A group of men in Congress are trying to take away the rights of women in the nation’s capital

343 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

Republican Representative Trent Franks is pushing legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy for women living in Washington, DC.  To make matters worse – Representative Franks is barring DC’s only elected lawmaker – Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton – from testifying at the hearing on the bill.

Unclear if she was denied because she represents the district being targeted or because she’s a woman.  After all – Republicans in the House have a history of denying women a voice on issues that affect them most – like a few months back when Congressman Darryl Issa held a hearing on contraceptives but didn’t allow one woman to testify. 

Comments

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
because at that point there

because at that point there is a heart beat finger, prints, brainwaves and teeth so its more like murder at that point so yeah. 

Art
Art's picture
Quote:because at that point

Quote:
because at that point there is a heart beat finger, prints, brainwaves and teeth so its more like murder at that point so yeah.
I saw a picture of a cauliflour once that looked exactly like Richard Nixon.

Zenzoe
It's all a part of the

It's all a part of the continuing war on women, which Rachel Maddow covered brilliantly last night (guest, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton); and this article today at Common Dreams: Shame of the Nation: House 'Violence Against Women Act' Bill Ratchets Up Attacks on Domestic Violence Survivors.

delete jan in iowa
* Historically as

* Historically as civilizations begin their decline they begin to oppress women.  America is in decline.

* Women are more than capable of making decisions about their reproductive processes.  

* If you are someone who consider abortions at 20 weeks murder..... Women statistically kill far fewer people than men.  Maybe the people in Congress should better regulate men.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
I think that women need to

I think that women need to start putting in bills that affect male reproductive organs to where they are not allowed to make choises for themselves about what they do with them. Seriously—if I were in congress, I would whip one up and put it in. Let's see how those Congressional bastard bullies with penises enjoy that.

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
abortion isnt affecting a

abortion isnt affecting a reproductive organ its affecting a life.

Zenzoe
Oh, please God, not another

Oh, please God, not another right-wing, conservative bully.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Yeah, the life of a woman and

Yeah, the life of a woman and a woman's reproductive organs. We need to be discussing penises and testicles in Congress—allowing only the ladies to the michrophone, as the men sit quietly in their seats and hear as the ladies discuss what they feel should be done to the men's penises and testicles.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Jan, "* Women are more than

Jan, "* Women are more than capable of making decisions about their reproductive processes."

At 20 weeks a fetus is viable and can live on its own therefore it has gained the right to life. If women are so damned capable of making decisions about their reproductive processes, then why in the hell has she not already decided BEFORE VIABILITY to have it aborted?

Sorry for the edit.

That being said, I would think that Congress assholes would have more pressing and impotent issues to jack with. Just more smoke and mirrors and dog and pony tactics to distract the sheeple.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
camaroman wrote:At 20 weeks a

camaroman wrote:
At 20 weeks a fetus is viable and can live on its own therefore it has gained the right to life. If women are so damned capable of making decisions about their reproductive processes, then why in the hell has she not already decided BEFORE VIABILITY to have it aborted?

More than likely for a good reason, so if she needs to have the child aborted there should NOT be a law that says that she can't do what is necessary. An ABC TV drama program last night had a woman giving birth to a baby with no frontal lobes to its brain. It was her choice to carry the child through for her plans, but what if that happened to someone who would have a nervous breakdown under those circumstances.

Birth is not just about "a life." It is about the lives of everybody already invested in the mother. The health of those adults and children is more immediate. If for some reason that woman needs an abortion, if should be available to her.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Define 'needs an abortion',

Define 'needs an abortion', Karolina.  

And, does it take disrespecting every pregnancy at every stage to 'respect' women?   This issue of 'elective abortions' carries all sorts of political and social ramifications....and I am not against all 'elective abortions', either....

Karolina
Karolina's picture
I gave you an example of

I gave you an example of someone needing an abortion in the same paragraph—carrying a child who will squeek itself dead within five minutes of birth. A more common example is poverty and consequently taking food out of your children's mouths, by bringing in yet another mouth to feed. But there could be as many needs to abort as there are pregnancies. You never know, and so no doors should be closed for a woman carrying a child.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
What the hell were her plans?

What the hell were her plans? I am all for a woman having an abortion for any or no reason at all before the fetus has reached viability if that is what she decides. Otherwise there is no medical indication to abort a normal fetus. That consideration should have been made before viability. Why is that such a difficult topic with some women?

