Ted Cruz Dropping Out of Republican Presidential Race

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not murder if it is a right in the case of rape. When someone is shot, or stabbed, or beaten, they go to the ER and receive treatment first. In some cases there is requirement to report, so the police show up and ask questions. The person is under no obligation to give clear details, or any details for that matter. It’s a fifth amendment issue as well as a patient confidentiality issue. Saying “I didn’t see their face” is a legitimate, and in fact likely scenario in a rape (in the rapes I’ve dealt with this is exactly the response the victim gave, even when it was clear that they knew who did it). It is also possible that the victim fears retaliation and doesn’t want to disclose more than vague information.

This is all in “best case scenario”. In practical reality the police are not going to be called to come every doctor’s office with a rape kit each time an abortion is requested. It is impractical and a violation of the victim to put them through more invasive procedures just to receive the treatment that is their right under the law. The first time a victim was forced or compelled against their will to testify or give a detailed statement the case would go up through the Courts and the Supreme Court, even a conservative one, would have to rule that this was a violation of their rights.

There is simply no scenario in which abortion for rape can be a right, but then also require that the rape be proven before the abortion is allowed.

But the woman is not the target. Never was before, and wouldn’t be now. The target is the abortionist. If hospitals are required to have rape kits, then abortionists could be as well.

and the “treatment” is a “right under the law” only because it is the law. There is nothing inherent about an abortionist’s right to be exempted from doing what other doctors are required to do, or to document signs and symptoms in the case of a “life of the mother” assertion, or to keep DNA samples securely.

Victims are sometimes forced to testify right now. Certainly in grand juries they can be, and are.

 

[Peter_J]

Fair enough.

For my money, I’d much rather see Trump as POTUS than Cruz as POTUS. Trump is actually willing to make deals. Cruz is not.

Well I hope you’ll be quite happy when he is.

Heh. Just kidding. If Hillary Clinton can’t beat Trump, then who can she beat?

 

[Ghosty]

In reports of rape, investigation is done immediately if law enforcement is aware of it, and even hospitals are required to have “rape kits” (testing and collection of forensic evidence) on hand. The government pays for them. Abortionists, of course, aren’t required to have and perform them.

Now, let’s suppose abortion doctors are required to do those simple tests and collections before performing an abortion. Now, let’s suppose it’s two months later, when all forensic evidence is gone. And let’s suppose abortion doctors are required to document the passage of time and total lack of any kind of evidence. And let’s also suppose some abortion doctor has an inordinate number of alleged rape victims upon whom he performs abortions. And then let’s suppose law enforcement sends him a “ringer”.

An abortionist would have to be pretty gutsy to build a business out of fake rapes.

You are presuming a framework that is not being proposed by any candidate. You are also presuming that such a framework would trump normal procedures for medical treatment, which would require new mandated reporting laws and departments devoted to upholding these new laws (it certainly couldn’t fall under any current jurisdiction).

These presumptions aren’t warranted given the laws of the U.S. and the stances of the candidates and political Parties. Sure, an abortion mill might stick out, but a general practice doctor is going to be obligated to make a referral for an abortion if a patient says they were raped. The first doctor to not do so would face a lawsuit of epic proportions, one to dwarf Roe v. Wade, and I think we all know what the precedent would be in such a case. Would you want to be the doctor who denied a rape victim her rightful medical treatment because you weren’t sure about her story?

 

[Peter_J]

I think there will be plenty of 3rd party voting in November!

It’s possible.

I know personally, I hated leaving the GOP – and possibly wouldn’t have done so, despite Trump becoming the “presumptive”, if the Constitution Party did not exist. That is to say, I’m not very big on the idea of just being an Independent.

But my big fear is that many people (more so in some demographics than others) will be driven far away from the Republican Party, never to return, by the nomination of Donald Trump.

 

[irishpatrick]

In reports of rape, investigation is done immediately if law enforcement is aware of it, and even hospitals are required to have “rape kits” (testing and collection of forensic evidence) on hand. The government pays for them. Abortionists, of course, aren’t required to have and perform them.

Now, let’s suppose abortion doctors are required to do those simple tests and collections before performing an abortion. Now, let’s suppose it’s two months later, when all forensic evidence is gone. And let’s suppose abortion doctors are required to document the passage of time and total lack of any kind of evidence. And let’s also suppose some abortion doctor has an inordinate number of alleged rape victims upon whom he performs abortions. And then let’s suppose law enforcement sends him a “ringer”.

