Posted on 09/21/2017 6:02:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging a provision of a Maine law that says abortions can only be performed by physicians.
The ACLU claims that the law “significantly restricts patient access to abortion services in Maine, and prevents some Maine women from receiving an abortion from their regular primary and gynecological care provider,” and “blocks qualified nurse practitioners and nurse-midwives (also known as advanced practice registered nurses, or APRNs) from doing so, despite their rigorous post-graduate training and extensive clinical experience.”
“Today, while medication abortion is available via telemedicine in some cases, there are only three publicly accessible health centers in Maine where a woman can get an in-clinic abortion,” they add. “If this medically unjustified restriction is blocked, that number will increase to at least 18 locations across this large, rural state.”
The lawsuit says that only allowing physicians to perform abortions “imposes severe burdens on women seeking abortions, violates federal constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection.”
Laws requiring that abortions be provided only by medical doctors are currently on the books in 41 states, but Planned Parenthood is hoping to change that.
“All of us want women to have access to safe medical care,” Dr. Raegan McDonald-Moseley, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood commented Wednesday. “Medical experts oppose outdated restrictions like this one because they don't help keep women safe, and aren't grounded in thorough research or the best science. We are in court on behalf of our patients, because everyone deserves the right to access safe, legal abortion.”
“We are against violence inside and outside the womb,” McCann-Tumidajski, executive director of Maine Right to Life, commented. “We don’t want to open up new avenues of access to abortion.”
Is this a trick question?
I wouldn’t trust those retards with a potato gun.
“Trust” and “government” are two words that should never appear together.
I think maybe you posted the wrong story to the headline?
As a delightful English chap once said to me, in a thick cockney accent:
"Tell the truth to those people and they'll tyke you to the cleaners!"
I don’t trust the government with my junk mail. That’s why I shred it.
The problem is that Maine’s AG is a pro-abort baby murdering scum.
They've been doing that for years. The basic concept is that if the customer pays for the labor hours to develop software, they own the source code. If the vendor develops software on his own and merely tries to sell the finished product, the vendor owns the source code.
Literally the only change that I can see here is this:
Section 2320(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
“(J) The Secretary of Defense shall require the following with respect to software delivery:“(i) Software shall be delivered in native electronic format.“(ii) Builds must not be dependent upon pre-defined build directories.
“(iii) In the case of licensing restrictions that do not allow library dependency inclusion, verified accessible repositories and revision history shall be documented and included.
(Translation: when they buy software produced at government expense, they want EVERYTHING needed to recompile the software. If the software uses third party libraries, provide the information on those third party libraries so that the government can get those libraries in case the software needs to be recompiled)
Example: if the government pays a company to develop a Java Enterprise Edition application, the company must include any libraries used in building the Java application; they must also include full documentation on which Oracle Java libraries that are used.
Hate to say it, but it's reasonable: why should a company that's paid to write software FOR THE GOVERNMENT be able to hold the government over a barrel from that point forward?
Again, this is talking about software that is written FOR the government and using the government's dime, not COTS software.
Absolutely not. My trust only goes so far. And this is a bit over the top.
About as far as I would trust my pigs to guard my corn muffins.
The same sort of people who can’t even set traffic light timing to aid the flow of traffic?
No. But then I’m not an intellectual.
Intellectual: An individual who is not capable of providing goods or services of value to others, who pontificates and expects to be paid for it, usually from the public treasury.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.