Karolina
Karolina's picture
If the ladies in Congress

If the ladies in Congress decide that when a man is unfit to be a father he should not be able to get any poor female pregnant, and so the Congress ladies pass a law that the men unfit to be fathers are required to recieve and pay for a vasectomy, would most men find that to be a difficult topic?

Its basically the same idea.

Zenzoe
Oh no, here we go

Oh no, here we go again...

Karolina, they are genetically incapable of grokking a woman's reality. It is futile to argue with people who think once a woman is pregnant she ceases to be a person with her own life and own valid concerns. They don't get it now; they'll never get it!

 

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Karolina wrote: I gave you an

Karolina wrote:

I gave you an example of someone needing an abortion in the same paragraph—carrying a child who will squeek itself dead within five minutes of birth.

That's not a normal fetus.   ls that to be used as an example of justifying aborting any fetus at any stage?   And, if you haven't read it on the abortion thread, I know that there is no medical indication to abort a normal fetus under any circumstance--even if there is a medical indication to prematurely deliver that child.  

Karolina wrote:

 A more common example is poverty and consequently taking food out of your children's mouths, by bringing in yet another mouth to feed. But there could be as many needs to abort as there are pregnancies.

Why didn't all those mothers realize all those problems to abort early--when it would be a safer procedure and, in most states, there is no problem with fetal viability now having to be a contention against such an elective abortion?   Sad fact of the matter is that poor women are less likely to choose elective abortions despite the fact that they can't 'feed the child'--some of it may be out of ignorance but most of it is out of religious conviction. 

If you weren't privy to the rather long discussion had on the abortion thread, the whole contention against late stage elective abortions is fetal viability.   Most states have limited elective abortions to earlier stages because of that contention where fetal viability gains some perspectives of a 'right to life'--which was the original contention that Roe vs. Wade used to determine this very issue of elective abortions--the woman's right to choose vs. the fetus' right to life.   Many states (such as California) did have the right of the woman to abort all the way to term--but, the only difference between electively aborting and delivering a late stage pregnancy is killing the fetus before the delivery.   And, a late stage fetus, once delivered, looks just like a dead baby.   Many people have a problem with that perspective--and despite the militants to 'this cause', I can see why.   Zenzoe reported that even California has changed its law to elective abortions 'up to 24 weeks' (in Texas, it's 20 weeks). 

There is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance.   All elective abortions are done purely and solely for the woman's choice.  And, according to many of us that, otherwise, are for the woman's right to choose, that choice should be responsibly determined before fetal viablity.  

And, I know that it is not just men that hold that view--many women do, also....

 

 

 

Karolina
Karolina's picture
If the baby is viable at 20

If the baby is viable at 20 weeks, then it should be able to be pulled out and live on its own. Otherwise....its NOT viable.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Zenzoe wrote: Karolina, they

Zenzoe wrote:

Karolina, they are genetically incapable of grokking a woman's reality. It is futile to argue with people who think once a woman is pregnant she ceases to be a person with her own life and own valid concerns. They don't get it now; they'll never get it!

Again, it's a militant perspective to believe that all pregnancies at whatever stage have to be disrepected for women to be 'respected'.    But, I see this militant perspective more like 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'.....it was used all the time on the abortion thread by those who claimed to 'respect women'.....as if sucking fetal brains out right before birth 'respected women'....

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
no its not one prevents you

no its not one prevents you from having kids one prevents you from killing kids very different.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
If a woman needs an abortion,

If a woman needs an abortion, she will find a way to get one. The problem is she may have to kill herself in the process if it is not legally availble.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Karolina wrote: If the baby

Karolina wrote:

If the baby is viable at 20 weeks, then it should be able to be pulled out and live on its own. Otherwise....its NOT viable.

The point of late stage abortions is that the fetus has to be killed before the delivery in order for it NOT to come out alive.   If it takes that kind of procedure to assure that the fetus NOT come out alive to live on its own, it could have come out alive.   I, personally, see the 'right to life' beginning exactly when that fetus could come out alive.    And, if that is medically necessary, the attempts to prematurely deliver it could be done, and, if the fetus lives, it has a 'right to life'.   If not, again, there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance.   I do believe that is the most natural position to take on this...

That doesn't take into account fetuses that have conditions that are known not to be life-sustainable.  In those cases, medically and legally (in states where past viability stages require it), that fetus is handled just like a terminal illness in any other person....requiring written justification and all the proper forms filled out for any potential court review as 'due process' requires....

