Mississippi's proposed Amendment 26 to ban birth control and abortion

[-Robin-]

Oklahoma's proposed personhood legislation does not ban abortion outright because, as Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, explained in Tulsa World, banning abortion would be in opposition to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court's determination that abortion is legal. Crain, the bill's author, asserts the bill would not prohibit in vitro fertilization or contraception. These words of assurance would be easier to believe if they weren't coming from the same man who can blithely say that this measure is not an anti-abortion law.

But the personhood measure, which defines human life to begin at the moment of conception, has the potential to be used against in vitro fertilization, the process used by physicians to fertilize a woman's eggs outside of her body. In the process, more than one egg is often fertilized and while the woman can be implanted with more than one embryo, sometimes the excess embryos are frozen or discarded. Under a personhood law, this could be deemed illegal activity.

Intrauterine devices, or IUDs, are contraceptive devices that function by making the uterine walls a place where a fertilized egg cannot implant and thus may fall under the personhood legislation.

Additionally, Oklahoma's personhood legislation, as explained in the Chicago Tribune, makes no provision for pregnancy that results from rape or incest. It does, however, state that a woman who miscarries will not be subject to legal action; that's thankfully so, because next the legislature might want to imprison people for other medical accidents or acts of God.

http://news.yahoo.com/oklahomans-ready-outlaw-abortion-contraception-vitro-fertilization-173100762.html

Uh-huh, go ahead and say the bill will not prohibit in vitro fertilization or contraception, yet still write the bill without directly saying that, thus leaving it open to interpretation. Thanks a bunch.

And good going not providing a rape or incest exemption clause on top of that while you're talking about IVF

Edited February 18, 2012 by Professor Westwood V

[-Robin-]

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-20/news/31080330_1_anti-abortion-bills-poor-women-protest

Hundreds of women locked arms and stood mute outside the Virginia State Capitol on Monday to protest a wave of anti-abortion legislation coursing through the General Assembly.

Capitol and state police officers, there to ensure order, estimated the crowd to be more than 1,000 people — mostly women. The crowd formed a human cordon through which legislators walked before Monday’s floor sessions of the Republican-controlled legislature.

The silent protest was over bills that would define embryos as humans and criminalize their destruction, require “transvaginal’’ ultrasounds of women seeking abortions, and cut state aid to poor women seeking abortions.

Molly Vick of Richmond said it was her first time to take part in a protest, but the issue was too infuriating and compelling. On her lavender shirt, she wore a sticker that said “Say No to State-Mandated Rape.’’ Just beneath the beltline of her blue jeans was a strip of yellow tape that read “Private Property: Keep Out.’’

One organizer said the event took root, was organized and publicized almost wholly through Facebook and other social media after last week’s votes on landmark anti-abortion bills racing through a legislature dominated for the first time by conservative Republicans.

“We could feel that there was a lot of outrage and emotion and people talking about these issues,’’ said Sarah Okolita, a Virginia Commonwealth University graduate student who helped arrange the Monday morning event.

The protest also came as Virginia’s highly partisan debate over abortion legislation moved into the realm of comedy and national pop culture when a segment on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live’’ lampooned ultrasound bills sponsored by Del. Kathy Byron, R-Campbell County, and Sen. Jill Vogel, R-Fauquier.

Initially, participants were kept off the interior of Capitol Square. They stood in a queue that stretched nearly three blocks on a sidewalk along the eastern perimeter of the Capitol campus. Later, after many legislators had already taken the 170-yard walk from their office building to the Capitol for their 11:30 a.m. caucus meetings and floor sessions afterward, they were allowed to take up positions inside Capitol Square.

Two or three deep, protesters lined both sides of the primary sidewalk from the General Assembly Building toward the Capitol’s west door.

Reaction from legislators varied, largely based on party affiliation.

“God bless y’all. You’re doing the right thing,’’ Del. Algie T. Howell, D-Norfolk, said as he walked past the unspeaking throng.

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, acknowledged it was “an impressive crowd.’’

Nice to see the abortion laws are not being taken without a fight. It's even nicer to know that this event was organized through Facebook and media outlets. Personhood USA may try their damnedest to pass this garbage through closed doors, but the internet sees all, and reacts.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Professor Westwood V

[Axl.EXE]

And if you think that OK's ban on abortions is fucked up, check this out:

http://thedreamthatd...st/17651850702/

I... I just... there are no words.

