Democratic no bash part 2

Dish on the soaps, primetime TV shows, or just chat about whatever is on your mind.
User avatar
simplyirresistible
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:39 am

Re: Democratic no bash part 2

Postby simplyirresistible » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:36 am

Quote OspreyGirl: A bill introduced by nine Republican state lawmakers in Iowa on Wednesday would define abortion as “murder,” sending doctors and raped women who terminate pregnancies to jail.

State Rep. Tom Shaw says that he authored House File 138 to protect human life, whether “you’re a zygote, an infant, a teenager or an adult.”

The bill defines a “person” as “an individual human being, without regard to age of development, from the moment of conception, when a zygote is formed, until natural death.”

“Murder includes killing another person through any means that terminates the life of the other person including but not limited to the use of abortion-inducing drugs,” the measure states without making any exceptions for rape or incest.

Republican state Rep. Rob Bacon, who is co-sponsoring the bill, told the Ames Tribune that he wanted to “protect the life of the unborn” because “[t]here’s still some of us that believe life begins at conception.”

During a Wednesday interview with Denver Bible Church pastor Bob Enyart, Shaw explained that defining a fertilized egg as a “person” in Iowa’s murder statute “just simplifies everything.”

“So when anyone has any questions towards us — the war on women, are you doing this, are you doing that? — no, it’s a simple response,” he insisted. “We are only defining who a person is.”

“There was a lot of concern with former bills about who would be charged, what would they be charged with… This puts it in the hands of county attorneys, just like any other murder investigation. A person is a person.”

According to Democratic state Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, the new definition of murder would mean that women were jailed if they had an abortion after being raped or to save their own lives.

“We’re talking about the victim of rape would go to prison along with her rapist,” she told the Tribune. “It’s very hard to understand the feeling behind it. It’s a health care issue, I mean, sometimes in order to save someone’s life a woman could possibly need an abortion. When we talk about being pro-life, my new question is ‘whose life?’”

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland President Jill June called the effort to restrict abortion rights “the most extreme yet.”

“This bill would imprison a woman and her doctor for attempting an abortion,” June said in a statement on Wednesday. “A victim of rape or incest would be forced to carry a pregnancy or be put in jail, just like her assailant. Extremists pushing this bill are blinded by their ideology to eliminate abortion, and do not realize how this bill could hurt women and families in our state.”

Even if Shaw’s bill makes it out of committee, it would have virtually no chance to pass in Iowa’s Democratically-controlled Senate.


:~


Do they plan to start testing all women of childbearing age to determine when they become two people?

Do they require the arrest of women who have a miscarriage and a full investigation as if it were murder?

If a woman has the problem of repeat miscarriages, should she be jailed to prevent committing further murders?

What about the percentage of zygotes that do not implant naturally?

Will they test women every couple of weeks, catch zygotes and try to force them to implant?

Will women get to start taking a tax deduction for a child at the moment of conception?

Will pregnant women be allowed to drive in the car pool lane?


Absolutely a woman should be able to count a fertilized egg as a dependent on tax returns. They should also be able to count them on any other financial situation that occurs or can be dreamed up. According to the wingnut input that is the only way it can be. Also the carpool lane should be fair game. ;) At the moment of conception employers should have to pay maternity pay for any day the mother is out of work. A lot of companies allow a woman to be out up to six weeks after baby is born without the danger of losing her job. Well if life begins at fertilization or (ejactulation) as they seem to think, the mother should be able to hold her current job for the full 9 months instead of just a couple weeks after the actual birth. In fact the day after peeing on a stick should be valid medical maternity start date for any woman who wishes. Anyone who needs a bigger tax refund should have a lot of sex in March each year to get that new dedution there by tax time the following year. Let's don't stop there. Pregnant women should get a free kids meal at restaurants where kids eat free and an extra airplane seat on planes where kids fly free. If it is a person then it should be a person in EVERY aspect not just the right ring chosen few.

User avatar
simplyirresistible
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:39 am

Re: Democratic no bash part 2

Postby simplyirresistible » Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:02 pm

Great State of the Union. Thank you Mr. President.

User avatar
shirley 2
Posts: 5774
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:30 pm

Re: Democratic no bash part 2

Postby shirley 2 » Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:14 pm

:D

User avatar
lucywhoa
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Democratic no bash part 2

Postby lucywhoa » Thu May 16, 2013 7:51 am

<<crickets>>
AP? IRS? Nothing?

User avatar
shalaydra75
Posts: 1885
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: Democratic no bash part 2

Postby shalaydra75 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:05 pm

Please, everyone get out and vote. Do not allow 2014 to be a repeat of 2010.

User avatar
Chuckyducky
Posts: 1293
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Democratic no bash part 2

Postby Chuckyducky » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:59 pm

Hi,

Exactly a month ago, on June 25, 2013, there was a 5-4 vote in favor of throwing out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

GOP member, Chief Justice Roberts, apparently lead the charge towards striking down the bill by referring to it as "harsh treatment...towards certain states." He seems to think that ensuring the protection of voters' rights, in certain states, is no longer needed and cited the election of an African American president, African American mayors and high percentage of black voter turn-out as the basis for his final decision. Now, when I read the July 8th article on Time magazine, I was incredulous.

Were the five supreme justices who struck down section 4 of VRA sleeping under a rock while certain leaders led the charge towards voter suppression in Wisconsin, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and Texas. Did Clarence Thomas, Atonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy develop amnesia and forget what these states and their current leaders tried to do? ~) Unfrackingreal! This is irreprehensible!

I said before and I'll say it again, this is why supreme court judges shouldn't serve a life term. There's always an agenda tied with their final decisions and 9 times out of 10, it has to do with the party they're affiliated with. Ridiculous!

User avatar
Rilynne
Posts: 1188
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:41 pm

Re: Democratic no bash part 2

Postby Rilynne » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:32 pm

Quote Chuckyducky: Hi,

Exactly a month ago, on June 25, 2013, there was a 5-4 vote in favor of throwing out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

GOP member, Chief Justice Roberts, apparently lead the charge towards striking down the bill by referring to it as "harsh treatment...towards certain states." He seems to think that ensuring the protection of voters' rights, in certain states, is no longer needed and cited the election of an African American president, African American mayors and high percentage of black voter turn-out as the basis for his final decision. Now, when I read the July 8th article on Time magazine, I was incredulous.

Were the five supreme justices who struck down section 4 of VRA sleeping under a rock while certain leaders led the charge towards voter suppression in Wisconsin, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and Texas. Did Clarence Thomas, Atonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy develop amnesia and forget what these states and their current leaders tried to do? ~) Unfrackingreal! This is irreprehensible!

I said before and I'll say it again, this is why supreme court judges shouldn't serve a life term. There's always an agenda tied with their final decisions and 9 times out of 10, it has to do with the party they're affiliated with. Ridiculous!


I agree that they should not serve life terms. It seems they are on easy street once they become Chief Justice. I say eight years max.


Return to “Soaps.com Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Back to Top