Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12123
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#26

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:51 am

[link]Judge blocks Kan. law defunding Planned Parenthood,http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-01/n ... y-planning[/link]An incredulous federal judge on Monday rejected the state’s claim that a new Kansas statute that denied Planned Parenthood federal funding did not target the group, ruling that the law unconstitutionally intended to punish Planned Parenthood for advocating for abortion rights and would likely be overturned.U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten granted the request from Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri for a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, which would require the state to allocate federal family planning dollars first to public health departments and hospitals, and leave no money for Planned Parenthood or similar groups.Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said the state will appeal the ruling, which orders Kansas to continue providing the federal Title X grant funding to Planned Parenthood.Marten’s order handed the state its second major setback after abortion foes succeeded in pushing through the Republican-controlled Legislature a slew of anti-abortion legislation, only to see federal judges quickly block their enforcement. Last month in a separate lawsuit, a federal judge in Kansas City, Kan., also temporarily blocked stringent new abortion clinic regulations.More at the [link]link,http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-01/n ... y-planning[/link]
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
majorbabs
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm

Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#27

Post by majorbabs » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:19 am

It seems that Republicans hate women (I know, surprise, surprise.) "The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill (HR 358) that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, [highlight]even in cases where a woman would die without it[/highlight]. Ironically, the bill is dubbed " the [highlight]“Protect Life Act”[/highlight] and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.)." Opponents have rechristened the measure the “Let Women Die” bill. [/break1]org/health/2011/10/12/341070/house-gop-proposes-so-called-let-women-die-bill-that-lets-hospitals-deny-life-saving-care/]Let the Women Die Bill

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#28

Post by verbalobe » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:16 am

It seems that Republicans hate women (I know, surprise, surprise.) "The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill (HR 358) that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, [highlight]even in cases where a woman would die without it[/highlight]. Ironically, the bill is dubbed " the [highlight]“Protect Life Act”[/highlight] and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.)." Opponents have rechristened the measure the “Let Women Die” bill. [/break1]org/health/2011/10/12/341070/house-gop-proposes-so-called-let-women-die-bill-that-lets-hospitals-deny-life-saving-care/]Let the Women Die BillI read the bill. It is written as an amendment to the Affordable Care Act, so parts of it are impossible to understand without a copy of the published Act handy. And even so, the parts that purport to mean "federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions [may] refuse to perform the procedure" are very hard for a non-sausage-maker to parse. Just sayin'.It seems like Stupak-on-steroids-on-steroids.One interesting side note: It prohibits "discrimination" against hospitals that refuse to perform abortions. Yet of course says nothing about prohibiting discrimination against hospitals that DO perform abortions. I don't think that word "discrimination" means what they think it means.Another side note: I don't think it's just hospitals. It seems to rope in any and all health facilities of any kind or anything similar to a health facility.Last side note: I find myself sickly amused to read a bill like this, which proposes to amend "ObamaCare," and which necessarily cites Sections, paragraphs, sub-paragraphs, by number and letter, striking phrases, inserting clauses, etc., etc. While I bet there are still Tea Partiers and Fox Heads out there claiming that nobody has read the Act.Obviously, whatever this mystery Act does, it doesn't go far enough in its stated purpose of making sure all women who ever get impregnated are compelled to carry to term. /snark

User avatar
majorbabs
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm

Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#29

Post by majorbabs » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:36 am

Last side note: I find myself sickly amused to read a bill like this, [highlight]which proposes to amend "ObamaCare," and which necessarily cites Sections, paragraphs, sub-paragraphs, by number and letter, striking phrases, inserting clauses, etc., etc[/highlight]. While I bet there are still Tea Partiers and Fox Heads out there claiming that nobody has read the Act.Obviously, whatever this mystery Act does, it doesn't go far enough in its stated purpose of making sure all women who ever get impregnated are compelled to carry to term. /snarkI guess it's OK to use Obamacare when you're "on a mission from God."Meanwhile, Virginia Foxx added her two cents: "For my colleagues across the aisle who say this is a misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women than I have. But fifty percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted are females. So the misogyny comes from those that promote the killing of unborn babies. That’s where the misogyny comes in."[/break1]org/health/2011/10/14/343630/foxx-praises-let-women-die-bill/]Virginia Foxx Champion of Women -- Not

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31130
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#30

Post by mimi » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:48 am

It seems that Republicans hate women (I know, surprise, surprise.) "The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill (HR 358) that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, [highlight]even in cases where a woman would die without it[/highlight]. Ironically, the bill is dubbed " the [highlight]“Protect Life Act”[/highlight] and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.)."