Virginia, acting like your Southern friends isn't cool anymore. Hasn't been cool since Civil Rights-related bills became unnecessary.

[Kevin]

And if you think that OK's ban on abortions is fucked up, check this out:

http://thedreamthatd...st/17651850702/

I... I just... there are no words.

It looks like the trans-vaginal ultrasound part got killed thankfully. Still, this doesn't excuse it being passed in the first place, and any politician that was for it should never be in office in my opinion.

[-Robin-]

Virginia kills the personhood bill until 2013.

In an unexpected move, the Virginia Senate killed the state's personhood bill, a key victory for women's groups seeking to battle the current proposals on reproductive rights.

By a 24-14 vote, the Senate agreed to a motion by Senate Republican Leader Tommy Norment (R-James City County) to push consideration of the bill to next year's legislative session. A coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the tied Senate voted for the motion; six Republican and 18 Democratic senators voted to push consideration of the bill back. Two Democratic senators abstained.

The bill was expected to pass the Senate with Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling ® providing a tie-breaking vote. Norment said he believed the bill needed more study.

The bill passed a Senate committee, with Republican support, earlier in the day, and it passed the Republican-dominated House of Delegates last week. Gov. Bob McDonnell ® had indicated that he would sign the bill.

The proposal, sponsored by Delegate Robert Marshall ®, would have granted "personhood" status to unborn children, including embryos. Similar proposals have been defeated in other states, including in a statewide referendum last year in Mississippi.

The bill's defeat comes days after McDonnell and legislative Republicans agreed to amend the bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before receiving an abortion to exclude trans-vaginal ultrasounds on women who do not consent to the practice. The ultrasound bill was passed by the House just after the personhood bill.

The defeat of the personhood bill comes amid a flurry of state-level proposals on reproductive rights, including a proposal in New Hampshire to end the state's mandate that religious organizations provide birth control insurance coverage for employees and the national debate over the Obama administration's requirement that religious organizations provide birth control insurance coverage.

Democratic groups are cheering the personhood bill's defeat.

"This is a huge win for women in the Republican war on a women's right to choose and women's health," said Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee spokeswoman Carolyn Fiddler.

Andy Jenks from NBC News 12 in Virginia tweeted that Sen. Dick Saslaw (D) is in support of the move.

Very surprising move, but nonetheless very wonderful. Now to tell Oklahoma what's on the up-and-up.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Professor Westwood V

[Patticus]

Arizona takes America's recent spate of anti-abortion law fuckwittery to a whole new level:

The Arizona government can now officially involve itself in your sex life. Whether it’s during sex, after sex or before you’ve ever met that special someone, state officials in Arizona have determined life to begin before conception.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed her name to a controversial bill on Thursday, authorizing the state to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. According to the legislation, however, the state considers the starting point of the life of a fetus to begin on the first day of the mother’s last menstrual period, essentially establishing life to begin before scientifically possible.

Weirded out? Governor Brewer says anyone with brains could get behind her reasoning in bringing pen to paper when it came to signing the bill into law.

"This legislation is consistent with my strong track record of supporting common sense measures to protect the health of women and safeguard our most vulnerable population – the unborn," Brewer insists in a statement that accompanied her signing the Women’s Health and Safety Act on Thursday, April 12.

"Knowing that abortions become riskier the later they are performed in pregnancy, it only makes sense to prohibit these procedures past 20 weeks,” says Brewer, who adds that the bill "strengthens Arizona's laws protecting the health and safety of women, and recognizes the precious life of the preborn baby."

Once a reader of the law looks into the fine print though, that 20-week mark doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. With officials now considering the gestational age of the fetus to begin on the first day of the last period, abortions can actually be banned as early as 18 weeks after conception. Lawmakers insist that complications can occur for both the mother and child if abortions are administered later than that, but the bulk of the controversy coming from Brewer’ signing isn’t about the medical consequences. Understandably, many are mad about the government getting involved between the legs and love life of everyone in Arizona.

The law “disregards women’s health in a way I’ve never seen before,” the Center for Reproductive Rights’ Jordan Goldberg explains in protest. “The women of Arizona can’t access medical treatment that other women can.”

“The point is to make it so difficult to provide abortions that no one will do it,” Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute tells The Daily Beast of the law. “Arizona likes to thumb their nose at women. They take that as a badge of honor.”

