9 ms·
Texas Freedom Caucus Warns of Illegality for Companies Funding Employee Abortion
- jleyank 4y agoEither stay and take the staffing and hiring hits or boogie. How much are those tax breaks worth? We might see ob-gyn docs relocating which will screw everybody if it happens. If they can’t get liability insurance or clear guidance on what they’re allowed to do they’re crazy to stay.
- andsoitis 4y ago> to murder their unborn children It seems to me that if you truly believe that an abortion is murdering a human, then the penalty should be the same as the murder of a human who is already born. In other words, a very long prison sentence or the death penalty (depending on locale). However, if you think that penalty is too severe, then do you really believe it is murder when you have an abortion?
- skyzyx 4y agoAmerican conservatives are utterly hypocritical and self-inconsistent. The things they believe don’t even pass the sniff test with their own rhetoric. It’s not based on logic. It’s based on emotion. America was founded by the Puritans. It’s not about life, it’s about control.
- realjhol 4y ago
- randomhodler84 4y ago
- realjhol 4y agoDont talk to me about hurting people. You literally support chopping children up in the womb - people who suffer and die alone, for the sake of convenience. Utterly despicable
- randomhodler84 4y agoIf providing health care to women is despicable, I don’t want to be anything but despicable. You have been lied to your entire life and have some broken ideas about how health care and medical treatments work. How about we leave it to the Drs and not make it difficult for things that are none of your damn business?
- pstuart 4y agoPreventing a fertilized egg from implanting is not chopping a child up, but that is one form of abortion. It is a potential child, it is a microscopic clump of cells. Please note that many times these pregnancies self terminate (miscarry), which could be construed as God aborting the pregnancy (if one believes in such).
- josephcsible 4y ago> Please note that many times these pregnancies self terminate (miscarry), which could be construed as God aborting the pregnancy (if one believes in such). SIDS is a thing too, but that doesn't mean it should be okay to intentionally kill newborns.
- pstuart 4y agoAh, so you acknowledge that God is pro abortion. That's a start. And that God apparently likes to kill innocent babies too. What's up with that?
- josephcsible 4y ago
- zionic 4y agoI’m not religious and I support the rights of the unborn. It’s more complicated than religion vs atheism.
- randomhodler84 4y agoI support the rights of the undead myself. Vampire and Zombie rights are more important.
- zionic 4y ago
- anonporridge 4y agoI also support the rights of unborn persons, but I don't support giving them extra special rights that born people don't have. I do not have the right to force you to give me your kidney, even if I need it to stay alive. Even if you intentionally poisoned me and that's the reason I need a new kidney, I still don't have the right to violate your bodily autonomy to take it. Why do you believe fetuses have the special right to violate a person's bodily autonomy?
- josephcsible 4y agoYou can't be forced to donate your kidney, but if you previously decided to do so (or even if it were harvested from you without your permission), you can't later kill the recipient to take it back.
- anonporridge 4y agoA better analogy is if you need continuous blood donations. Even if I consent to give you some now, I'm not obligated to continue to give it to you every day, even if you'll die without it and it's only for 9 months. Moral reprehensible? Maybe. Legally enforceable. No. That's a rabid hole of allowing the government to violate people's bodily autonomy and privacy that you really don't want to go down.
- anonporridge 4y agoTo anyone reading this thread and thinking pro-lifers aren't really this extreme, yes, they really truly are. Many absolutely want the death penalty for abortion, or at least murder level prison sentence. No amount of logic and reasoning gets to them. No arguments about the value of the mother's life. No arguments about the legal protections of bodily autonomy, and the slippery slope of setting precedent to violate that. No education about the inherent messiness of pregnancy and difficulty to actually tell the difference between a natural miscarriage (medically termed 'spontaneous abortion') and an intentional abortion. No nuance on the chilling effect for doctors who will start to refuse to give women the treatment they need when it risks unintentionally causing a miscarriage. These people have an extremely underdeveloped concept of morality and ethics, where everything is black and white. And they pose an immense danger of ripping us as a society back into the dark ages of justice. I say this as someone who was raised deeply religious and ravenously prolife. I marched in protest with life tape over my mouth and in front of abortion clinics as a child. This is really how these people think. Wake up.
- realjhol 4y ago
- anonporridge 4y agoAt what point in a pregnancy do you believe personhood begins?
- realjhol 4y agoIt doesn't matter what I think. Now states can decide for themselves without having the federal government force them. Because everyone is pro-life beyond a certain threshold - its just a question of when.
