
![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Irontruth wrote:Texas is the size of NSW, but has more people than all of Australia. Would you describe 5 clinics as adequate?Heck no, with a population that size they can well afford many more and funded to an adequate level to ensure decent standards. I find it incredible that a first world nation would even have to have this sort of discussion.
You're making the mistaken assumption that Texas is a first world nation.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
meatrace wrote:Those standards seem pretty reasonable, and I'd take a stab that they align with the rest of the developed worlds expectation.To reiterate, 37 of Texas' 42 abortion clinics don't meet the new standards.
Hardly Fallujah.
Are you a practising physician? Do you have the faintest idea of how abortion clinics actually operate? I would submit to you then that you might want to qualify your evaluation of those standards appropriately.
The fact that these standards were written and are backed by people who have shown that their main agenda is eliminating abortion rights entirely should be the tip off. The sponsor of the bill, a Mr. Dewhurst, has publicly called for the outright abolition of Roe Vs.Wade. Lets not kid ourselves about what the intent of this bill actually is.

Shifty |

You're making the mistaken assumption that Texas is a first world nation.
I only went there a couple of times, looked a lot nicer than most of South East Asia! - you might be on to something though.
Are you a practising physician? Do you have the faintest idea of how abortion clinics actually operate?
No, are you? and yes, yes I do. Nice try. Next.
The Bill suggests good standards be put in place, and that is quite a reasonable request.
If the gentleman felt so strongly about safety and standards though, perhaps he'd have been kind enough to also move that funding for family planning clinics be increased to a position of meeting such standards.
I agree that this Bill was actually an attempt to limit access, however not all of its contents are 'wrong'.

![]() |
So let's all agree that it's a good thing that this bill didn't pass in Texas, we can quibble about if there were or weren't some good things in it, but all in all it was a bad piece of legislation. I view abortion the same way I view euthanasia, it's something I hope a family or friend would never need, but I want facilities in place just in case they do.

![]() |
I don't think it was a good thing at all, and I think a lot of people are being very naïve in what they think it means or prevented. But I'm fine to agree to disagree at this point, and the view that she was somehow a hero or did a virtuous thing.
I don't see how you're making the concision that people are being naive, no one was taking the bill at face value, or believing that it was actually in place to protect women.

![]() |
The Bill suggests good standards be put in place, and that is quite a reasonable request.
Would you suggest that having your auto drivers licensing requirements include the tests for piloting an 18 wheeler?
Don't you think that given who's authoring the bill, the suggestion that the intent is not promoting safety but finding a backdoor to effectively ban abortions just might be the item on his agenda given his past history?
When a known pedophile offers a free child-care clinic, shows no signs of ever having been treated or regretting his past behavior, one just might suspect his motives being other than offering a service.

Shifty |

Shifty wrote:Would you suggest that having your auto drivers licensing requirements include the tests for piloting an 18 wheeler?The Bill suggests good standards be put in place, and that is quite a reasonable request.
So the answer to the question of whether you are "a practising physician?" is that no you aren't, and that despite insisting that this was the measure of authority on the subject that you yourself don't actually meet that bar. Perhaps yuo would have the decency of honouring your own argument then?

Sissyl |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

There is a serious difference between a pharmacological abortion and a surgical abortion. Pharmacological means you apply a pill in the vagina and wait. Bleeding and stomach pain will ensue, but in most cases nothing serious on a healthy patient. This can be used for the early part of pregnancy, up to, I think, week 12 or 14. It is simple enough that a nurse can supervise it and have the waiting be done in a hotel room somewhere. If there are complications, there is plenty of time to get the patient to a hospital, or even hook up a bag of blood. Demanding that this is done to surgical standards is an obvious ploy to limit accessibility, gravely dishonest, evil and stupid. If you think differently, you are wrong.

Don Juan de Doodlebug |

Vive le Galt.
Vive le Galt, Comrade Shifty!
No Doctor here (except, of course, Of Love), but I don't think, theoretically speaking, that, in a society willing to invest tons of cash into a nationalized health service, they are terrible ideas. (Except for the 20 weeks thing--I'm not willing to compromise at 27 weeks.) It's just, this is the USA and that's not what it's about.
Here's a quite intriguing paragraph from the Huff Post article Comrade Meatrace posted above:
"Abortion doctors also would need to obtain admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinic under the measure. The lone remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi is currently suing to block this law because no hospitals in the state will grant privileges to an abortion doctor for religious reasons or to avoid political repercussions."
Mississippi, the poorest state in the Union, serviced by only one clinic, which is looking at being shut down because no hospital w/in 30 miles will deal with them. That was the goal of the Texas bill.

Shifty |

Demanding that this is done to surgical standards is an obvious ploy to limit accessibility, gravely dishonest, evil and stupid. If you think differently, you are wrong.
This whole 'surgical standards' thing is also a bit of a beat up. I have had a good look at the laws in question:
Texas Health & Safety Code - Section 243.010. Minimum Standards
Texas Administrative Code: Ambulatory Surgical Centers
My feeling on these is that the bar is not set horribly high, and I find it odd that so few places would qualify - if indeed they were in the position of providing a surgical service. Clearly this is an item of public health that will needs far greater scrutiny going forward in an aid to ensuring the facilities can run to a higher level of care through better funding and a quality approach.
If the nice Republican man is as worried as he says he is about the safety of the facilities and the harm that could come to these women exercising their right to their bodies, then perhaps his name will feature prominently at the top of a petition to demand better funding for family planning clinics.
More publicly funded public health facilities for all!