An abortionist would have to be pretty gutsy to build a business out of fake rapes.

Of course, you are correct. But rape is just one of the three legs. You must include incest and the life of the mother. The LOTM exception is the most wide open and for some of the reasons there really is no way to challenge it because it will be the word of the pregnant woman versus the abortionist and the system.

 

[Little_Sheep]

But this is both parties which I agree, Warren didn’t run exactly for this reason, abortion, womens rights and secondary issues.

And by debating how to do this is how those numbers became lowered and thats by the pro-life movement and those educated by it, But that is a drop in the bucket compared to 1-million a year. In fact the left protests everything they do so how is not debating the point realisti? That be the case we would be setting record numbers with abortion. Why don’t democrats and democrat Catholics support the pro-life movement and help cut their own numbers. No its page six news and highly contested as a right to kill and selfishly imho.

I hear you, truly.

I support the wisdom of Roe v. Wade. While I do not believe abortion is murder, I can certainly understand why some folks “frame” it that way. Truly, this issue is as close to the mystery as we might come.

That said, unwanted/unexpected/unintended pregnancies are always hard on women, so why wouldn’t I want those numbers to go down?

People who believe in choice simply support the fact that a woman’s pregnancy is nobody’s business save her own. People who believe in choice admit that no one knows the answer to this question. If the answer was obvious, the debate would not exist.

I personally don’t care about the debate or persuading anyone in it. I care about people on all sides of the spectrum doing what they can to make abortion safe, legal and rare. We all seem to be doing that. Actions speak louder than the rhetoric of either “side.”

 

[gracepoole]

But imho while I enjoy a challenging dialogue, which imho Ghosty was the only one who presented one.

The challenging dialogue you called a “fictional” “straw man” made up of “wild accusations”?

 

[Little_Sheep]

Then if you can’t prove your raped then you would be having a baby. Its absurd to think everyone will run in scream rape and receive an abortion. What they will do is what they have done and thats go to illegal Drs. And in the end abortion will be limited and the amount of cases you suggest would be in fact minimal.

You’re kidding here, right?

The day abortion is outlawed except in the case of rape, incest and LOM is the day those claims shoot through the roof.

I’m just going to assume you can’t imagine being a desperate pregnant woman. And if your name is really Gary Taylor, I can understand why your imagination might not extend to that situation.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Not true and I’ll tell you why. If you or I were raped our responsibility is to report the crime. Showing up later due to pregnancy falls rather short in the scheme of things imho.

Plenty of women don’t report rapes. Please update yourself on the statistics of that fact.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Of course, you are correct. But rape is just one of the three legs. You must include incest and the life of the mother. The LOTM exception is the most wide open and for some of the reasons there really is no way to challenge it because it will be the word of the pregnant woman versus the abortionist and the system.

Yep.

 

[Little_Sheep]

It’s possible.

I know personally, I hated leaving the GOP – and possibly wouldn’t have done so, despite Trump becoming the “presumptive”, if the Constitution Party did not exist. That is to say, I’m not very big on the idea of just being an Independent.

But my big fear is that many people (more so in some demographics than others) will be driven far away from the Republican Party, never to return, by the nomination of Donald Trump.

I believe this is a fair fear. I don’t think any of us know what the Republican Party will look like after all this, but I personally believe it will be deeply changed. It will never look the same again.

 

[meltzerboy]

I believe this is a fair fear. I don’t think any of us know what the Republican Party will look like after all this, but I personally believe it will be deeply changed. It will never look the same again.

Maybe then Trump has already achieved a political revolution that Sanders keeps talking about.

 

[gracepoole]

Maybe then Trump has already achieved a political revolution that Sanders keeps talking about.

If that’s so, one has to wonder how Trump’s “revolution” will actually impact (positively or negatively) the average citizen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course, you are correct. But rape is just one of the three legs. You must include incest and the life of the mother. The LOTM exception is the most wide open and for some of the reasons there really is no way to challenge it because it will be the word of the pregnant woman versus the abortionist and the system.

Incest would be extremely easy to prove. Remember again, we’re not talking about the mother here, we’re talking about the abortionist and the perpetrator.

Rape accusations are often challenged, and often successfully based on the very same kind of evidence abortionists could be obliged by law to assemble and preserve.

