|
|
Abortion
 Bahamut.Serj
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6179
By Bahamut.Serj 2011-07-09 01:28:07
Ifrit.Eikechi said: OK Tiger is just stickin up for Poupee (I think) but Serj... please hand your man card forward.... lol
But seriously, you're saying if a man's first child was aborted it wouldn't affect him in ANY way? I could see some guys getting very depressed over it, and potentially leading to other problems. ESPECIALLY if the guy had ZERO say in the matter... *edited*
It's exactly what Tiger said. I won't just repeat, no sense lol.
I'm not saying it wouldn't affect him. I'm saying he should man the hell up and be responsible prior to it. If he/they fail or something else happens, he doesn't have a say since it's no longer a part of him.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2011-07-09 01:28:30
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: it is never 100% that he is the dad.)
they have paternity tests that you can do way before the third trimester... and if she wants to get the abortion on week 4?
usually wouldn't even know on week 4, unless you're in south central while drinking juice. Ok, week 5, 6, 7? etc. Lol any time before paternity is determinable?
And besides, that was just a supporting point. The main point still stands.
It's her body, her choice. "oh i want this baby" shouldn't bind her to carry the thing for 9 months and give birth.
If guys gave birth, I'd say the same but in the other direction.
It's not fair, but the baby being born isn't an equal amount of work/effort.
I was going to say earlier that I'd say his decision would only be required after a certain point, probably 14-20 months.
Aye but the property belongs to both of them (in reality).
This problem will be solved one day when the world is like that of Demolition Man and everyone is grown in tubes and you need a license to breed. Lol well if it belongs to both of them, it still doesn't require her to hold it for 9 months.
He can have it once it's aborted and do w/e he wants w/ it!
Then she'd be guilty of destroying joint property, so to speak.
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15066
By Sylph.Tigerwoods 2011-07-09 01:30:06
My point mainly being it's not her responsibility to birth the child because he wants it lol.
If he can find a way to get the fetus out of her w/o killing it and still birth it on his own, I'd have no objections to that.
Really though, it's just because she does 100% of the pregnancy.
If she did 99% of the pregnancy and there was 1% of something that was required of the male to do (once fertilization has taken place) to make the pregnancy successful (for example, say for w/e reason, the only way she could give birth is if he were holding her hand during the birthing process), he'd be in no way shape or form required to do that unless he wanted to.
Only reason I give the decision to the girl is because she does 100% of the pregnancy, the guy was required to do even a small part of it, I'd say he's under no obligation and the only way the baby is happening is if both parents wanted it to.
Leviathan.Niniann
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2596
By Leviathan.Niniann 2011-07-09 01:37:52
As far as being a single mother.... I would never for a number of reasons. It's pretty bad.
For one, it's pretty much impossible to have a real job and have a baby. And my mom apparently would've given me up to the first stranger that wanted me if it weren't for my dad feeding me/taking care of me and letting her sleep and stuff.
So yeah, do not want.
In addition to that I wouldn't be very good at disciplining, and I think that two parents that compliment each others strengths/weaknesses is ideal.
 Fenrir.Ilax
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 466
By Fenrir.Ilax 2011-07-09 01:38:42
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Ifrit.Eikechi said: But Poupee, what if the father has like a crazy amount of money and doesn't mind supporting the child by himself...? Shouldn't he have a say in the life and death of his own offspring? Sounds a little unfair to me... Hell even if he doesn't have a lot of money it sounds a bit unfair lol It is unfair, but oh well. Ultimately it's the woman's body. Shouldn't nobody be able to say ***about what she can do with it.
While it's unfair, that's just how it is. He's not the one who has to be pregnant for 9 months.
Well is unfair, Man have no voice on that, but if she decide to keep it, we have to pay for it the rest of our life.
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15066
By Sylph.Tigerwoods 2011-07-09 01:39:09
Leviathan.Niniann said: As far as being a single mother.... I would never for a number of reasons. It's pretty bad.
For one, it's pretty much impossible to have a real job and have a baby. And my mom apparently would've given me up to the first stranger that wanted me if it weren't for my dad feeding me/taking care of me and letting her sleep and stuff.
So yeah, do not want.
In addition to that I wouldn't be very good at disciplining, and I think that two parents that compliment each others strengths/weaknesses is ideal. Yea, but dad can't catch you sleeping with teenage Jamal if he isn't in the picture!