 

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Karolina wrote: If a woman

Karolina wrote:

If a woman needs an abortion, she will find a way to get one. The problem is she may have to kill herself in the process if it is not legally availble.

What's the problem with the woman making a responsible choice before fetal viability becomes a contention? 

Does sucking fetal brains out right before birth really show respect for women?   Maybe I have a different idea on what 'human respect' is to mean....

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Kerry, don't bother

Kerry, don't bother explaining any of that to me. I am not even reading it and I don't want to waste any more of my time on this. I already know what you are probably saying and in the abortion thread last month I said that I could not imagine anyone waiting any longer than the shortest possible time to get an abortion, IF THEY CAN do it right away.

But that doesn't change the fact that a woman's body is HER body, and as a human being she must be the only one deciding who enters her body, who lives in her body and who exits her body. Anyone else, including the government and the church have NO business to tend to in there.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Quote: But that doesn't

Quote:

But that doesn't change the fact that a woman's body is HER body, and as a human being she must be the only one deciding who enters her body, who lives in her body and who exits her body. Anyone else, including the government and the church have NO business to tend to in there.

Well, the problem is that, until the militant liberals remove all semblances of 'individual rights' for what they call 'community interest', a big part of the legal and political processes concerning people and medicine deal with 'individual rights'--and none is more pressing that those considered in legal elective abortions.   The whole contention behind elective abortions deals with allowing women the right to choose to abort (no excuses are necessary for 'suicidal ideation, dire circumstances, or any proported risks to the mother's life' have to be, or even should be, involved) up until the fetus gains a contention against that as a 'right to life'.   I, for one, do not believe that sucking fetal brains out right before birth in any way substantiates a 'respect for women'--unless you agree that a 'respect for women' has to include 'disrespecting any pregnancy at any stage'.   I don't think that represents the human form of respect for life or liberty when that is done--more as a militant stand than as a humane one.    And, neither do most states....and clamoring for 'killing every fetus to respect every woman' doesn't change that, either....

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Well, I completely disagree

Well, I completely disagree with you. I think that you are foolish.

antikakistocrat
antikakistocrat's picture
Thom Hartmann Administrator

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

Republican Representative Trent Franks is pushing legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy for women living in Washington, DC.  To make matters worse – Representative Franks is barring DC’s only elected lawmaker – Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton – from testifying at the hearing on the bill.

Unclear if she was denied because she represents the district being targeted or because she’s a woman.  After all – Republicans in the House have a history of denying women a voice on issues that affect them most – like a few months back when Congressman Darryl Issa held a hearing on contraceptives but didn’t allow one woman to testify. 

Look there is so much irresponsibility among a huge percentage of American women that someone has to be brave and stand up for the lives of the un-born.  Tho he should not be banning anyone's free speech even  Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton's.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Karolina, you are, like

Karolina, you are, like Zenzoe, taking an unrealistic stance on this issue. I doubt you would be able to find a doctor that would be willing to perform a late stage abortion on a normal fetus. The woman SHOULD have already made that decision. Abnormal fetus are another issue. I am talking about a NORMAL fetus. What the hell more do you misandrist women want when you can abort your pregnancy for any fucking selfess reason before the fetus has reached viability.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Again, that being said, what

Again, that being said, what the hell are congress assholes taking up issues like this when there are way more important isuues , like the debt we are drowning in, the unConstitutional, immoral wars we need to get out of. Is it merely to distract the sheeple from the real issues during this election cycle?

antikakistocrat
antikakistocrat's picture
camaroman wrote: Again, that

camaroman wrote:

Again, that being said, what the hell are congress assholes taking up issues like this when there are way more important isuues , like the debt we are drowning in, the unConstitutional, immoral wars we need to get out of. Is it merely to distract the sheeple from the real issues during this election cycle?

EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Well, while I am all for

Well, while I am all for early abortions by choice, I am against sucking fetal brains out right before birth as if that represented 'respecting women'.   I neither respect women that require that nor do I respect men that claim that.   I am for this choice being responsibly done when fetal viability is not an issue.  And, many people don't like looking at fetuses killed right before birth appearing just like dead babies after birth.  And, it's a rather militant, insensitive, person to overlook that element in this issue as if it requires 'killing every fetus to respect every woman'--and as if that woman could not have been more responsible in determining the outcome of her pregnancy before fetal viability became an issue.  