Opponents have rechristened the measure the “Let Women Die” bill.





[/break1]org/health/2011/10/12/341070/house-gop-proposes-so-called-let-women-die-bill-that-lets-hospitals-deny-life-saving-care/]Let the Women Die Bill

I thought they passed that bill. Friday was "Abortion Day" on Capital Hill. It was unusual that Democrats took to the floor to denounce the GOP for yet another bill that would go nowhere. Obama had already said that if it made it to his desk, he would veto it.





Sarah Kliff posted in the WaPo on Friday: "The real abortion battle isn’t on the Hill. It’s in the states":








But ever since the reform law passed, it’s been a hot-button issue. This legislative session alone, 24 states considered laws that would restrict insurance coverage for abortion. Thirteen of those laws passed. Eight bar any private insurance plan from covering abortion, while the rest only apply to plans purchased on the exchanges, the new health insurance marketplaces that will launch in 2014.





That’s a really big shift from just two years ago, when only five states barred private insurance plans from covering abortion. Here’s what the map looks like post-health reform, courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union...





More of that here.





[/break1]washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-real-abortion-battle-isnt-on-the-hill-its-in-the-states/2011/10/13/gIQAPitXhL_blog.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html








*I checked. Yeah, GOP passed that bill.

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#31

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:35 am

The narrated ultrasound image requirement of a new NC law was blocked by a USDC Judge.A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the most controversial part of the state's abortion-restriction law, which goes into effect today: the requirement that patients be presented with a narrated ultrasound image of their womb within four hours of the operation.U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles granted a request for a preliminary injunction sought by several national and state civil-rights organizations that sued late last month. Eagles upheld all other provisions of the law, at least until the lawsuit is resolved.Eagles ruled the ultrasound requirement is probably an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The rights groups argued that the provision amounted to using women's bodies as virtual billboards to promote government-mandated ideology.The judge wrote in her order, "The First Amendment generally includes the right to refuse to engage in speech compelled by the government," and she added that freedom of speech precludes limits on "both what to say and what not to say."[/break1]charlotteobserver.com/2011/10/26/2722141/ultrasound-rule-struck-from-nc.html]http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/1 ... om-nc.htmlJudge Eagles was nominated by President Obama to the USDC for the Middle District of North Carolina in 2010.[/break1]whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-nominates-judge-catherine-eagles-judge-kimberly-mueller-and-john-j-]http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... nd-john-j-

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#32

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:33 pm

State laws such as this need to be blocked.The new law, which the North Carolina General Assembly passed in July over the veto of Governor Bev Perdue, would require abortion providers to perform an ultrasound and place the image in the woman’s line of sight. The provider would then be required to describe the embryo or fetus in detail and to offer the woman the opportunity to hear the “fetal heart tone.” While the law would allow the woman to avert her eyes and to “refuse to hear,” the provider would still be required to place the images in front of her and describe them in detail. The measure would make no exceptions for women under any circumstances, including cases of rape, incest, or those who receive a tragic diagnosis during pregnancy.[/break1]acluofnc.org/?q=federal-court-blocks-demeaning-north-carolina-ultrasound-law]http://www.acluofnc.org/?q=federal-cour ... asound-lawThe court's preliminary injunction and ultrasound opinion are available.[/break1]acluofnc.org/files/Preliminary%20Injunction%20-%2010-25-11.pdf]http://www.acluofnc.org/files/Prelimina ... -25-11.pdf[/break1]acluofnc.org/files/Ultrasound%20Opinion%20102511.pdf]http://www.acluofnc.org/files/Ultrasoun ... 102511.pdf

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31130
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#33

Post by mimi » Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:54 pm

Yes, I don't know how all of these state laws are being passed. When contraceptives are banned, perhaps people will notice what has been happening.

