Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > WTF, Tennessee

WTF, Tennessee
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 09:56 AM
 
Tennessee anti-abortion Amendment 1: Voters will decide whether legislature regulates women’s health.

Starting Wednesday, and unbeknownst to many of us, state voters there will be asked to amend their constitution to provide that:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.
In 2000, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist that the Tennessee constitution affords even more protection than the U.S. Constitution to Tennesseans seeking abortions. The court determined that “a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is a vital part of ... the Tennessee Constitution,” and it held that Tennessee could only pass very narrow restrictions on abortion as a result.
As all the states surrounding Tennessee passed more and more anti-choice legislation in recent years, Tennessee came to be the state that neighboring women turned to to obtain services denied to them in Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. This meant that by 2010, 1 out of every 4 abortions in the state was sought by an out-of-state patient.
“Tennessee’s rules for amending the State Constitution set a high bar. In addition to requiring a majority vote, the initiative must receive more than half the number of total votes cast in the governor’s race.”
So again, not a supermajority.


Most galling:
“You’re saying yes to making the constitution once again neutral on the issue of abortion,” Sharon White of the Yes on 1 campaign explained this week. “To me, it puts it all back in the hands of the person through their elected officials. That's how government works. We elect officials that represent our beliefs and desires.” Jack Coleman, another Yes on 1 booster, explained it this way to the Columbia Daily Herald this week: “The Supreme Court justices shouldn’t determine what they believe our constitution is. Let’s let the people decide.
Right, because the people have such a good track record on voting on rights.


If ti passes I imagine it ends up in courts (of course) but since my understanding of Roe v Wade is nonexistent, I can't fathom how the challenge will work.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 10:31 AM
 
It's bringing women's abortion rights to be on parity with federal law. Up to now there were virtually no restrictions at all, not even against late-term "convenience" abortions, where the baby could survive outside the mother's womb.

I'm pro-choice, it ain't my body, but they'd damned well better make up their minds in 3 months.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's bringing women's abortion rights to be on parity with federal law.
It exceeds parity by a wide margin. It hands the keys to the legislators. Who we know, from looking around the country, can't be trusted with abortion rights.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 10:41 AM
 
You can't exceed parity on federal law. If you do that, your law is unconstitutional, or the federal version will be enforced by federal authorities regardless of what you say.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It exceeds parity by a wide margin. It hands the keys to the legislators. Who we know, from looking around the country, can't be trusted with abortion rights.
Neither can abortion rights advocates, for the most part. Left up to them, we'd have legal abortions for convenience right up to 40 weeks. This state isn't nearly as socially conservative as it once was, abortions aren't going to just going to become illegal, but they are going to be better regulated. FYI, there aren't even proper health standards for clinics in this state, even dentists' offices have tighter regulations.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Neither can abortion rights advocates, for the most part.
That's why it's in the hands of the courts.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You can't exceed parity on federal law. If you do that, your law is unconstitutional, or the federal version will be enforced by federal authorities regardless of what you say.
As we've seen and Texas and such, that doesn't mean jack. They'll pass it anyway, and when it's challenged stall and hope injunctions aren't put into place. Meanwhile legal limbo and uncertainty help shutter clinics and limit access.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You can't exceed parity on federal law. If you do that, your law is unconstitutional, or the federal version will be enforced by federal authorities regardless of what you say.
Correct.

The yellow journalism at work here is spectacular. Could it potentially lead to laws that go too far in regulation of abortions? Yes. Would that cause federal courts to come down on them like a 100 ton anvil? Yes.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's why it's in the hands of the courts.
Absolutely. It's all about checks and balances.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Absolutely. It's all about checks and balances.
They're trying to remove that check.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
They're trying to remove that check.
They're trying to introduce some form of regulation to a system that has virtually none, neither good or bad.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
They're trying to introduce some form of regulation to a system that has virtually none, neither good or bad.
That's a rather naive view.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's a rather naive view.
We all have them, depending on our perspectives.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
We all have them, depending on our perspectives.
So do you think if this amendment passes, this law won't be abused?

---

And again, simple majority for constitutional amendment? Isn't that insane?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
As we've seen and Texas and such, that doesn't mean jack. They'll pass it anyway, and when it's challenged stall and hope injunctions aren't put into place. Meanwhile legal limbo and uncertainty help shutter clinics and limit access.
Can you give me a link for what's happening in Texas?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Can you give me a link for what's happening in Texas?
Half Of Texas Abortion Clinics Close After Restrictions Enacted : Shots - Health News : NPR
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So do you think if this amendment passes, this law won't be abused?