And, once again, that is how every legislature deals with elective abortions--the right of the woman to choose up against the right of the fetus to live.   And, since this is a legal issue (because there is no  medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance), I am not sure how the militant liberals on this board are determining this.   They seem to want to remove all 'individual rights' (and I'll never be for that)--and, then, claim a inhumane, netherworld of 'community interest' that seems to say it requires killing every fetus as the only way to show respect for every woman--even if, as one of the final posts by D_NATURED on the abortion thread indicated (and as D_NATURED had been saying all along to the kudos of the clan--even though I got accused and castigated when I repeated D_NATURED's specifics),  that means sucking the fetal brains out right before birth as the inhumane, horrific act in 'supporting women's causes' that it is....but, what's rationally humane when you have a militant cause to support?   As such, 'women's rights' had to include 'fetal terrorism'....and all rational discussions about 'individual rights' as the true democratic cause to human (and humane) communities be damned....   

Kerry
Kerry's picture
And, camaroman and

And, camaroman and antikakistocrat are right, I suspect a lot of issues like this (even those that had been 'settled' quite a while back) are just some more dog and pony shows for the little people......as 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way'....

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Bringing abortion up now is

Bringing abortion up now is all about the "divide and conquer."

The misogynists and misandrists that this kind of argument will unltimately produce, are angry, unhappy, demoralized human beings — easily defeated, and controlled.

That's what taking women back to the 1950's will do for the plans of the 1% — give them victory!

CollegeConservative
CollegeConservative's picture
obama was the first one to

obama was the first one to bring up women's health so who is trying to divide and conquer? Maybe he is trying to hide his record ?

Kerry
Kerry's picture
I don't consider myself as

I don't consider myself as being either misogynist or misandrist.   However, I do believe that the militant proponents of 'killing every fetus as a way to support every woman' are just as distracting from any rational and humane way to approach this issue--which, in ignoring the 'individual rights' issue this really has, and by claiming this rather 'fetal terrorist', militant stand the clan takes as being  the only 'right stand to have', it does as much, in its political, legal, and social, context, to contend against their supposed cause as to support it.  

Something that the clan will have to contend with if and when the fetal right to life at conception ever gets passed as law....and don't think that the other radicals that oppose all elective abortions aren't trying to do just that....and, again, something the liberal militants here won't have in their political armament to defend since they have tossed out 'individual rights' to their 'cause' for what they claim to be as some 'community-interest new paradigm' as if that could represent 'women's rights' separate from 'individual rights'....

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Kerry, I never think about

Kerry, I never think about this crap untill I read or hear someone trying to make women inferior to men and get the government to lay more claim on a woman's body than she has on it herself. Its pretty difficult for a human being to feel any kind of self-respect when your body is controlled by someone else in what you feel is a demeaning way. And when a human being has no self-respect—its impossible to be a champion at life.

The only reason that I do NOT want the second or third trimester abortions to be made illegal is because it is the first step to having first trimester abortions made illegal, which means that women would become easily steered by other people into a life of burden. I wouldn't want that for ANYONE.

None of this affects me personally—I am just in a rage when I see human beings with an arrogant attitude about other human beings. Yeah, that's the thing—we are Human Beings before we are either gender. Everything except our reproductive functions are the same in both genders—other than what is created by the labelling and attitudes of our cultures.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Karoliina wrote:  And when a

Karoliina wrote:

 And when a human being has no self-respect—its impossible to be a champion at life.

That is a pertinent point, Karolina--but 'I' see it as a separate point from the issue of 'the contention of rights' that elective abortion has.   Let me put it this way:  I don't see a decision being made to abort a late-stage fetus on the grounds of 'suicidal ideation, dire circumstances, or any proposed risks to the mother's life' as supporting 'self-respect'.   That 'decision' is being compelled beyond any 'free choice' that a self-respecting woman deciding to end her pregnancy by choice alone could make when she has the right to make it.   Similarly, I don't see such a choice 'between the doctor and the woman' being one that supports self-respect on the woman's part, either. 

I agree with you.   A woman should have enough self-respect to make that choice (and I realize that is actually harder than it may, at first, appear--especially when there are so many contentions in the social milieu--including religious convictions--against that).   But, as I've said, I also believe that a woman should have the responsiblity to do so before any contention with fetal viablity becomes an issue for that decision to be a socially acceptable one.   I do not see self-respect apart from personal responsibility--nor do I see how any choice of action could be so separated in a civil society. 