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#34

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:19 pm

Around this part of the country its usually South Dakota, Oklahoma and Kansas that pass legislation they know will be sued immediately. They all look forward to the lawsuits praying that theirs will be the one to overtune Casey. Kansas recently subcontracted the work to defend one of the lawsuits (it wasn't cheap) instead of having their AG's office defend the suit themselves.





Derek Schmidt is the Kansas Attorney General.


Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka said that unlike previous attorneys general, Schmidt awarded the contract to Foulston Siefkin without seeking bids from other firms. Hensley said it amounted to a "kickback" to the firm who's partners include Harvey Sorensen, co-chairman of Schmidt's 2010 attorney general campaign.[/break1]ljworld.com/news/2011/jul/15/kansas-attorney-general-responds-criticism-hiring-/?print]http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/jul/1 ... ng-/?print

User avatar
spiduh
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:00 pm
Location: Zuckerman farm

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#35

Post by spiduh » Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:52 am

Old thread but seems like the right place...
There are several parts of the unsettlingly comprehensive bill that different outlets have singled out: It requires women to pay for funeral services for their fetuses after getting an abortion or miscarrying. It forces women who want to get an abortion due to lethal fetal abnormalities to undergo counseling that encourages them to carry the doomed and potentially dangerous pregnancy to term. It forbids women from getting an abortion based on fetal disability. It prohibits sex-selective abortions—a fairly common justification for abortion restrictions, one for which there is "limited and inconclusive evidence," according to the Guttmacher Institute. In a statement, the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) called the legislation "one of the most vicious omnibus anti-abortion bills the United States has ever seen."
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ ... s-funerals

ETA: Funeral service not required, cremation or burial is.
“If they kill me, grab my phone.” –Ammon Bundy (Reuters)
"Yes, I Did Turn the Flying Monkeys Loose!" -Anna von Reitz (FB)
"I 'Self Identify' as a female" -Jon Ritzheimer (FB)

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12123
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#36

Post by Whatever4 » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:29 am

spiduh wrote:Old thread but seems like the right place...
There are several parts of the unsettlingly comprehensive bill that different outlets have singled out: It requires women to pay for funeral services for their fetuses after getting an abortion or miscarrying. It forces women who want to get an abortion due to lethal fetal abnormalities to undergo counseling that encourages them to carry the doomed and potentially dangerous pregnancy to term. It forbids women from getting an abortion based on fetal disability. It prohibits sex-selective abortions—a fairly common justification for abortion restrictions, one for which there is "limited and inconclusive evidence," according to the Guttmacher Institute. In a statement, the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) called the legislation "one of the most vicious omnibus anti-abortion bills the United States has ever seen."
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ ... s-funerals
That's insane. How is requiring funeral services not a violation of the 1st Amendment? Forcing a woman to carry a disabled fetus? And this got passed?
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7903
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#37

Post by Flatpointhigh » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:33 am

Whatever4 wrote:
spiduh wrote:Old thread but seems like the right place...
There are several parts of the unsettlingly comprehensive bill that different outlets have singled out: It requires women to pay for funeral services for their fetuses after getting an abortion or miscarrying. It forces women who want to get an abortion due to lethal fetal abnormalities to undergo counseling that encourages them to carry the doomed and potentially dangerous pregnancy to term. It forbids women from getting an abortion based on fetal disability. It prohibits sex-selective abortions—a fairly common justification for abortion restrictions, one for which there is "limited and inconclusive evidence," according to the Guttmacher Institute. In a statement, the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) called the legislation "one of the most vicious omnibus anti-abortion bills the United States has ever seen."
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ ... s-funerals
That's insane. How is requiring funeral services not a violation of the 1st Amendment? Forcing a woman to carry a disabled fetus? And this got passed?
Women, like children, are Chattel.

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

User avatar
spiduh
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:00 pm
Location: Zuckerman farm

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#38

Post by spiduh » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:35 am

Passed and signed, apparently. The NPR article doesn't mention the funeral stuff, only the disability though so perhaps further research is warranted.
But as Indiana Public Broadcasting's Brandon Smith tells our Newscast unit, even some anti-abortion lawmakers thought the legislation was a step too far:

"Several state lawmakers. including Republicans who have authored anti-abortion legislation in the past, argued vehemently against it. They said the measure, which bans abortions performed because of a fetus's characteristics, demeans women and lacks compassion.