Leviathan.Niniann
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2596
By Leviathan.Niniann 2011-07-09 01:40:07
Fenrir.Ilax said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Ifrit.Eikechi said: But Poupee, what if the father has like a crazy amount of money and doesn't mind supporting the child by himself...? Shouldn't he have a say in the life and death of his own offspring? Sounds a little unfair to me... Hell even if he doesn't have a lot of money it sounds a bit unfair lol It is unfair, but oh well. Ultimately it's the woman's body. Shouldn't nobody be able to say ***about what she can do with it.
While it's unfair, that's just how it is. He's not the one who has to be pregnant for 9 months.
Well is unfair, Man have no voice on that, but if she decide to keep it, we have to pay for it the rest of our life.
Vasectomies are your friend. :/
Leviathan.Niniann
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2596
By Leviathan.Niniann 2011-07-09 01:40:34
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Yea, but dad can't catch you sleeping with teenage Jamal if he isn't in the picture!
THAT IS VERY TRUE :O
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15066
By Sylph.Tigerwoods 2011-07-09 01:40:36
Fenrir.Ilax said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Ifrit.Eikechi said: But Poupee, what if the father has like a crazy amount of money and doesn't mind supporting the child by himself...? Shouldn't he have a say in the life and death of his own offspring? Sounds a little unfair to me... Hell even if he doesn't have a lot of money it sounds a bit unfair lol It is unfair, but oh well. Ultimately it's the woman's body. Shouldn't nobody be able to say ***about what she can do with it.
While it's unfair, that's just how it is. He's not the one who has to be pregnant for 9 months.
Well is unfair, Man have no voice on that, but if she decide to keep it, we have to pay for it the rest of our life. Yea that is unfair, but that's just a gamble you take when you put your *** in someone.
If it's not a risk you're willing to take, abstinence.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2011-07-09 01:40:36
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: My point mainly being it's not her responsibility to birth the child because he wants it lol.
If he can find a way to get the fetus out of her w/o killing it and still birth it on his own, I'd have no objections to that.
Really though, it's just because she does 100% of the pregnancy.
If she did 99% of the pregnancy and there was 1% of something that was required of the male to do (once fertilization has taken place) to make the pregnancy successful (for example, say for w/e reason, the only way she could give birth is if he were holding her hand during the birthing process), he'd be in no way shape or form required to do that unless he wanted to.
Only reason I give the decision to the girl is because she does 100% of the pregnancy, the guy was required to do even a small part of it, I'd say he's under no obligation and the only way the baby is happening is if both parents wanted it to.
she doesn't do 100%, the pregnancy starts with fertilization, which requires the male.
Fenrir.Ilax
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 466
By Fenrir.Ilax 2011-07-09 01:41:05
i mean law should definitively review, if man refuse it, it the choice of mother to keep it or not, but for sure she should assume everything, if law make no change on that part then, Man decision on abortion should never be ignored.
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5779
By Ifrit.Eikechi 2011-07-09 01:42:02
What do you have if you take the venom out of a cobra...? A belt... lol Quagmire said it best on that topic Nini lol
Fenrir.Ilax
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 466
By Fenrir.Ilax 2011-07-09 01:42:21
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Fenrir.Ilax said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Ifrit.Eikechi said: But Poupee, what if the father has like a crazy amount of money and doesn't mind supporting the child by himself...? Shouldn't he have a say in the life and death of his own offspring? Sounds a little unfair to me... Hell even if he doesn't have a lot of money it sounds a bit unfair lol It is unfair, but oh well. Ultimately it's the woman's body. Shouldn't nobody be able to say ***about what she can do with it.
While it's unfair, that's just how it is. He's not the one who has to be pregnant for 9 months.
Well is unfair, Man have no voice on that, but if she decide to keep it, we have to pay for it the rest of our life. Yea that is unfair, but that's just a gamble you take when you put your *** in someone.
If it's not a risk you're willing to take, abstinence.
Must be why there so many gay, less trouble huh =P
Bahamut.Jetackuu
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2011-07-09 01:42:24
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Fenrir.Ilax said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Ifrit.Eikechi said: But Poupee, what if the father has like a crazy amount of money and doesn't mind supporting the child by himself...? Shouldn't he have a say in the life and death of his own offspring? Sounds a little unfair to me... Hell even if he doesn't have a lot of money it sounds a bit unfair lol It is unfair, but oh well. Ultimately it's the woman's body. Shouldn't nobody be able to say ***about what she can do with it.
While it's unfair, that's just how it is. He's not the one who has to be pregnant for 9 months.
Well is unfair, Man have no voice on that, but if she decide to keep it, we have to pay for it the rest of our life. Yea that is unfair, but that's just a gamble you take when you put your *** in someone.
If it's not a risk you're willing to take, abstinence.
there's something severely wrong with that idea and viewpoint.