After the 20-week mark, women will have to go out of state if they want to have an abortion. They still, of course, can stay in Arizona to receive testing to determine the health of the unborn child that might not be made available any earlier in the pregnancy. As a result, Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northrup says women "will be forced to decide whether to proceed with their pregnancies in the dark, before they have all the information they need to arrive at their choices."

Supporters of the bill say it’s a step in the right direction towards protecting women, even if it means eliminating their right to choose after a certain point. Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy calls the signing a “momentous victory,” adding "Abortion not only ends the life of a preborn child, but it also seriously endangers the health and safety of women."

“Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now,” RH Reality Check’s Amanda Marcotte responded earlier this month before Brewer inked her name to the act. “Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.”

Under the legislation, the state will be subjecting everyone to new anti-abortion initiatives, as well. The law also includes a provision that makes it mandatory that the state establish a website that publishes images of fetuses at varying stages of development.

http://rt.com/usa/ne...law-brewer-003/

Insanity is the only word that I can conjure up which even begins to put into words my opinion on this science-defying piece of legislation.

There really ought to be more legal weight behind the views of medical professionals when it comes to the introduction of laws like this, because no qualified doctor with a conscience should ever think this is a good idea. Maybe there should be a federal law requiring all states to need the unreserved backing of a certain percentage of medical professionals practicing within their borders, in the fields involved, or something.

Also, Brewer is a Republican. Republicans are supposedly all about "small government". In what way is the Arizona state government's intrusion into the bedrooms of every man and woman in their state "small government"?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Patticus

[Nepenthe]

As much as the GOP bitches about Obama's spending and nanny state reforms (lol), they aren't the party of "small government" whether this be on the social front or an economics one. They just say that shit to pander to their base; whatever. But all of this lunacy is so exhausting that I can't even muster the outrage anymore. As I've reiterated beforehand, I'm just waiting for all of these people to die off and pray they haven't infected too many people in my generation with any of their nonsense.

[Tornado]

Maybe there should be a federal law requiring all states to need the unreserved backing of a certain percentage of medical professionals practicing within their borders, in the fields involved, or something.

Then they kinda-but-not-really bribe them, like pharmaceutical companies like to do. Government grants to be distributed to doctors who support it, for example.

Also, Brewer is a Republican. Republicans are supposedly all about "small government". In what way is the Arizona state government's intrusion into the bedrooms of every man and woman in their state "small government"?

Same way as when Federal GOP candidates say the same thing then try to ban gay marriage: Only when it suits them. Just like most Democrats are only for social change when it fits into their election schedule; or hell, let's just say politicians in general.

[Stacy]

Arizona takes America's recent spate of anti-abortion law fuckwittery to a whole new level:

http://rt.com/usa/ne...law-brewer-003/

Insanity is the only word that I can conjure up which even begins to put into words my opinion on this science-defying piece of legislation.

There really ought to be more legal weight behind the views of medical professionals when it comes to the introduction of laws like this, because no qualified doctor with a conscience should ever think this is a good idea. Maybe there should be a federal law requiring all states to need the unreserved backing of a certain percentage of medical professionals practicing within their borders, in the fields involved, or something.

Also, Brewer is a Republican. Republicans are supposedly all about "small government". In what way is the Arizona state government's intrusion into the bedrooms of every man and woman in their state "small government"?

Small government? More like shit Government.

So basically doctors in Arizona are like this:

[Patticus]

Then they kinda-but-not-really bribe them, like pharmaceutical companies like to do. Government grants to be distributed to doctors who support it, for example.

Son of a... There really should be some way to stop that from happening too. Maybe ban all politicians from having links of any kind to lobbyists or something. Or just ban lobbyists. That way, pharmaceutical companies can't so easily put pressure on the government. But I'm sure that'd have its own myriad problems which you'll bring up in response to this post.

Same way as when Federal GOP candidates say the same thing then try to ban gay marriage: Only when it suits them. Just like most Democrats are only for social change when it fits into their election schedule; or hell, let's just say politicians in general.

They're all equally opportunistic, it's the nature of the job to try to appeal to the largest possible number of people at any one time after all (even if that means flip-flopping like mad). It's still shameful.

[-Robin-]

I can't wait until technology is advanced enough to the point that all contraceptive substances, both of the male and female variety, are 99.howevermany9s%-100% foolproof without risk of fracture. Once that happens, the laws that medical professionals hang their heads in embarrassment over concerning reproductive health that are made in the pro-life's goal of increasing the population tenfold stopping abortions will disappear in a flash. Then lawmakers will lose incentive to care about this.....