"One lawmaker said it signals a return to the time of backroom abortions. Doctors urged the governor to veto the bill, warning that patients could feel pressure to lie to their doctors."

Supporters of the bill say it "protects people with disabilities from discrimination — saving the lives, for instance, of those with Down syndrome," as Brandon reports.

"We are pleased that our state values life no matter an individual's potential disability, gender or race," Mike Fichter, the head of Indiana Right to Life, said in a statement.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... s-into-law
“If they kill me, grab my phone.” –Ammon Bundy (Reuters)
"Yes, I Did Turn the Flying Monkeys Loose!" -Anna von Reitz (FB)
"I 'Self Identify' as a female" -Jon Ritzheimer (FB)

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12123
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#39

Post by Whatever4 » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:37 am

Ok, I read the synopsis of the law. Funeral service is not required. Cremation or burial is. The law is written to prevent use of fetal tissue for any use other than autopsy. Remains can't be transported out of state.

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bil ... st-heading
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28432
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#40

Post by Foggy » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:52 am

So in other words, it's not just about anti-abortion, and it's not just making women chattel.

It's also about preventing critically needed medical research by denying researchers access to fetal tissue.

Evil plus evil squared, multiplied buy more evil with a little spritz of evil sauce and a cherry on top. :cussing:
Any time my questions are all fully answered, I know I'm asking the wrong questions. - Bernard Samson

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12123
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#41

Post by Whatever4 » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:06 am

My problem with the original article (and what it linked to) is that it invented a Horibble Thing that didn't exist. The law is bad enough without adding falsehoods.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7903
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#42

Post by Flatpointhigh » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:08 am

These sort of laws are all about "Horrible Things" and falsehoods

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#43

Post by SueDB » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:28 am

Flatpointhigh wrote:These sort of laws are all about "Horrible Things" and falsehoods
But aren't they Female based things - females the cause of all male troubles moronity... :roll:
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
spiduh
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:00 pm
Location: Zuckerman farm

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#44

Post by spiduh » Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:59 pm

Well this is the most horrible thing you'll read all day.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -baby.html
“If they kill me, grab my phone.” –Ammon Bundy (Reuters)
"Yes, I Did Turn the Flying Monkeys Loose!" -Anna von Reitz (FB)
"I 'Self Identify' as a female" -Jon Ritzheimer (FB)

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12123
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#45

Post by Whatever4 » Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:55 am

So as not to further hijack the Trump Dimp.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... icalpulpit

Women Are Already Being Prosecuted for Having Abortions
This week presidential frontrunner Donald Trump stated that women who have abortions should receive some form of punishment. The Republican Party and conservatives across the nation reacted with surprise and anger and disavowed Trump’s comments, arguing that abortion doctors, and not women who receive abortions, should be punished. This entire conversation misses a very important point—in our country today, women are already being jailed for having abortions.

It’s happening in Georgia:
A 23-year-old Georgia woman is facing a charge of “malice murder” — a crime that is punishable by the death penalty — after allegedly ending her pregnancy by taking abortion-inducing medication that she purchased online.

The case presents just the latest example of a U.S. woman who’s been arrested and criminally charged for taking abortion pills, even though advocates on both sides of the abortion debate typically say that desperate women should not face jail time for attempting to end a pregnancy.
- many more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... NYkwj.dpuf
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
spiduh
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:00 pm
Location: Zuckerman farm

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#46

Post by spiduh » Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:21 am

Women Are Trolling This Anti-Abortion Governor in a Hilarious Way
Women are calling Gov. Mike Pence to tell them about their periods in response to a new prohibitive law.

Women who can't even with Indiana's new anti-abortion law are protesting it in a hilarious way — by calling Gov. Mike Pences's office to tell him about their periods. Pence and other anti-abortion lawmakers seem to be so concerned about women's reproductive health and what's going on with a woman's body that they'd love to hear more stories about menstruation, right?