And an abortionist trying to fake “life of the mother” exceptions would be caught eventually if law enforcement took the law seriously. But because of the “…health…” exception, nobody bothers because adding that makes it abortion on demand. It’s not as easy to falsify conditions requiring “therapeutic abortion” as one might think. Those conditions are very limited. You can’t fake cancer, a prolapsed heart valve, autoimmune disease or AIDS, and an abortionist who faked it on paper would get caught.

 

[irishpatrick]

Incest would be extremely easy to prove. Remember again, we’re not talking about the mother here, we’re talking about the abortionist and the perpetrator.

Rape accusations are often challenged, and often successfully based on the very same kind of evidence abortionists could be obliged by law to assemble and preserve.

And an abortionist trying to fake “life of the mother” exceptions would be caught eventually if law enforcement took the law seriously. But because of the “…health…” exception, nobody bothers because adding that makes it abortion on demand. It’s not as easy to falsify conditions requiring “therapeutic abortion” as one might think. Those conditions are very limited. You can’t fake cancer, a prolapsed heart valve, autoimmune disease or AIDS, and an abortionist who faked it on paper would get caught.

A woman goes to an abortionist says she had sex (or raped) with a family member and she refuses to say who it is. She desperately pleads for an abortion. She gets one.

An abortionist would not have to fake the reasons for the abortions–he or she would not be at risk. The pregnant women would go in with their chosen reason and many of them would not be verifiable without extensive testing, which could take weeks and sometimes longer.

 

[Ghosty]

The individual providing the abortion would likely not be the first health provider to be seen by the victim. Furthermore, by the time a pregnancy is established a rape kit is useless; you can’t get an emergency abortion days after a rape.

The only scenario for a rape abortion would be weeks after the incident, whether reported at the time of the crime or not. There would be no way to medically establish that a rape occured at that point so the provider is off the hook, and no way to force the victim to disclose information they didn’t want to share in order to procure their rightful abortion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If that’s so, one has to wonder how Trump’s “revolution” will actually impact (positively or negatively) the average citizen.

Right now it’s impossible to know. But among some things that are not improbable could be:

-Suppose he was able to cajole or shame (and he’s not bad at shaming) congress into limiting all budgetary increases (except possibly defense, depending) to the inflation rate. That would have a huge effect on the deficit over just a few years. “Zero based budgeting plus” he could call it.

-Suppose he required that Mexican beef be grown and treated with the same standards as American beef, and tested to ensure it. In one year, the beef imports from Mexico have nearly quadrupled and the American prices have crashed. But no change in the cost at the store. Perhaps better, suppose he got congress to withdraw from NAFTA entirely and again allowed “place of origin” labels, or at least insisted on it as a condition of remaining with NAFTA. Consumers can’t now decide to buy relatively clean American beef in preference to chemical-laden Mexican beef. That would make a real difference to ranchers and grain producers.

-Suppose he simply tied American compliance with China’s “most favored nation” status to full access to Chinese markets. So, for example, Caterpillar could sell heavy machinery made in Moline to China instead of the same machinery required by China to be made in China.

-Suppose he simply ordered the EPA to back away from its restrictions on coal. Miners could go back to work. Machine manufacturers could sell mining equipment again. In my state, it would save every household $1500/year by one estimate. Probably true in others.

-Suppose he got a tariff passed by which agricultural products legally shipped here from other countries had to bear the cost of fighting illegal agricultural products shipped here from the same country. Mexico might actually have to get serious about fighting the drug cartels for once. While Mexico was getting that done, we could buy our winter strawberries from Chile. Might cost a little more, like Chilean grapes, but we could live with that.

-And he could order EPA to reverse WOTUS, which puts the army in charge of every farm pond and dry wash in the country. Want to clean out your pond? Gotta call the army first now and get its permission.

-And what about making psych, alcohol and drug treatment optional in health insurance instead of mandatory? He could do that with a stroke of the pen. And how about dismissing the suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor and making free abortifacients no longer a feature of Obamacare. It would save Americans a lot of money.

-And what if he declared a moratorium on new government buildings and ordered the sale of thousands of government buildings that are no longer in use?

-And, wonder of wonders, what if some departments’ budgets were actually cut?

-And what if he ordered the sale of all government lands the Clinton administration gobbled up?

-And with a stroke of the pen he could restore irrigation to a great deal of California, and put a lot of unemployed people back to work.