Like I said, if the man is going to have no say, then he should have no responsibility.
Women once again want to have their cake and eat it too.
 Bahamut.Aeronis
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1838
By Bahamut.Aeronis 2011-07-09 01:43:11
Ifrit.Eikechi said: Well Aeronis (honestly i have no idea if you're a guy or gal lol), work aside...is being a single mother really that bad? Again, I think its great.. it shows a willingness to do what needs to be done, to take care of your loved ones if nothing else. Work plays a big role in interraction with your child though, and while yea they are making a "statement," the reduced pay could mean more work hours to support food and other things, which might mean either more time at grandmas for the kid, or a day care center.
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15066
By Sylph.Tigerwoods 2011-07-09 01:44:48
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: My point mainly being it's not her responsibility to birth the child because he wants it lol.
If he can find a way to get the fetus out of her w/o killing it and still birth it on his own, I'd have no objections to that.
Really though, it's just because she does 100% of the pregnancy.
If she did 99% of the pregnancy and there was 1% of something that was required of the male to do (once fertilization has taken place) to make the pregnancy successful (for example, say for w/e reason, the only way she could give birth is if he were holding her hand during the birthing process), he'd be in no way shape or form required to do that unless he wanted to.
Only reason I give the decision to the girl is because she does 100% of the pregnancy, the guy was required to do even a small part of it, I'd say he's under no obligation and the only way the baby is happening is if both parents wanted it to.
she doesn't do 100%, the pregnancy starts with fertilization, which requires the male. You're really just nit picking semantics at this point. You know very well what I meant.
The guy isn't required in the sense that if he wants to stop the pregnancy, it can proceed and if he wants the pregnancy to proceed, it can still be terminated.
If the child developing/being birthed required the male, then he'd have a say.
Let's say for the child to develop, it's required for the male to do X, and if the male doesn't do X, the child dies in the woman's stomach. Then it'd be his choice whether or not he wants to do X
Leviathan.Niniann
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2596
By Leviathan.Niniann 2011-07-09 01:44:52
Ifrit.Eikechi said: What do you have if you take the venom out of a cobra...? A belt... lol Quagmire said it best on that topic Nini lol
You still have your testosterone, there's really no difference to my knowledge. >_>;
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: there's something severely wrong with that idea and viewpoint.
Like I said, if the man is going to have no say, then he should have no responsibility.
Women once again want to have their cake and eat it too.
I don't think it's right that men who want an abortion should have to pay child support: I think there should be special cases where that doesn't have to happen.
However the guy has no say in whether the baby isn't aborted. Sorry, if you want a child find someone who wants one too, or pay someone.
[+]
Server: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5779
By Ifrit.Eikechi 2011-07-09 01:46:07
True, true... a valid point for sure.
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15066
By Sylph.Tigerwoods 2011-07-09 01:46:21
Quote: Like I said, if the man is going to have no say, then he should have no responsibility. I don't disagree with that, but that's an entire different issue. The only thing I'm saying is that it should be the woman's choice whether or not she wants to have to deal with 9 months of a fetus developing in her.
The don't stick your *** in her unless you're willing to take the risk comment was in relation to the current law, not saying that I don't disagree w/ that law
Bahamut.Jetackuu
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2011-07-09 01:47:44
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: My point mainly being it's not her responsibility to birth the child because he wants it lol.
If he can find a way to get the fetus out of her w/o killing it and still birth it on his own, I'd have no objections to that.
Really though, it's just because she does 100% of the pregnancy.
If she did 99% of the pregnancy and there was 1% of something that was required of the male to do (once fertilization has taken place) to make the pregnancy successful (for example, say for w/e reason, the only way she could give birth is if he were holding her hand during the birthing process), he'd be in no way shape or form required to do that unless he wanted to.
Only reason I give the decision to the girl is because she does 100% of the pregnancy, the guy was required to do even a small part of it, I'd say he's under no obligation and the only way the baby is happening is if both parents wanted it to.
she doesn't do 100%, the pregnancy starts with fertilization, which requires the male. You're really just nit picking semantics at this point. You know very well what I meant.
The guy isn't required in the sense that if he wants to stop the pregnancy, it can proceed and if he wants the pregnancy to proceed, it can still be terminated.
If the child developing/being birthed required the male, then he'd have a say.
Let's say for the child to develop, it's required for the male to do X, and if the male doesn't do X, the child dies in the woman's stomach. Then it'd be his choice whether or not he wants to do X
It doesn't really matter if he's required or not, it's part his property.