Oh, wait, the long-term contraceptive already exists. For men.

[Emmett L. Brown]

I can't wait until technology is advanced enough to the point that all contraceptive substances, both of the male and female variety, are 99.howevermany9s%-100% foolproof without risk of fracture. Once that happens, the laws that medical professionals hang their heads in embarrassment over concerning reproductive health that are made in the pro-life's goal of increasing the population tenfold stopping abortions will disappear in a flash. Then lawmakers will lose incentive to care about this.....

Oh, wait, the long-term contraceptive already exists. For men.

[Your Vest Friend]

First day of the last period...?!

No. No. No. No.

IT'S NOT A FETUS ON THE LAST DAY OF ANY PERIOD, IT'S A GAMETE. The point of the period is that the uterus sheds whatever extra mass has developed over the previous weeks because no fertilisation has occured. Ergo, the gamete on the first day of the last period cannot possibly be new life because the period means that it's destroyed.

Can't someone shove them a basic biology textbook? There's dumb, and then there's this.

[Candescence]

First day of the last period...?!

No. No. No. No.

IT'S NOT A FETUS ON THE LAST DAY OF ANY PERIOD, IT'S A GAMETE. The point of the period is that the uterus sheds whatever extra mass has developed over the previous weeks because no fertilisation has occured. Ergo, the gamete on the first day of the last period cannot possibly be new life because the period means that it's destroyed.

Can't someone shove them a basic biology textbook? There's dumb, and then there's this.

[Patticus]

Apparently, most doctors measure the age of the fetus from the last menstrual cycle, because that is a definite, measurable date. Ovulation and fertilization etc aren't. Apparently. I thought you calculated it from the day the woman had sex, you know, when sperm was introduced into the equation... but it seems that's not what they do.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Patticus

[Your Vest Friend]

Apparently, most doctors measure the age of the fetus from the last menstrual cycle, because that is a definite, measurable date.

[Patticus]

Similarly though, if the woman has sex a few times within a few times with several different people (slut etc), then got pregnant, how could you use fertilization as a measurable date of conception? You'd never know for sure what date was the right one. So I can sort of see why they'd go by menstrual cycle, despite its fluctuations and instabilities. But I still don't think it's okay to factor that extra however many weeks pre-sex dating back to the period into the abortion time limit.

[-Robin-]

We have two abortion-related threads, so I'm guessing this is the appropriate spot to post current events surrounding the issue.

A Texas federal judge has stopped Rick Perry's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood from the Women's Health Program because it was affiliated with abortion providers.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel in Austin ruled there is sufficient evidence that a law banning Planned Parenthood from the program is unconstitutional. He imposed an injunction against enforcing it until he can hear full arguments. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed Yeakel's decision to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking that it remove the injunction.

The law passed last year by the Republican-controlled Legislature forbids state agencies from providing funds to an organization affiliated with abortion providers. Texas law already required that groups receiving federal or state funding be legally and financially separate from clinics that perform abortions.

Eight Planned Parenthood clinics that do not provide abortions sued over the new law. The clinics say it unconstitutionally restricts their freedom of speech and association to qualify to take part in state health programs.

The judge accepted Planned Parenthood's argument that banning the organization from the program would leave women without access to clinics for basic health services and check-ups.

"The court is particularly influenced by the potential for immediate loss of access to necessary medical services by several thousand Texas women," Yeakel wrote in his ruling. "The record before the court at this juncture reflects uncertainty as to the continued viability of the Texas Women's Health Program."

Edited May 1, 2012 by Modern Tom

[Patticus]

Kansas has captured the bag. The bag marked 'stupid retarded bullshit'.

In March, Addictinginfo reported on a dangerous anti-abortion bill being considered by the Republican dominated Kansas House of Representatives. We are now horrified to report that the Kansas House has passed that bill and it now goes to the Senate.

Republicans are poised to make the 69 page bill the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation. Among the provisions include:

• A sales tax on all abortions. Even rape victims would have to pay the tax, which could be as high as 6.3%. Despite their objections to millionaires paying more taxes, Republicans feel it’s okay to tax women for making a personal decision about their own bodies. This makes abortion more expensive.

