This is article is full of lies and misleading garbage.
#1, don't really know how true this one is. The source quoted says largely the same things this author does. If it is true, then that is a crap law and needs to be amended. But I doubt the veracity of this story.
#2 The author attempts to make it appear as though the laws prohibit abortions in life or death situations, where really what she references are women that die from ILLEGAL abortions. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for someone that is killed while doing something illegal. Perhaps we should create a law providing body armor to all home invaders so as to reduce their chance of death as well.
#3 Here the author opens her statement by claiming that women are being arrested for the heinous crime of a miscarriage. What the author fails to mention, is that the woman was a coke addict at the time of her pregnancy. Last I checked, negligence was still a crime. It would seem as though the author desires to carve out an exception in negligence laws granting women immunity. Talk about creating a special class.
#4 Involuntary my ass. They are given a choice, no one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to have an abortion. Unless this law also applies to abortions that are medically necessary. In which case, the law is utter crap and needs to be amended. But again, I seriously doubt that.
#5 This one is a little different. In one hand, if it were my wife, the decision would be hers. However, the argument you gave for it can easily be flipped around. So it's a stupid point to make.
#6 is little more than fear mongering based on conjecture founded on theoretical technology. It also, even if indirectly, argues against the development of new, life saving technology. Again, basing the opinion on conjecture founded on theoretical technology that is still long ways off. Further, the author pits women against men. Something she's really been doing this whole time, but this instance is the most hypocritical. The author wants the right to abortion, but wants to deny the right of the father to keep the child. It would seem to me that this is a great middle ground solution. The mother no longer has to be pregnant, and the father gets to keep their child. Reproduction rights have been all about the women, and have completely ignored the fact that it takes two to reproduce. Should there not be equal rights?
#7 I don't have much to say here. 24hrs wont kill you, but in the event that it could, then it obviously shouldn't be required and probably isn't.
#8 is more of an employer vs employee rights issue, not so much an abortion issue. I strongly support the 2nd amendment and constitutional carry movements, but I would say the same thing if the topic was whether or not an employer could prohibit their employees from carrying.
#9 Like #8, is not an abortion issue. It's a state vs fed issue. Texas rejects a lot of federal aid, not just health related.
#10 see #8.
