Amendments
- Thread starter KnighttimeJoe
- Start date
Did she even want to have an abortion or was it a misdiagnosed miscarriage? Doesn’t sound like it had anything to do with abortion.
She was 18. Why did she get pregnant?
Apparently, she wanted the baby.
The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps.
At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave.
Last edited:
Good deduction, Einstein. She was experiencing internal bleeding. You know, the kind of scarey reason a pregnant woman would rush to a hospital ER to have checked out.
🫤
Another brilliant deduction. It was reported she went to the ER on the day of her baby shower.
Good God, you don't send a woman home with sepsis. The hospital should be sued for malpractice. This is why me and Joey, the Coathanger Kid have always been pro-choice.
^^^^ insufferable and not debatable.
This is why you were banned from all the message boards in Nebraska.
Once again, this is malpractice. Nothing to do with abortion.
Things do do? You are a loser. Elementary school are closed today.
Unless the mule qualifies as a “thing.”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Things do do? You are a loser. Elementary school are closed today.
Unless the mule qualifies as a “thing.”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
"I have things to do. Gotta take the wife to the groomer and restock my enema stack."
He wakes up on a Saturday morning, immediately responds to my post and I’M triggered. Lol
You check every single last one of those boxes, Adolf. In particular, the low IQ one.
They quite often treat sepsis in pregnant women. Abortion is not the normal first thing to do. The hospital screwed this up, and needs to be sued. Any abortion law needs to have room to deal with the occasional life-threatening event. Problem is both sides of the issue extremists always push for to much. While I generally lean pro life, I recognize there are times where it is medically needed. I also understand a woman not having a child after being raped or incest. On the other side of the issue I do have problems with abortions 5 mos into it simply because someone doesn't want the kid. I also believe fathers should have to play a role in the support of the child. If you don't want the responsibility then keep little Peter in your pants.
The problem in this case wasn't abortion, it was neglect by the Medical staff.
The problem in this case wasn't abortion, it was neglect by the Medical staff.
It’s clearly not about abortion in this case. It’s a ridiculous article.
Whether you are for the amendment or against it, this is a poor example, but it’s all over the internet.
My problem with abortion is really only because all these young teenagers are irresponsible and screwing around like crazy, because it’s SO EASY to have an abortion.
I had a staff member, not have her partner (her ex-boyfriend who she already has a kid with), wear protection.
What happened? She got pregnant AGAIN, got an abortion using state funds (or whoever’s funds), and had to miss 3 days of work.
Ridiculous.
Some women are using abortions as an easy out. Just screw every man out there with no protection, because YOU CAN ALWAYS JUST GET AN ABORTION.
Whether you are for the amendment or against it, this is a poor example, but it’s all over the internet.
My problem with abortion is really only because all these young teenagers are irresponsible and screwing around like crazy, because it’s SO EASY to have an abortion.
I had a staff member, not have her partner (her ex-boyfriend who she already has a kid with), wear protection.
What happened? She got pregnant AGAIN, got an abortion using state funds (or whoever’s funds), and had to miss 3 days of work.
Ridiculous.
Some women are using abortions as an easy out. Just screw every man out there with no protection, because YOU CAN ALWAYS JUST GET AN ABORTION.
Last edited:
Yeah, this shit is medical malpractice, bruh. Not killing babies.
mostly anecdotal but I am pretty sure the official numbers back it up as being more than 22 and 20. Florida Universities usually have bad turnout compared to other States ..won’t change anything for President but may for the Amendments
worker at our precinct said the same thing about ours. They were averaging 11k per day.
Which is insane when Miami doesn’t even push weed across the line.
Yeah, 57% of the voters said YES --- but the initiative FAILS??!? Only in Florida.
Yeah it's stupid to have to get 60%.
Sounds like you skipped a little too much school. Read up.
No constitution should ever be amended by a simple majority. Hence why it's a constitution...
amendments to the Fl Constitution take 60%. Amending the state Constitution should be harder than passing a normal law. The US has to have 3/4 of the states vote for amendment. So yeah I guess 60% is way out of line. Your brains are fried to the point you will likely drown if your basement floods.
Correct. Thank God our government structure was formed by smart people with crazy good foresight.
The amendment that bumped the threshold to 60% passed with 57%. You literally cannot make this shit up.
I understand that, but Florida was passing tons of new amendments every election. often flip flopping from one to the next. It was passed with the stupid old rule in place. Constitution is there to provide a framework all laws fit into, That framework should not be easy to amend just because some special interest wants to amend it. There is no reason to have a Constitution if is no different than any other law.
The lack of education and understanding by today's so called well educated boggles the mind.
Each state was doing what the Supreme Court ordered. I truly think FLA would have passed an amendment that was a little bit tighter. I voted against it, but would have went the other way if it said 15 weeks rather than viability. and you could have even did an exception for health rape ect going further in and I would have been good.
I didn't skip anything, missouri had several amendments and they were decided by a simple majority, not a 60% threshold. There is no reason these to be 60%, other than for minority rule. I also don't really understand why something like marijuana needs to be enshrined in the Constitution and not just passing a law, but that's a separate conversation.
Last edited:
Just because you pointed at another situation, doesn't make it correct. Could you imagine where we would be every time a simple majority can add something into the state's constitution? Whatever side you are on, you don't want that. Enshrining something in our state's constitution should be difficult. Work with your elected officials if you want a law passed any other way.
Right now, if you are a democrat in a blood red state, you don't want that...
Then get rid of ballot initiatives in the first place and actually have the state legislatures do this stuff. But if you are going to have ballot initiatives then 60% threshold is ridiculous imo. 57-43% or whatever, is not a small margin when it comes to votes, but somehow the 43% is the winner. It makes no sense.
You of course can see the irony in 60% rule being enshrined by a ballot initiative that failed to secure 60% of the vote right? In a split electorate a sky is blue amendment would have trouble securing 60% of the vote.
Similar threads
