

I wonder why they excluded pregnant women. Repubes love to punish females. zuul Sep 2021 #22

So it's completely legal for me to use a coat hanger on myself... Native Sep 2021 #25

They want to shut down all Sur Zobra Sep 2021 #29

I think I know why they excluded pregnant women. ShazzieB Sep 2021 #39

Exactly - nt reACTIONary Sep 2021 #44

They could make it a federal crime to turn in women for seeking abortions, or aiding someone else. Liberty Belle Sep 2021 #45

I'm all for expanding the court, wnylib Sep 2021 #48

Protect them from the crazies or from the law the other Texas crazies have passed? Vinca Sep 2021 #28

I think you are quite right! ShazzieB Sep 2021 #40

The law doesn't call for the women themselves to be defendants. pnwmom Sep 2021 #34

An excellent idea. We need to hit these tinpot dictators HARD and FAST. No fooling around, Nay Sep 2021 #12

Why doesn't Texas secede? BarbD Sep 2021 #13

Maybe because it worked so well the last time? Wounded Bear Sep 2021 #18

I'd support them in that and I'm sure wnylib Sep 2021 #49

K&R UTUSN Sep 2021 #15

Wouldn't all this violate HIPPA laws? davsand Sep 2021 #17

I've been wondering that. nt pnwmom Sep 2021 #35

The only way they could know for sure is wnylib Sep 2021 #50

Wouldn't that violate the Hyde Amendment? Blaukraut Sep 2021 #21

That's a good question, but I say to hell with it. Apparently, laws no longer apply to anyone Vinca Sep 2021 #27

Pay the doctors for consulting work if the will perform the procedures Mr.Bill Sep 2021 #31

The Democrats can be clever too. FM123 Sep 2021 #24

Doctors that work within the VA healthcare system can not be sued for malpractice. marie999 Sep 2021 #26

Have all abortions performed by VA doctors. Sogo Sep 2021 #46

Is the law an attempt to write religious beliefs into law bucolic_frolic Sep 2021 #30

IMO, every antiabortion law is an attempt to do that. ShazzieB Sep 2021 #41

There you go bucolic_frolic Sep 2021 #43

If the Hyde Amendment prevented federalized doctors The Unmitigated Gall Sep 2021 #32

What if the doctors were private, but operate on federal property, such as a military installation? Blaukraut Sep 2021 #36

Probably safer for the docs too. The Unmitigated Gall Sep 2021 #38

I don't think that's what he said StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #33

thanks. that seems a lot more - plausible stopdiggin Sep 2021 #37

Sure - but the Extreme Court would nix it faster than you can say States' Rights peppertree Sep 2021 #42