Karolina wrote:

The only reason that I do NOT want the second or third trimester pregnancies to be made illegal is because it is the first step to having first trimester pregnancies illegal, which means that women become easily steered by other people into a life of burden. I wouldn't want that for ANYONE.

Well, believe it or not, I appreciate, and applaud, your position.   I am not here 'to remove' the right to elective abortions.  However, there are a couple of points you need to consider here.  First off, legal elective abortions in the third trimester are the exception, not the rule, in most states now.   Secondly, as my talk with many women (including my wife--a rather 'liberal' Canadian) about this issue seems to bear out, considerations of late-stage abortions are rarely seen as being from a 'free choice' perspective--even if there is no other reason than to 'choose to abort'.  As my wife puts it, the further along in the pregnancy a woman goes, the more attached to that pregnancy the woman gets.  So, if she decides to abort at a later stage in a manner that she didn't consider in an earlier stage, there is something other than just that 'free choice' compelling her to do it.  If, for instance, it was a 'suicidal ideation' that compelled her, as I asked on the abortion thread, what is to say that deciding to abort the child at that stage is going to make that woman feel better about herself?   I suspect that it will not.   In fact, if my wife's ideas on 'being more attached to the fetus' at that stage is correct, it may make matters worse.   If the woman doesn't want that child at that point, I think adopting out makes better psychological sense even for the woman.   I know there may be room for disagreement here but that is my honest position.   And, at any rate, most states no longer allow elective third trimester abortions.  This is a contention between the right of the woman to choose against the right of the fetus to live.

Quote:

None of this affects me personally—I am just in a rage when I see human beings with an arrogant attitude about other human beings.

Well, as I said on the abortion thread, there is room here to go apeshit either way.   I don't believe that it is any less arrogant to assume that one has to condone sucking fetal brains out right before birth in order to prove support for women's rights.  Why does society have to disrespect every pregnancy at any stage to 'respect' women?  I don't think that it does--nor do I think it has.  

Quote:

See, that's the thing—we are human beings before we are either gender.

Amen.  But, when is the fetus human?   And, when does a human life with rights begin?   Those are the basic questions concerning the political and legal aspects of elective abortions--and they have always been the basic questions concerning this issue (that's how Roe vs. Wade was decided--and, while Roe vs. Wade rejected the idea that such rights begin at conception, Roe vs. Wade also acknowledged that there were some legal precedences that had fetuses gaining rights the further along the pregnancy progressed--and left any decision of fetal rights after 12 weeks gestation to each state).  And, certainly, disregarding that question doesn't mean that you've 'answered it'.

Karolina wrote:

Everything except our reproductive functions are the same in both genders, other than what is created by the labelling and attitudes of cultures.

Well, since elective abortion on a whole is not a medical issue (there is no medical indication to kill an normal fetus under any circumstance) but, rather, a political and legal one, there can't be helped but have some 'labelling' to occur as written law--with one of the first 'labels' to contend with being when does a human life with rights begin?    At one point, some states did have it as 'at birth'--but, like California, many of those states have changed that 'label'--and I think there is a rather rational and humane reason why.   A fetus killed right before birith looks just like a dead baby right after birth--and many people (even women) don't see that as being an appropriate action in a civil society....

Zenzoe
I tried to warn you,

I tried to warn you, Karolina.  But you went ahead and stepped in it.  If you stick around, there will only be more shit to step in.  Kerry, for one, cannot be reasoned with.  Look at "Sane Conversation about Abortion." It never ended, until everybody but Kerry came to realize Kerry was crazy and decided to just walk away. He has more energy on the subject than you'll ever have, and he won't hear anything you have to say. Forget it. You're right about everything you've said, but you cannot convince them of it. They can't hear you. They're ideologues and sexists. Nothing you say can change it. They're stuck in their phony "concern" for "life." Phonies! They don't really care anything about life, or they wouldn't be conservatives. Get it?

 

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Hey, Zen, I was just up there

Hey, Zen, I was just up there reading that thread and realized what you're saying now. I thought I had done some writing on that thread, but apparently we started another conversation where Capital was the enemy, after you all were finished on the "Sane" one. 

Oh well. Cheers!

DdC
DdC's picture
CollegeConservative

CollegeConservative wrote:
because at that point there is a heart beat finger, prints, brainwaves and teeth so its more like murder at that point so yeah.