- anonporridge 4y agoWhy is state the right level to decide? There's a ton of variety of opinions within states. Why not leave the decision to the county level? Why does the state get to force their decision on counties? Then again, there's a ton of variety of opinion within counties. Rural and urban areas are often starkly opposed. So why does the majority opinion of the whole county get forced on everyone? Then again, there's a ton of variety between households in any locality. Why should the larger locality get to force it's majority opinion on dissenting households? Then again, there's variety of opinion between individuals in a household. Why does the majority opinion of the household get forced on dissenting individuals? The weird obsession with states rights isn't a genuine argument. It's just the level of authority that allows your particular opinion to get maximum power over people, because it can't win at the federal level. If you actually cared about overbearing government on this issue, you would argue to leave the decision up to the people directly affected, and be pro-choice.
- Georgelemental 4y agoThere is another position: that in principle the penalties should be the same, but that in practice the culture doesn't yet see the lives of the unborn as as valuable as the lives of the born, and that putting the punishment too far in front of where the median voter stands is counterproductive to the cause. As the rights of the unborn gain more universal acceptance, the penalties for violating them should be increased.
- trasz 4y agoThat assumes that the fringe theory of “pro-life” will gain popularity.
- rayiner 4y agoFringe? At several points in the last 20 years “pro life” has edged slightly ahead of “pro choice.” https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/cn8r6o1sju-nnijhmvucyq.png https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro...
- trasz 4y agoFringe; from ethics point of view “pro-life” is no different from flat earth. Many countries legalized abortion over the past 20 years; very few went the other way.
- rayiner 4y ago> Fringe; from ethics point of view “pro-life” is no different from flat earth. This facts are all scientifically indisputable: 1) A fetus is a genetically distinct and unique human life from the moment of conception; 2) By 6-8 weeks, an embryo has a four-chambered beating heart; 3) By week 12, a fetus looks recognizably human, has a face, fingers and toes, internal organs, etc: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-... All of these comprise scientific bases for the range of "pro life" positions. > Many countries legalized abortion over the past 20 years; very few went the other way. So what? Eugenics was seen as a progressive advance in the early 20th century, before humanity reversed course. "Progress" doesn't happen in an arc, but hits dead ends.
- atoav 4y agoWell and more important: all the rules that kick in when someone is born should kick in at day one of the personhood. Tax breaks, social support, etc. But it is not about personhood, it is not about murder — this is about sex and giving the state the power to enforce prude religious ideas. Which is why there are open discussions about banning contraception as well. The idea: Sex should only be had for the purpose of generating offspring. It should never be enjoyed. This is the believe, and anyone has to follow it, so it needs to become law.
- rayiner 4y agoThat doesn’t follow. The law applies differing treatment at different stages of life in many contexts. We have different social programs that kick in for young people versus old people, for example. And we do have social programs specifically for pregnant women. As to the sex argument, do you really find it persuasive? Because it makes no sense to me. Religious conservatives view babies as a blessing, not a punishment—for having sex or anything else. What they reject is the premise that destroying a human life must be legal to maintain the fiction that sex is without consequences. (Note that the vast majority of republicans support legalized contraception, at about the same rate as democrats: https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-will-balk-if-conservatives-challenge-contraception-and-gay-marriage-after-overturning-roe-202215040.html https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-will-balk-if-cons...)
- atoav 4y ago> As to the sex argument, do you really find it persuasive? The argument is of course completely bonkers, but this is the thinking behind it — and I grew up in a deeply catholic area: You just need to talk to those people and ask them "Why" a few times and you will end up there. The church seeing itself as a torch of morality in questions like: - when do people have sex? - what do women wear? This is nothing new and not limited to catholics. If they control your private life they control your life. IMO church should limit itself to questions of spirituality and be kept out of the state, law and private lives of the rest of us at all cost.
- mullingitover 4y ago
- rayiner 4y agoThat doesn’t follow at all. The law recognizes numerous degrees of culpability even for intentional killing of another human (e.g. premeditated versus not). In Texas, second degree murder carries a penalty of 2 to 20 years.
- andsoitis 4y agoIn most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. So, it comes back to my first argument - if you really think that an abortion is the murder of a human, then it is in the first degree, right? And if so, the penalty would be pretty high. Are you OK with that?