---

And again, simple majority for constitutional amendment? Isn't that insane?
the initiative must receive more than half the number of total votes cast in the governor’s race.

To my knowledge, in this state no initiative has ever done that.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
the initiative must receive more than half the number of total votes cast in the governor’s race.

To my knowledge, in this state no initiative has ever done that.
That's nice, but that sounds less burdensome than a supermajority.

Also, you didn't answer the question that was directed at you.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 12:13 PM
 
Abused? I don't believe so. Like I said before, this state is more socially liberal than ever before and some health standards very much need to be introduced.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You can't exceed parity on federal law. If you do that, your law is unconstitutional, or the federal version will be enforced by federal authorities regardless of what you say.
It ain't working that way with Pot laws.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Abused? I don't believe so. Like I said before, this state is more socially liberal than ever before and some health standards very much need to be introduced.
Ok, thanks.


Of course, 'abused' could devolve into a semantic argument (I don't wish to do that). Is proposing legislation in bad faith abuse? Comments like this, make me wary:
As Stacey Campfield, a Tennessee senator from the 7th District (Knox County) told the Family Action Council of Tennessee: “After [Amendment 1] passes, I have several ideas but for fear of those ideas being used to help defeat Amendment 1, I will refrain from talking about those at this time. I doubt there are any ideas I would oppose that would restrict abortion in Tennessee.”
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 01:36 PM
 
While one legislator can propose whatever they want, they can't pass anything, of course.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
While one legislator can propose whatever they want, they can't pass anything, of course.
Correct, which is why I abstain from the semantics.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 06:37 PM
 
I'd say there's a good chance that will get ruled constitutional.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
It ain't working that way with Pot laws.
That's why I threw in the qualifier at the end about the federal government enforcing its laws regardless of your state's position.

There's a second qualifier I should have thrown in, but it's eluding me at the moment.

Oh yeah... there are a few pieces of the Bill of Rights which haven't been incorporated yet, so states can go beyond parity with those.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 09:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd say there's a good chance that will get ruled constitutional.
I have no idea. But much like voter ID, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 01:19 PM
 
It's pretty clever. It's obviously an abortion tax, but you can lie about it with a straight face.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's pretty clever. It's obviously an abortion tax, but you can lie about it with a straight face.
Interesting, I don't see it as a tax. It looks like regulatory hurdles created to specifically close the businesses by imposing unnecessary burdens. The legislators have been claiming it's about the health and safety of woman repeatedly. (Because politicians who believe women will burn in hell for killing an unborn life must be so concerned they don't die from committing that murder, right?)

It's already been mentioned that several outpatient procedures have worse fatality rates getting an abortion. And I don't believe abortion has a high fatality rate to begin with (or else we'd probably hear about it all the time).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 01:42 PM
 
Abortion has a 100% fatality rate...

HELLOOOOOO!


I see it as a tax because most of these hurdles cost money to jump.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Abortion has a 100% fatality rate...

HELLOOOOOO!
I saw that coming which is why my wording was very specific.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
I see it as a tax because most of these hurdles cost money to jump.
Technically you're right, but I think it's more about obscurity. I'm thinking about getting doctors who have the necessary outpatient rights (which I've heard of hospitals refusing to give because they work at abortion clinics, nice catch-22 there), but your point is valid regarding some of the necessary equipment upgrades,
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I saw that coming which is why my wording was very specific.
How'd that turn out?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Technically you're right, but I think it's more about obscurity. I'm thinking about getting doctors who have the necessary outpatient rights (which I've heard of hospitals refusing to give because they work at abortion clinics, nice catch-22 there), but your point is valid regarding some of the necessary equipment upgrades,
There's a "combined arms" aspect to it, but I think even the admitting privileges boils down to money. Hospital denies privileges, you move your clinic closer to a different hospital. Every clinic in question would do this if it were financially viable.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hospital denies privileges, you move your clinic closer to a different hospital.
If that's the case, that makes a case for the law making access difficult which could be a violation of rights.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:11 PM
 
Exactly. It's an abortion tax, which can be argued is interfering with due process of law.

