go fuck yourself with a transvaginal wand you sack of lying shit.
Protecting womenâs health by making it harder for them to receive care. Yup, thatâs some solid logic, Ken.
WOMEN donât âneedâ your kind of help you nasty little perv. Worry about yourself!
Oh, I bet you can find ways to protect womenâs health, when and if you really want to.
Donât hold back thereâtell us how you really feel.
Right wingers may not have read 1984 but they want their citizens to live it
Abortion is safer than childbirth but I suspect they may not know this and couldnât cite it.
Rick Perry has a sad, IIRC his sister (?) would have owned the remaining clinics, if the law had passedâŚ
SCOTUS has just ruled on Governor Ultrasound. Not what weâd been hoping for.
The Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to prosecute public officials for corruption, unanimously vacating the conviction ofBob McDonnell, a former governor of Virginia.
@xyxox âprotect the health of womenâ. Itâs right up there with protecting the sanctity and Constitutional right to vote by taking it away through voter ID laws.
Texas AG: SCOTUS Took Away Our ability to keep woman as second class citizens under white mens ruleâŚ
There, fixed it for you.
Itâs a done deal. Stop with the bullshit already.
To be fair, if oneâs definition of âWomenâs healthâ is divided between virginity and keeping them barefoot, pregnant, and married, heâs got a point.
Never in the history of lying has a bigger lie been told by the wingnuts than their anti-abortion laws âprotect the health of womenâ.
Mr. AG, I know you describe yourself as âpro-lifeâ and committed to the health and well-being of women, so I have some questions for you:
Do you support the provision of contraceptive coverage in medical insurance plans, even though some employers object out of religious beliefs to providing them?
Do you support the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, to provide working poor women access to prenatal care?
Are you in favor of funding Planned Parenthood in an effort to provide women access to reproductive healthcare?
Would you expand SNAP and other nutritional assistance programs to help sustain pregnant women and help new mothers provide for their children?
Do you support family and medical leave?
Do you support comprehensive sex education to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies?
Do you support medical research that utilizes embryonic stem cells as part of an effort to discover causes of birth defects?
Do you oppose requiring women to undergo medically unnecessary but mandatory vaginal ultrasound sonograms as a requirement for abortions?
Do you think abortions should be permitted in cases of incest or rape, or if the womanâs life is at risk?
Because if you do not support these things, you are not in favor of âlifeâ or womenâs health, but favor punishing women for being sexually active.
Ahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa! Eat it, jerk!
Liar, liar! Pants! On! Fire!!
Yep, Texas is every bit as interested in protecting womenâs health as it is in preventing voter fraud with voter ID. Suppressing votes to aid in violating the Constitution, um, I mean protecting women - brilliant.
Ken: You might, just might, want to stop insulting the same justices who will eventually hear the appeal of your upcoming conviction.
LOL, that is funny. The justices ruled that the Texas bill is the opposite of protecting womenâs health Mr. Attorney General.
First paragraph of the decision.
âState has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion . . . is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient.â Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 150. But âa statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a womanâs choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends,â Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 877 (plurality opinion), and â[u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right,â id., at 878.
Throughout the decision, the findings of facts go against the state, the state failed to site factual analysis that these regulations saved womenâs lives. The decision really whacks the 5th circuits decision;
The Fifth Circuitâs test also mistakenly equates the judicial review applicable to the regulation of a constitutionally protected personal liberty with the less strict review applicable to, e.g., economic legislation. And the courtâs requirement that legislatures resolve questions of medical uncertainty is inconsistent with this Courtâs case law, which has placed considerable weight upon evidence and argument presented in judicial proceedings when determining the constitutionality of laws regulating abortion procedures. See id., at 888â894. Explicit legislative findings must be considered, but there were no such findings in H. B. 2. The District Court applied the correct legal standard here, considering the evidence in the recordâ including expert evidenceâand then weighing the asserted benefits against the burdens. Pp. 19â21.
I havenât finished reading it yet, but it certainly is definitive that the defenders of this law failed to cite any evidence that womenâs health was protected, but there was ample evidence that womenâs lives would be harmed by the law.
Ken, youâre a diseased cyst on the buttock of a feed lot steer.