"I am talking about the GOP federal law that would prohibit the nine NO RESTRICTION abortion states from killing babies for any reason up to birth."

Okay, so the only examples of 20 week abortion bans that are present in the USA.

These bans do not have the provisions you claim they do; and do not have the provisions that the left claim they do not.

You seem to be conceding that this is the case.

As per federal Law. The 2015 proposed bill again, didn't have all the exceptions I mentioned, though went further than the state laws.

You claim "Left's excuses are ludicrus"; but Planned Parenthood among others explicitly stated it was the lack of provision for emergency abortion in cases of lethal disease and non-viability were the reasons for it's opposition.

You appear to be confusing the complaints of democrats against multiple different bills: to the point I can't find a single democrat saying that the 2015 bill didn't include provisions for rape or incest at a time when it did.

"For the Texas law you mentioned, how many emergency situations, that might pop up, would it take to bother you."

The same number or the same chances of emergency situations that might popup as the result of any generalized non-surgical or basic medical operation that would be conducted at a GP office, for example.

There are innumerable types of medical facilities (GP or Dialysis provision, blood work, labs, etc) where emergency situations are more likely to arise; if saving peoples lives is the aim, why not apply the same standard to all of those. Even worse, the complications due to abortion are generally much lower risk than the complications due to giving birth; so that argument is effectively that a 1/10000 risk of complications is unacceptable, so we pass laws that effectively raise that risk to 1/1000

No, this is just an attempt to legislate abortion providers out of business via a back-door.

"The Democrat Party always fight the GOP when they want to force abortion clinics to provide emergency medical treatment for botched late term abortions of viable babies born alive"

Abortion providers already have the capacity and ability to provide emergency medical treatment.

Democrats oppose even more stringent regulations that mean that the buildings, equipment, facilities, doors, wirings, processes, and much more are the same level as a hospital which is completely unrequired in order for that facility to save lives.

Why require them to have corridors four gurneys wide, like a hospital, when they deal with 6 clients at a time, and the chances of them requiring a gurney at all are effectively 0.

This is simply misrepresentation.

"If you actually don't think Planned Parenthood can not get around using funding in any manner they choose, I have a bridge to sell you."

Please explain how.

The Hyde Amendment prevents the use of federal funds to fund abortion.

Planned Parent hood gets reimbursed for medicaid screenings, preventative medicine, like breast cancer, etc.

When they charge medicaid for a breast cancer screen, are they lying? Did they perform that screen?

When they charge $1000 for a procedure, is the market rate for that procedure about $1000? Or higher.

If both of those are correct, how exactly are they getting around the Hyde Ammendment?

But basically, in the midst of all your vitriolic name calling; you seem to have changed your argument. You claimed that the GOP were not revoking funding for medical screenings etc; and now you have changed that to implying that they are, but it's democrats fault.

I think, in reality, you are confusing a great many things: it is obvious given the facts (if you care to search them) that your claims are untrue at both the State level law (with the GOP behaving much worse than you claim they are, and the democrats not unfairly opposing various laws); and untrue at the Federal level (with the GOP not including key abortion provisions, and the democrats opposing that reason; not the grotesquely unfair examples)

You are also misrepresenting the texas laws concerning the medical facilities; not realizing how it applies unevenly, whilst pretending it is for health.

Even despite that, you still seem to be arguing that it is the democrats forcing everything down your throat and forcing your taxes to pay for abortion.

They do not.

It is illegal for federal funds to be used to support abortion.

I ban deceptive idiots, vulgar idiots, childish idots, any idiot that wastes our time.

What about emotional crybabies who type in ALL CAPS, call people names and use seven exclamation marks to get their point across?

Banning is the best way to tell someone they are acting like a total idiot and better improve themselves or they will continue being banned.

By "improve themselves" you mean becoming conservative, i.e. agreeing with you. If they agree with your worldview they can be as idiotic as they like and they don't get banned.

Liberals believe in the no fault anything goes lunacy and they would allow our world to be controlled by the losers in life.

You know who I would ban if I didn't believe in people's right to exercise their idiotic opinions? The people who waste my time with fallacious arguments and ad hominems.

By the way, I also ban people who constantly whine about being banned.

Is that meant to be a threat?

The real reason why you ban people is because you spend most of your time insulting and belittling those who disagree with you. You're xenophobic, will never admit anyone who doesn't share your worldview might actually have a point, you appeal to emotion rather than logic, and you insult the person rather than the argument.

You think the USA is the only country in the world, you think that every issue you bring up applies only to your own country and you seem to think everyone outside the US is some kind of barbarian.

You skim-read counter-arguments, answer the debate you want to answer, and knowingly and deceptively take the debate on tangents purely because you think you'll get an advantage over the debate and not because you're actually interested in debating it.

I've seen people engage you in debates simply for the sake of trolling, which I'm not surprised by. You're so easy to rile up. But most people who disagree with you are polite and courteous. You rarely return the courtesy; a few choice insults and maybe a link to a right-wing source if you can be bothered to do so.

And then you ban them because you don't want dissenting opinions on your debates earning points for the side you don't support.

Most of us moderates (i.e. those who are not extremists) consider being banned by you a badge of honour. You're threatening to ban me? I've just delivered a truth bomb. Now prove the point I'm making, and ban me.