OTOH, it's very cleverly designed. States have the right to regulate medical procedures, and the hurdles aren't higher than for other surgical procedures.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
OTOH, it's very cleverly designed. States have the right to regulate medical procedures, and the hurdles aren't higher than for other surgical procedures.
Yes, it being regulatory for safety rather than invasive (I forget what the other procedure was) changes everything.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:24 PM
 
Which means overturning it destabilizes the entire state regulatory system.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which means overturning it destabilizes the entire state regulatory system.
That I won't speak to. I have no idea how it works if a regulatory scheme impugns on another law or right.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That I won't speak to. I have no idea how it works if a regulatory scheme impugns on another law or right.
It's generally more cut and dried. The problem WRT abortion is you don't have a right to have an abortion, you have a right to choose an abortion.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's generally more cut and dried. The problem WRT abortion is you don't have a right to have an abortion, you have a right to choose an abortion.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A legal restriction posing an undue burden was defined as one having "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus"
Arguably this law is an undue burden.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 03:19 PM
 
No argument there.

I mean, no argument it's arguable.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No argument there.

I mean, no argument it's arguable.
Let's agree to agree.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2014, 11:35 AM
 
It was intensely close, but it passed. I'm not happy about it, but I'm going to reserve judgement until I see what legislation is proposed and take it a day at a time.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2014, 11:55 AM
 
Thanks for the update. You didn't seem opposed before. So much for the vote being a tough hurdle to pass.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2014, 12:46 PM
 
I was on the fence and ultimately decided to vote against it, I'd rather err on the side of individual rights, but I still don't believe that it will lead to a lack of options for women who will want to terminate a pregnancy. Like I said, though, we'll see, and if it appears that new laws will be too restrictive, then the courts will balance them out. It is true that more comprehensive health regulations are needed for abortion clinics, so hopefully there will be some positive change in that area.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2014, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I still don't believe that it will lead to a lack of options for women who will want to terminate a pregnancy.
I can't say that either. I just believe that Texas is the new template for trying to overturn Roe, and this opens the door to those methods.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It is true that more comprehensive health regulations.
How so? I don't profess to be overly informed on the subject, but I believe abortion is safer than many other outpatient procedures.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It was intensely close, but it passed. I'm not happy about it, but I'm going to reserve judgement until I see what legislation is proposed and take it a day at a time.
Your answer comes in less than six months out.
If signed by the governor, one measure would make Tennessee one of 23 states to require abortion providers to meet stricter standards of outpatient surgery centers. The bill requires all abortion providers performing 50 or more abortions each year to be regulated as ambulatory surgical treatment centers, a designation that comes with lengthy requirements for the physical building. That requirement is being challenged in Texas, where a federal court of appeals has heard arguments that the requirement, along with a package of abortion restrictions, would close more than half of the state's abortion clinics if enforced.

Four abortion providers in Tennessee meet those standards. They include one clinic in Nashville, two in Memphis and one in Knoxville. A fifth abortion provider that met the standards closed in 2012 after lawmakers passed a requirement that physicians performing abortions must have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
Hey, its that that very thing Texas did that I warned about earlier in the thread.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
As we've seen and Texas and such, that doesn't mean jack. They'll pass it anyway, and when it's challenged stall and hope injunctions aren't put into place. Meanwhile legal limbo and uncertainty help shutter clinics and limit access.


A second measure passed on Monday would require women seeking an abortion to wait 48 hours after receiving in-person counseling by a physician before she could obtain an abortion — a measure proponents said was designed to give women the information and the time they need to make an informed decision. Opponents have said the measure is designed to put unnecessary hurdles in the way of women seeking abortions.
One more topic and I might go on a streak this week.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 02:20 PM
 
Well, it IS an outpatient procedure, unless I'm missing something.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Well, it IS an outpatient procedure, unless I'm missing something.
That's kind of bucking the question and pointing out a technicality.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 02:49 PM
 
How is pointing out the actual law in question "pointing out a technicality"? Why shouldn't a family planning clinic be held to the same standards as an oral or cosmetic surgeon, which are also classified as ambulatory surgical treatment centers under TN law? It's no less invasive than getting tonsils extracted.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
How is pointing out the actual law in question "pointing out a technicality"? Why shouldn't a family planning clinic be held to the same standards as an oral or cosmetic surgeon, which are also classified as ambulatory surgical treatment centers under TN law? It's no less invasive than getting tonsils extracted.
You almost got me again. You've avoided commenting on what you think of the law's contents or aim and turned this into a semantic game.

Tell me, what do you think of the goals of this legislation is? What do you think it's outcome will be when imposed?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 04:36 PM
 
Like I said last year,

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
This state isn't nearly as socially conservative as it once was, abortions aren't going to just going to become illegal, but they are going to be better regulated. FYI, there aren't even proper health standards for clinics in this state, even dentists' offices have tighter regulations.
I think it was proposed to improve conditions for women seeking abortions. Before there were no regulations, no health or safety codes to speak of (unlike most other states).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,