-And instead of throwing ever more money at gold-plated colleges and universities, he tied student loan amounts to the colleges’ thrift in spending money on teaching instead of lavish buildings, fountains, statuary and the like. And wonder of wonders, colleges were financially rewarded for bringing tuition down to affordable levels. That’s not absurd. At one time, most state colleges’ tuition was zero or very little.

Some of those things would require working it out with congress. Some wouldn’t. But if an unlearned person like me can come up with some things, how many more could someone effect if he had some sharp-eyed “green eyeshade boys” go through the budget?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The individual providing the abortion would likely not be the first health provider to be seen by the victim. Furthermore, by the time a pregnancy is established a rape kit is useless; you can’t get an emergency abortion days after a rape.

The only scenario for a rape abortion would be weeks after the incident, whether reported at the time of the crime or not. There would be no way to medically establish that a rape occured at that point so the provider is off the hook, and no way to force the victim to disclose information they didn’t want to share in order to procure their rightful abortion.

No.

Other health providers are required to do rape kit tests if a woman comes in and says she was raped. What if the later abortionist was required to inquire into that evidence and document it?

If a rape is alleged, weeks or months after the event, at very minimum the DNA from the aborted child could be collected and put into the DNA bank of law enforcement agencies. It sure could result in the prosecution of a rapist. And the victim can most definitely be forced to testify in a grand jury. They do that now sometimes.

Remember again, the target is not the woman. The target is the abortionist who doesn’t comply with the law requiring him/her to properly process and preserve evidence and make a proper inquiry into such things as rape, incest or the life of the mother.

And you can get an “emergency” abortion days after a rape. You can do it now.

 

[Ghosty]

If a rape is alleged, weeks or months after the event, at very minimum the DNA from the aborted child could be collected and put into the DNA bank of law enforcement agencies. It sure could result in the prosecution of a rapist. And the victim can most definitely be forced to testify in a grand jury. They do that now sometimes.

This is all well after the fact of the abortion. The entire point of my argument is that abortion for rape means abortion on demand. All you have done is a present a highly unlikely scenario in which an abortion is procured after an actual rape, and the rape was committed by a serial rapist, and the victim that had the abortion is compelled to testify at a Grand Jury hearing long after the abortion. None of this affects the implementation of abortion on demand, and furthermore it only comes into play when an actual rapist is caught, after the abortion has occurred, and would not have any bearing on the thousands of cases of abortions that were not the result of a real rape.

What could not happen is compelling a victim to testify or provide information against an unknown or unidentified assailant in order to receive an abortion. Grand Juries can compel testimony, but they are convened when charges are being brought against a known subject. It would not be possible to compel identification and testimony prior to providing an abortion, and it wouldn’t be possible to do so afterwards unless the assailant was known through DNA testing and charges were being brought against them.

Remember again, the target is not the woman. The target is the abortionist who doesn’t comply with the law requiring him/her to properly process and preserve evidence and make a proper inquiry into such things as rape, incest or the life of the mother.

And proper inquiry in this case would be limited to asking “were you raped” and if the answer is yes then an abortion is provided. Rape kits are irrelevant 4 weeks after the fact. There is nothing to target them with, unless they flagrantly violated the requirement that they record the victim checking the box for “rape” on their intake paperwork.

And you can get an “emergency” abortion days after a rape. You can do it now.

No, you can’t. Legally speaking such a procedure is not an abortion, and wouldn’t be one under a “rape provision” either. That procedure is a high dose of contraceptives (which are legally available anyway) that prevent implantation of an embryo. They are not abortions under the law, regardless of what we might call them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Monkey1976]

I have said it many times. I feel the Republicans could have done something about abortion, they failed. I feel the War in Iraq ended-up a huge mistake, it is just that Bush had no way to no that ahead of time–there are many more.

In other words, because the fire brigade didn’t show up within 5 minutes, might as well let the house just burn down.

The point is that Republicans - at all levels - have listened to the pro-life movement, and have taken steps to at least reduce abortion. The Missouri personhood amendment? Republicans. The Texas requirement that doctors have admitting privileges? Republicans. The partial-birth ban? Republicans.

Now, do we encourage those who are at least making some progress against abortion, or do we toss it all in and hand over the reins to those who would undo every restriction while waiting for the planets to align just right so we can immediately bar all abortion at a single stroke?

Me, I don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Or even the disgruntled neighbor of the not-making-things-worse.