Among other restrictions, House Bill 1337 bans abortions that are sought for diagnoses of a disability (like Down Syndrome), requires women to view an ultrasound and listen to the fetal heartbeat within at least 18 hours of their abortion procedure, requires providers to cremate or bury aborted fetuses, and criminalizes the transfer or collection of fetal tissue (which is used in medical research to understand diseases like the Zika virus and HIV/AIDS).
:snippity:
Just got through to Governor Pence's office. (The operator must be on break.) Me: Hi, is this the operator, or the Governor's office?Them: Um, this is the office, but I am covering for the operator right now.Me: "Oh, good. I need to get a message to the Governor that I am on day three of my period. My flow seems abnormally heavy, but my cramps are much better to--"Them: (Seriously pissed and trying to keep their voice down, but not quite succeeding) MA'AM, WHAT IS IT THAT I CAN HELP YOU WITH?Me: Oh, I don't need your help, I just wanted to keep Governor Pence informed of my reproductive cycle, since he seems so concerned.Them: "Ugh." *click*

Them: "Good Morning, Governor Pence's office"Me: "Good Morning. I just wanted to inform the Governor that things seem to be drying up today. No babies seem to be up in there. Okay?"Them: (Sounding strangely horrified and chipper at the same time) "Ma'am, can we have your name?"Me: "Sure. It's Sue."Them: "And your last name?"Me: "Magina. That's M-A-G-I-N-A. It rhymes with--"Them: "I've got it." *Click*
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/ne ... -abortion/
“If they kill me, grab my phone.” –Ammon Bundy (Reuters)
"Yes, I Did Turn the Flying Monkeys Loose!" -Anna von Reitz (FB)
"I 'Self Identify' as a female" -Jon Ritzheimer (FB)

DrIrvingFinegarten
Posts: 682
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:11 pm

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#47

Post by DrIrvingFinegarten » Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:57 pm

Last week I was having a discussion with someone on another board about the exceptions for rape and incest.
The person I was having the argument with said that they're not consistent with the pro-life position.
My stance has always been it's not the rape victim's fault, therefore, the pregnancy is not her responsibility.
I have a hard time saying to a rape victim "Well, maybe you should have thought about that before you were raped."
Their response is "Would you tell the baby "Maybe you should have thought about that before you were conceived."

I think that's a bogus argument. He also asked the hypothetical about if a mother has a right to kill a 2 or 3-year-old if she finds out the child was the result of a rape.
Another bogus argument. It never happens, It's never happened and it couldn't happen.

Why do I keep losing these arguments?

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 8026
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#48

Post by Estiveo » Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:34 pm

Image
Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5393
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#49

Post by magdalen77 » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:43 pm

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote:Last week I was having a discussion with someone on another board about the exceptions for rape and incest.
The person I was having the argument with said that they're not consistent with the pro-life position.
My stance has always been it's not the rape victim's fault, therefore, the pregnancy is not her responsibility.
I have a hard time saying to a rape victim "Well, maybe you should have thought about that before you were raped."
Their response is "Would you tell the baby "Maybe you should have thought about that before you were conceived."

I think that's a bogus argument. He also asked the hypothetical about if a mother has a right to kill a 2 or 3-year-old if she finds out the child was the result of a rape.
Another bogus argument. It never happens, It's never happened and it couldn't happen.

Why do I keep losing these arguments?
Aside from the fact that in quite a few states (Pennsylvania being one) the rapist has parental rights. So, the victim ends up in an eighteen relationship with her rapist.

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5393
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Anti-Abortion Legislation and Lawsuits

#50

Post by magdalen77 » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:57 pm

The Rethugs in PA are trying to restrict abortion to no later than 19 weeks with no exception for rape, incest or fetal abnormality. In practice it would severely limit D& E procedures that are typically used to remove what's left of a miscarriage. Also it adds on a mandatory second opinion/second doctor in attendance along with the anti-abortionists very favorite requirements for fetal ultrasounds and the woman must be forced to listen to its heartbeat.

Sometimes I think Rethugs just fuck with women to show they can. Because this is certainly not about the mother's health if you want to force her to carry around the remains of a miscarriage until it can be vaginally delivered or (presumably) threatens the mother's life enough to "allow" emergency surgery.

Fortunately Governor Wolf has promised to veto it.

Post Reply

Return to “Social Issues”