• A personhood measure that would define life as beginning at conception, which would almost certainly make abortion equivalent to murder and outlaw all abortion in the state of Kansas. Many forms of contraception could also be banned.

• A measure that significantly limits abortions in the third trimester.

• A provision that bans women from claiming abortion insurance coverage and services on their taxes.

• Doctors are hereby ordered to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer, which is a damned lie.

• Doctors are also shielded from lawsuits if they withhold critical health information from pregnant women that could cause them to decide to have an abortion. In other words, they don’t have to tell women about the health of the fetus they carry and don’t have to tell women about any problems with the pregnancy.

Such measures would make it nearly impossible for women to get an abortion in the state of Kansas. They would severely restrict a woman’s right to make her own health decisions. And the bill forces women to submit to the will of men. This is by far the most dangerous anti-abortion bill in the country and puts the lives of women in danger. Republicans are declaring that abortion is a cause of cancer despite the fact that real science has proved otherwise, and yet, they are forcing doctors to falsely tell pregnant women that if they get an abortion, cancer could follow, even though many top health organizations have proven that such a connection is a total myth.

The tax is also a major issue in this bill. According to Planned Parenthood this bill could require those who enforce the tax to view the private medical records of women, which would violate medical privacy laws, and could apply a sales tax on contraception. And since poor women are more likely to obtain an abortion, it places a steeper financial burden on that particular group.

Republicans are so obsessed with ending abortion that they are willing to lie to women to scare them from having one and are willing to tax them and pry into their private medical records. It’s despicable and totally unethical. This is nothing but a persecution and proves without a shadow of a doubt which party is really trying to create a big tyrannical government. None of this bill is being voted on by the people of Kansas. It’s being forced upon them by a group of conservative extremists who want to control the reproductive choices of women. If this bill passes the Senate, Governor Brownback has already stated that he will sign it, even though he hasn’t read it. And when he signs it, it will be crystal clear which state in America women should steer clear of at all costs if they want to keep their privacy and personal liberty.

http://www.addicting...-in-the-nation/

Facepalms and sighs are all I can bring myself to 'do' in reaction to this.

Why are Republican-led state governments so damned intent on running (and ruining) everyone's lives (particularly those of women)? Are they aware of how abhorrent, despotic and counter-democratic they have become?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Kansas has captured the bag. The bag marked 'stupid retarded bullshit'.

http://www.addicting...-in-the-nation/

Facepalms and sighs are all I can bring myself to 'do' in reaction to this.

Why are Republican-led state governments so damned intent on running (and ruining) everyone's lives (particularly those of women)? Are they aware of how abhorrent, despotic and counter-democratic they have become?

I have no doubt they are fully aware, they just don't give a shit because they think everyone is too spineless or ignorant to care what they do.

[Patticus]

I have no doubt they are fully aware, they just don't give a shit because they think everyone is too spineless or ignorant to care what they do.

I'm pretty sure it's exactly that attitude among certain of the more tax-happy British parliamentarians which lead in some way to this country gaining independence in the first place,

Lord North's heirs are American, it seems...

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I'm pretty sure it's exactly that attitude among certain of the more tax-happy British parliamentarians which lead in some way to this country gaining independence in the first place,

Well I would hope it would be a nasty shock to the them if that ever did happen.

[Patticus]

Well I would hope it would be a nasty shock to the them if that ever did happen.

They'd probably rather enjoy another civil war, as it'd provide the perfect excuse to crack down on all those other pesky civil liberties they keep getting bothered by, while carving out their own fiefdoms in the process.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

They'd probably rather enjoy another civil war, as it'd provide the perfect excuse to crack down on all those other pesky civil liberties they keep getting bothered by, while carving out their own fiefdoms in the process.

America, the land of 1950s, where your civil liberties mean nothing and only "TRUE RELIGIOUS CAUCASIAN REPUBLICAN MEN" are real people.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Enigma The Lazy

[Patticus]

I think the fact that Doctors are being ordered to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer is perhaps one of the most heinous and outrageous parts of this bill. It's entirely false, without any basis in fact, and it's completely unethical to boot. Any Doctor who complies with this, law or no law, is violating everything they should stand for, and deserves to have their license taken away. Hell, they should be jailed.

The same goes with being shielded from lawsuits for not informing parents of critical health information. Health problems with the baby can have just as much of an effect as abortion, if not more of one, on the mother.