"We the People are the rightful master
of both congress and the courts -
not to overthrow the Constitution,
but to overthrow the men
who GOPervert the Constitution."
~ Abraham Lincoln

The Brainwashed Never Wonder! Right CC?

We the Fetus'? We the Parasites would only apply to GOP fetus'? We the Pompous asses legislating warped moralities? We the Hypocrites aborting more with cotton poisons than RvW, then Young College Conservative dung worriers ban Hemp that doesn't need it. We the Idiots sending young college conservative woman to back allies, since they can't face their religioustard parents with the facts that the local high school quarterback just knocked up the little cheerleader. But she's the young college conservative woman, so it's her fault, and up to her to raise the child, since the fucking Hypocrites don't want to mess up the lil Mitt's future. More abortions lying to start wars that drop bombs on civilians. Giving pregnant women ketchup as a vegetable causes malnutrition abortions. Evicting Young College Conservative Women who are pregnant might cause abortions. Or Dick's Fraking their drinking water with Cheney's hazardous chemicals or burning their houses down when the sink catches on fire. Booze kills fetus' but nevermind it's Happy Hour. Cigarettes hawked by Ronnie Rayguns hiself, aborting more fetus'. While the GOPoison Inc. stay in the shadows, scapegoating the farmers . GOPerverts killed 30,000 in Iran Contra, $50 fine. How many abortions from Agent Orange now new and improved spraying on Colombian kids. To stop the coca plant no one ever snorted, that makes the very same cocaine By Golly Ollie sold to the inner cities. How many abortions does one produce trading guns from the enemy with money made from the devestation of GOP crack sold to the ghetto's. Or Rummy giving Sadamn the WMD's he aborted Kurd pre-babies with. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment in Talibama, same self appointed moralists outlawing a women's choice.

Trickle-down Young College Conservative Women's jobs overseas and the stress could lead to spontaneous abortions. Falling in high heels can cause abortions in Young College Conservative Women. Koch brothers spewing dioxins cause abortions. Young College Conservative Women raped in prison for illegally protesting abortions, cause abortions. Conservatudes are just liars and apparently fascists trying to legislate behind closed doors. I thought we ended that nonsense after Cheney and the Oil Deals? I get it that cannabis prohibition could cost profits for a lot of corporations and cop jobs etc so they fabricated the prohibition laws behind closed doors. I get that. Putting mentally disabled to death in Taxes/Texas after doping him up to be sane enough to really feel it. Shows their appreciation for life, after it reaches the stage of human. Proud of killing more than anyone else, including innocents they didn't have time to wait for. Had to kill em quick in case the evidence went for them, and ruined their sporting event. Guns for all and all for none. Another round of Jobettes near smoke stacks aborting more fetus', while the OpResQ babies play in the dirt the crop duster just poisoned for your tee shirt. Drinking aspartame in the diet coke for breakfast might cause abortions. The college conservatives make fun of feeding the poor to the point of outlawing the traditional food source for famines. This seems to be just hate for women in general. By women, cannibals.

Or maybe they want Foster slaves to profit on. Newt's plan of Orphanages and Child labor making a come back, hummm. Same Biblical heresy trying to make women second class citizens because of their shame for their own inadequacies. Such hate and disregard for anything American, especially concerning the Constitution before or after half of the second amendment. Shipping factories to India or their addiction to abortion causing crud oil and all fossil fools, leaking nukes, and cardboard food. Feverish pitches and GOPig squeals for Star Wars defenses. Electromagnetic Bombs, Neutron Bombs, Hydrogen Bombs... any concern for the fetus'? Plutonium and DDT in breast milk, sold by Monsanto and how many abortions from the original Atomic Bomb? Just breathing in the fumes from the traffic jams can supply toxins to do harm to fetus'. Except the Moneysluts make big bucks when we get stuck. Nixon's Ganjawar supplying another million non violent prisoners into the GOPrison Industrial Complex or for the Kochead's to rent cages @ $72k, then rent the humans to telemarketers for less than scab and foreign disposable labor. Obstructionists, Denialists and GOPerverted scum should be aborted.

Foul play: War on women is real by Barbara Boxer

DN: "A War on Women"
Exclusive with Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards on
GOP Bills Targeting Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Since taking control of the House last month, Republicans have introduced several major anti-abortion bills that women’s rights activists say could place severe limitations on access not only to abortion, but complete reproductive health and family planning services. We speak to Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which provides family planning, contraception and abortion services at more than 800 clinics and health centers across the U.S. serving more than three million patients a year. No federal dollars are used to fund its abortion services. "The most ridiculous part about it is that, for Congressman Pence and the others who are proposing these bills, Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than any organization in America," Richards says. "This is not what the American people voted for."