Leviathan.Niniann said: Ifrit.Eikechi said: What do you have if you take the venom out of a cobra...? A belt... lol Quagmire said it best on that topic Nini lol
You still have your testosterone, there's really no difference to my knowledge. >_>;
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: there's something severely wrong with that idea and viewpoint.
Like I said, if the man is going to have no say, then he should have no responsibility.
Women once again want to have their cake and eat it too.
I don't think it's right that men who want an abortion should have to pay child support: I think there should be special cases where that doesn't have to happen.
However the guy has no say in whether the baby isn't aborted. Sorry, if you want a child find someone who wants one too, or pay someone.
I disagree.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2011-07-09 01:48:27
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Quote: Like I said, if the man is going to have no say, then he should have no responsibility. I don't disagree with that, but that's an entire different issue. The only thing I'm saying is that it should be the woman's choice whether or not she wants to have to deal with 9 months of a fetus developing in her.
It is, however it shouldn't be hers alone.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2011-07-09 01:48:53
My point has been made clear, yours has. I think we're done here.
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15066
By Sylph.Tigerwoods 2011-07-09 01:50:11
Quote: It doesn't really matter if he's required or not, it's part his property. Ok, let's say we have joint property, a boat.
If I don't want the boat any more, I don't have to upkeep/be responsible for it for 9 months until you decide to get off your *** and come get it.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2011-07-09 01:50:56
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Quote: It doesn't really matter if he's required or not, it's part his property. Ok, let's say we have joint property, a boat.
If I don't want the boat any more, I don't have to upkeep/be responsible for it for 9 months until you decide to get off your *** and come get it.
Actually you do...well you can't just go get rid of it on your own, or you'd be held liable.
Fenrir.Ilax
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 466
By Fenrir.Ilax 2011-07-09 01:51:16
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Quote: Like I said, if the man is going to have no say, then he should have no responsibility. I don't disagree with that, but that's an entire different issue. The only thing I'm saying is that it should be the woman's choice whether or not she wants to have to deal with 9 months of a fetus developing in her.
It is, however it shouldn't be hers alone.
Not at all, and same go for girl, we can also say: don't let a d..k go inside if you don't wan deal with it. Imo man should totaly have decision on it, maybe not the final one since is after all not his uterus, BUT as i said women at that point should totally assume it.
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15066
By Sylph.Tigerwoods 2011-07-09 01:52:33
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Quote: It doesn't really matter if he's required or not, it's part his property. Ok, let's say we have joint property, a boat.
If I don't want the boat any more, I don't have to upkeep/be responsible for it for 9 months until you decide to get off your *** and come get it.
Actually you do... Not for 9 months. I could get a court order that you'd have to come get it within a much more reasonable amount of time, provided you still wanted it, lol.
Bahamut.Aeronis
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1838
By Bahamut.Aeronis 2011-07-09 01:52:54
Everyone knows women are just incubators gaiz~
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15066
By Sylph.Tigerwoods 2011-07-09 01:54:29
Fenrir.Ilax said: maybe not the final one since is after all not his uterus Ok, he can say w/e he wants to then.
Then she'll come in and as the final decision, say she wants to abort and and then abort it.
I agree.
[+]
Bahamut.Jetackuu
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2011-07-09 01:54:36
Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Sylph.Tigerwoods said: Quote: It doesn't really matter if he's required or not, it's part his property. Ok, let's say we have joint property, a boat.
If I don't want the boat any more, I don't have to upkeep/be responsible for it for 9 months until you decide to get off your *** and come get it.
Actually you do... Not for 9 months. I could get a court order that you'd have to come get it within a much more reasonable amount of time, provided you still wanted it, lol.
It would be a better comparison to say it was an animal of some sort and you wanted rid of it etc
Say the animal would die if it was moved for a certain amount of time, no court would order it to be moved anyway. 9 months is a very short period of time...
Fenrir.Ilax
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 466
By Fenrir.Ilax 2011-07-09 01:55:42
Also wan to point out, woman only should have final decision on abortion, since is her body... The only thing i have very hard time is the "LAW" and how man are on mercy of w/e decision is taken, women have it way too easy on that side.
vs Kansas:
Kansas to Shut Down All but One Abortion Clinic Friday | Mother Jones
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/kansas-shut-down-all-abortion-clinics-friday
Quote: This story has been updated below.
It's official. Every abortion provider in the state of Kansas has been denied a license to continue operating as of July 1. As we reported last week, strict new state laws put in place this month threatened to close the remaining three abortion clinics in Kansas. The staff of one of these facilities, a Planned Parenthood clinic in Overland Park, initially thought their operation could survive the strict new standards. But on Thursday afternoon, Planned Parenthood announced that the Overland Park clinic has thus far been denied a license to continue operating—effectively cutting off access to legal abortion in the entire state.