- rayiner 4y ago> So, it comes back to my first argument - if you really think that an abortion is the murder of a human, then it is in the first degree, right? Why would that follow logically? Willfulness and premeditation are two aggravating factors that make first degree murder “worse” than lesser degrees of murder. That doesn’t mean that those are the only factors that can be used to distinguish different degrees of culpability for killing a human. The law of homicide is extremely sensitive to context and circumstances. It’s entirely consistent to believe on one hand that abortion is murder (intentional killing of a human being), and to believe on the other hand that the circumstances are mitigating factors that lessen the gravity of the offense. It’s even consistent to believe that abortion is murder, but doesn’t warrant any punishment at all—like killing in self defense. Under German constitutional law, for example, abortion is deemed a deprivation of a right to life that begins at conception. But the German constitutional court has held that, nonetheless, the state doesn’t necessarily need to criminally penalize it.
- cratermoon 4y agoAsk people who think that a pregnant woman is carrying around an unborn human if they agree that all the other laws that apply to humans and children should apply to these "unborn humans".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- DeathArrow 4y ago>It seems to me that if you truly believe that an abortion is murdering a human, then the penalty should be the same as the murder of a human who is already born. I fully agree with it. The punishments for murdering unborn children are too mild. They should be more severe.
- david38 4y agoThe penalty for murder is highly variable. Murder of small child is often a pittance compared to an adult. There are other arguments involved. Was the murder brutal? Did people depend on the victim? Children have no dependents, though this is offset by the vulnerability and future life of the victim.
- threatofrain 4y agoMoreover, if abortion is murder, then there ought be no exception for rape, as killing children for psychological relief ought be a repugnant exchange. And the insurance companies, doctors, and medical groups involved are basically in an industry of assembly line baby murder for money. The culpability of doctors cannot be the same.
- josephcsible 4y agoPro-choice people seem to want it both ways when it comes to exceptions for rape. If there is an exception for rape, they say the pro-life law is bad because "see, it's not really about the lives of the children, it's just to control women's sexual choices". And if there's not an exception for rape, they say the pro-life law is bad because "look at all these really young rape victims who will now be forced to bear their rapists' children".
- wizofaus 4y agoThanks for reminding me why the only correct person to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is the mother, no matter how much you may dislike the outcome.
- josephcsible 4y agoMy point is that if you're against an exception for rape victims, then any arguments you make against pro-life laws that only apply when such an exception doesn't exist should be completely discounted.
- wizofaus 4y agoHuh? I am against such "exceptions" because I don't think there's any good result where the government has the right to force women to remain pregnant even when they have compelling reasons to not want to do so. Abortion should be criminal when it can't done safely or is not done by a suitably trained professional, that's the only case I do accept a law is needed. And the US is going to see a lot more of such abortions in coming months/years.
- ivraatiems 4y agoI'm looking forward to the lawsuits challenging this. I'm not 100% sure how they'll turn out, but it'll be nice to have big corporations spending their money on protecting something I agree should be protected, for a change.
- inetsee 4y agoI am wondering about the implications if an organization (charitable or otherwise) located in a state that allows abortions provides travel expenses to someone coming from Texas (or other states banning abortion) into a state that allows abortions? What if an organization provides relocation assistance (including travel, moving expenses, help with job hunting, etc) to someone relocating to a state that allows abortions? Can Texas charge someone who did not have an abortion in Texas, or someone who has stopped being a resident of Texas?
- Justsignedup 4y agoThat's the attempt which actually breaks states' autonomy rights, so a state say... NY will be able to charge the seller of a gun if that gun was ever used in NY if it didn't meet the strict NY background check requirement, even in the case of a gun show. That can't make sense otherwise any state can make laws for other states. Effectively allowing each state to be a federal-level lawmaker. This is clearly unconstitutional, but of course, it all depends on the insanity of the current SCOTUS.
- rayiner 4y agoIt’s well established that sovereign entities have the right to regulate the conduct of their citizens even abroad. For example the FCPA which makes Americans liable for bribery that occurs in foreign countries. Or American federal income taxes which are based on citizenship. That changes when someone relinquishes their citizenship, however. As to American states, relinquishing citizenship is as easy as relocating to another state and taking steps indicating intent to change your residence permanently, such as changing your driver’s license or voter registration. Thus providing relocation assistance is on different legal footing than paying for abortions out of state.
- beebmam 4y agoHow ironic it is that the "Freedom Caucus" is using the power of the government to limit the freedom of it's constituents. I remember the day when libertarians were vehemently pro-choice. What happened?
- yokem55 4y agoIt may come down to companies offering a more generic 'medical travel benefits'. Something like, "If a medical service is not available locally, employee can recieve $xxxx in travel benefits per year to obtain that service." At that point, the company can disclaim knowlege of what medical services have been obtained, and then it is soley up to the employee.
- DeathArrow 4y agoSo big corporations are using taxpayers money to pay for breaking the law. I hope they get punished.