Don Juan de Doodlebug |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

If the nice Republican man is as worried as he says he is about the safety of the facilities and the harm that could come to these women exercising their right to their bodies, then perhaps his name will feature prominently at the top of a petition to demand better funding for family planning clinics.
More publicly funded public health facilities for all!
You Australians are so cute, even if you don't like Woody Allen films.
I repeat, this is the USA. You might as well be calling for international proletarian socialist revolution.
Working Poor Losing Obamacare as States Resist Medicaid And, yes, Texas is in there.

Don Juan de Doodlebug |

Danny Brown Receives Oral Sex From Fan On Stage, Keeps Rapping
Oh-h-h-h-h yeah.
Goblins do it on stage!

![]() |
Well the story says "fan" but we don't know if this was some sort of stunt or not. Call me cynical, I mean is quite possible that this was just some random fan that really wanted to give this particular rapper's genitalia a good mouth wash on stage, but I'm thinking this was a stunt. Something to drum up press. Then again I have no idea who Danny Brown is, perhaps he's a big star? I'm not a follower of the rap music.

Don Juan de Doodlebug |

Oh yeah, I forgot, I actually had something serious to say.
Back in the beginning of the much-missed Anita Sarkeesian thread (OHWFA!), Comrade Hawkshaw had linked a wiki page on Feminist Sex Wars where I was fascinated to learn about the Big Four: pornography, prostitution, pederasty and public sex.
The first three are pretty self-explanatory, but anyone (and here I'm particularly looking at you, Sister Margatroid) have any idea what the debate was about public sex?
'Coz, you know, Goblins do it in the street!

![]() |

No idea. I've honestly never heard of that term before.
Offhand, it could be:
- Increased sexualisation in the public arena (e.g., in media, advertisement)
- Increasing acceptance of PDA (e.g., doing it in the street!, or at least making out)
- Possibly making your sexual interests a more public and less private thing? Relating to sexuality, BDSM, and whatnot.
I dunno. I tend to avoid looking too deeply into the second-wave anti-sex arguments. Largely because a lot of it is incredibly offensive to a lot of gender/sexual minorities in particular... (Political lesbianism makes me cringe.)

![]() |
Guy Humual wrote:Then again I have no idea who Danny Brown is, perhaps he's a big star? I'm not a follower of the rap music.But you do now, and that's a sure sign it was a stunt.
Yep, and this is why I suggested that it was a stunt. Though if the guy has a huge name and I was simply out of the loop then perhaps I might think something different.

Caineach |

Apparenly Ohio just past legislation that would prevent abortion doctors from transfering patients to a public hospital, if the governor signs it. I found it onHuffington Post. Too lazy to look for more detail to see if it is an accurate summary.

Don Juan de Doodlebug |

Huh. So, apparently, not only was the on-stage fellatio not a stunt, it's like, 2 months old. Have no idea why it popped up when I was reading HuffPo articles on Texas.
Speaking of which, must have admitting privileges w/in 30 miles, can't transfer patients to public hospitals. Man, I wish the pro-life movement would make up its mind.
Actually, to be honest, I have other more pressing wishes for them.

thejeff |
Huh. So, apparently, not only was the on-stage fellatio not a stunt, it's like, 2 months old. Have no idea why it popped up when I was reading HuffPo articles on Texas.
Speaking of which, must have admitting privileges w/in 30 miles, can't transfer patients to public hospitals. Man, I wish the pro-life movement would make up its mind.
I don't know. I suspect those two requirements fit together nicely for the forced birthers.
It means the abortion clinics have to close. Isn't that the goal?

Don Juan de Doodlebug |

Speak and Spell is the only one I really like.
Perfect, bouncy electropop that was totally gay.
And then Vince Clarke left and they went in a different direction.
And, personal judgement here but, after that they could craft a catchy tune ever now, but most of the time they weren't smart enough to carry off their pretensions.
Otoh, they made millions and millions of filthy lucre, so what do I know?

Don Juan de Doodlebug |


![]() |
And, personal judgement here but, after that they could craft a catchy tune ever now, but most of the time they weren't smart enough to carry off their pretensions.
I don't know about their other stuff but Personal Jesus it one of my favorite songs from the 80s early 90s (I can't quite remember when it came out). I also liked John The Revelator.

meatrace |

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:And, personal judgement here but, after that they could craft a catchy tune ever now, but most of the time they weren't smart enough to carry off their pretensions.I don't know about their other stuff but Personal Jesus it one of my favorite songs from the 80s early 90s (I can't quite remember when it came out). I also liked John The Revelator.
Personal Jesus is from Violator.

![]() |
Guy Humual wrote:I also liked John The Revelator.
They do a different version, this jazz classic is singing praise, whereas the Depeche Mode version of John the Revelator is not. I like both songs but I think I like the voice of Blind Willie Johnson better though: Another version of John The Revelator

Irontruth |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Nina Simone was always my favorite, mostly cause that's what played the most on the stereo when I was a kid. Though I can sit and listen to any acoustic delta blues player.

Don Juan de Doodlebug |

I don't know, but if she was singing Mississippi G!*$$$n at the time, there would have been so many layers to it that it's like the square root of a negative number. :P
Picket lines/School boycotts/They try to say it's a communist plot
They say 'It's pinkos like you that freed the slaves'/And they're right

![]() |
Nina was quite the diva. I've read that at one point in her career, her rider included young black studs to service her.
Let's all be honest, who here wouldn't want young black studs to service them if they had the power to make it happen? I mean sure I'd prefer young white women instead, but in today's age of PC that would be a nasty can of worms to add to a rider. I mean if it were black studs or nothing? With all the drugs, alcohol and green M&Ms it would be wise to have a back up plan should the roadies fail to find any groupies to bring back stage.