Latest Hypocritical GOPerversion, another Prohibition!

90 percent of Planned Parenthood services are abortions.
~ Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)

No federal funding goes to abortions.
97 percent of Planned Parenthood's services are not abortions.
~ Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood president

It Was Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement
~ Kyl Walks Back Planned Parenthood Claim

Romney Has Public and Private Morality Upside Down
by Robert B. Reich, Beyond Outrage amazon.com

Prohibit Elected Lobbyists and Yellow Journalism

Pro Life? Not even anti abortionists
According to the U.S. EPA, MSMA "can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans" and is converted in the environment to inorganic arsenic, a known human carcinogen. About 4 million pounds of MSMA is applied every year to golf courses and cotton fields in the United States to control weeds. The pesticide has been banned in India and Indonesia.

Pesticide Exposure in Farm Families Linked to Spontaneous Abortion
The timing and types of pesticide exposures are critical determinants of reproductive outcomes, according to a recently published study by Canadian researchers. The study examined pesticide exposures based on recall by farm families and reported histories of spontaneous abortions among women living on the farms. The study found strong evidence that a woman's exposure to pesticides in the three months prior to conception or in the month of conception significantly increased her risk of spontaneous abortion.

Switching cotton fields to hemp fields would improve: the quality of our soil, the durability of our clothes, the safety of our ground source water, the quality of our air, and the preservation of forests cut for paper (not to mention saving hundreds of thousands of lives prematurely ended by disease caused by pollution) In 1993, 90 million pounds of pesticides were used to grow cotton iin the US.

Prevent Abortions, Legalize Hemp

Blackpandas
Blackpandas's picture
I'd like to see a documentary

I'd like to see a documentary wherein a woman decides to abort what appears to be a healthy baby at twenty weeks. But have the doctors either induce labor or perform a C-Section and deliver the baby alive. Then we could all see where the baby was at developmentally. Then the doctor could hold up the baby up and smack it to death. Let's really see some reality TV!

Blackpandas
Blackpandas's picture
Yes, I recall reading where

Yes, I recall reading where the Romans threw women into a jam-packed colliseum with starving Lions?

delete jan in iowa
Zen and Karolina.... sorry I

Zen and Karolina.... sorry I was busy this afternoon and missed all the fun!  

* The repression of women is part of the decline of our civilization.  History is proving it out.

However in this case, women are smart and motivated and we won't be put back in the box!!!  This whole issue is private and personal and should be decided between a woman and her doctor.  

These men have no idea what a woman goes through in deciding an issue like this.  No women makes this type of decision lightly.

I have this theory that woman inhabited the earth first... we were invaded by men.  They are a different species!  Besides the fact that they are "know it alls!!!"

Blackpandas
Blackpandas's picture
I don't however disagree with

I don't however disagree with you that perhaps aborting a baby with extreme deformities should be a choice. But I get sick to my stomach just thinking that there are women who would abort a perfectly healthy baby because it's inconvenient. That type of callous woman is no woman at all.

Blackpandas
Blackpandas's picture
I agree with you! It is

I agree with you! It is private and personal. But don't deny me my constitutional right if I don't want MY taxdollars paying for what you believe is your constitutional right.

Blackpandas
Blackpandas's picture
Art can immitate life only by

Art can immitate life only by distorting it. Hope the dog isn't a female and has puppies

workingman
workingman's picture
Maybe we should make murder

Maybe we should make murder legal for females that way they can kill their children when ever they wish, even after birth.

Blackpandas
Blackpandas's picture
Some women have a hard time

Some women have a hard time making up their mind.....?

delete jan in iowa
workingman wrote:Maybe we

workingman wrote:
Maybe we should make murder legal for females that way they can kill their children when ever they wish, even after birth.

This is goes beyond the pale.  You should be ashamed to make such a statement.  Would you say this terrible thing to your mother or grandmother?  What are you thinking?

Blackpandas
Blackpandas's picture
I'm sorry but the M-Cow is a

I'm sorry but the M-Cow is a one-trick pony!

delete jan in iowa
Blackpandas wrote: I'm sorry

Blackpandas wrote:

I'm sorry but the M-Cow is a one-trick pony!

What are you talking about?