The new law, which takes effect Friday, establishes new standards for abortion providers—standards apparently designed to make compliance difficult. The rules require changes to the size and number of rooms, compel clinics to have additional supplies on hand, and even mandate room temperatures for the facilities. Given that the rules were released less than two weeks before clinics were expected to be in compliance, many providers knew they wouldn't be able to obtain a license to continue operating. The laws, often called "targeted regulation of abortion providers," or TRAP laws, are an increasingly common legislative maneuver to limit access to abortion by redering it tough, if not impossible, for providers to comply.
With today's announcement that the Overland Park clinic was denied a license, Kansas becomes the first state to effectively make the legally protected right to obtain abortion services moot. One clinic in Kansas has already filed suit against the new rules, and a hearing on that suit is planned for Friday. Planned Parenthood is also expected to sue. The clinics are also expected to seek an injunction to block the law from being enforced. UPDATE: Planned Parenthood has filed suit. They are seeking an emergency injunction to allow their clinic to remain open while the lawsuit is pending.
"The women of Kansas waiting on their scheduled procedures will pay the immediate price for this outrageous and flagrant exertion of the radical GOP’s legislative muscle under the Brownback administration," said Kansas NOW in a statement Thursday, referring to conservative Republican Gov. Sam Brownback. "The freedom and right to legal healthcare has been denied to the women of Kansas."
UPDATE: In a statement issued Thursday evening, Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, seemed to hold out some hope that its clinic could still obtain a license to continue operating, even as the organization sought an injuction to block the law from taking effect. "We have been targeted in this bill and Kansas women are the ones who will suffer if their health care is taken away," said Brownlie. "This is radical, extreme government intrusion into private health care."
UPDATE 5:45 PM EST THURSDAY: The Associated Press is reporting that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, after initially denying a license to Planned Parenthood, has now changed their mind. Stay tuned for more updates. PP said inspectors were back at the clinic Thursday reevaluating it, after earlier this week indicating that they would not be able to obtain one.
UPDATE 6:08 PM EST THURSDAY: Planned Parenthood just announced that the health department has, in fact, decided to grant it a license to continue operating. The PP clinic in Overland Park will remain open. "Notwithstanding that the regulations are burdensome and unnecessary, the findings of the inspection indicate what we have known and said throughout this process: Planned Parenthood operates with the highest standards of patient care and has rigorous safety procedures in place," Brownlie said.
UPDATE 7:15 PM EST FRIDAY: A federal judge in Kansas City has blocked the new abortion clinic regulations from taking effect.
Kansas Judge Blocks Abortion Clinic Regs | Mother Jones
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/kansas-judge-blocks-abortion-clinic-regs
Quote: A judge in Kansas has blocked the state's strict new regulations on abortion providers from taking effect, a move that will allow all three clinics in the state to continue offering services, the Kansas City Star reports.
On Friday afternoon, U.S District Judge Carlos Murguia granted a request from two clinics—Aid for Women in Kansas City and the Center for Women's Health in Overland Park—to grant temporary relief from the new rules, which took effect July 1. The clinics were denied a license to continue operating after the state issued new rules on June 17 that would have required both clinics to make major changes to their facilities. A third clinic, owned by Planned Parenthood, was granted a license to continue operating on Thursday.
The injunction will remain in place until the court hears the formal challenge to the state's regulations.
"This is a tremendous victory for women in Kansas and against the underhanded efforts of anti-choice politicians to shut down abortion providers in the state," said Center for Reproductive Rights president Nancy Northup, which joined with the clinics in filing the legal challenge to the law, in a statement Friday evening. "The facts were clear—this licensing process had absolutely nothing to do with patient health or safety and everything to do with political shenanigans."
The Kansas legislature passed a new law in April creating a new designation for abortion providers under the state's licensing system, and directed the Department of Health and Environment to issue new rules. The department issued 36-pages of rules on June 17 (though the clinics did not receive copies until June 20), mandating things like the size of waiting and recovery rooms, the number of bathrooms, and the required temperatures for each room in the facility. Clinic owners argued that it was impossible to meet the new standards, given that they were released just two weeks before the clinics were required to comply. Moreover, they argued, the rules had little to do with protecting patients and were designed to shut down the clinics.
This type of law, often called "targeted regulation of abortion providers," or "TRAP" laws, isn't exactly new or unique, but Kansas' would have gone farther than others in actually shutting down abortion providers.
Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. She Tweets here. Get Kate Sheppard's RSS feed.
|
|
