Archive for pro forced birth

Wisconsin state Dem senator expects "all out hell" on GOP abortion bills

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

rachel maddow gop big government

Anti-abortion, pro-forced birth bills are moving right along in Wisconsin's state Senate, and Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach will do everything he can to prevent them... loudly and clearly.

If his name sounds familiar, it's because he was also very vocal during the enormous protests against Gov. Scott Walker a couple of years back.

The typically anti-choice, invasive, War on Women bills in question would:

--Ban abortions "that are solely based on whether the fetus is male or female,"  (AKA sex selection) but Democrats don't think Wisconsin needs a bill like that at all since there are very few, if any, of those procedures that are even performed.

--Prevent public workers' health insurance plans from covering abortions and exempt religious organizations from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives. Contraceptives would be available if they're needed for something other than birth control. This bill is the biggie.

Via Madison.com:

"Their morals are fine for them but not for the rest of the state," Erpenbach said after the hearing. "Government intrusion like this is shocking."... When asked after the hearing how he expected Tuesday's debate to play out, Erpenbach said, "All out hell. Seriously."

Republicans control the Senate 18-15. Gov. Scott Walker has said he supports both bills and will sign them into law once they pass.

Notice the report doesn't say "if they pass."

The hypocrisy by Republicans is astounding. They scream "Small government!" but their version of "small government" becomes hugely intrusive when it suits them."Governor Ultrasound" ring a bell? Sure, government is just small enough to fit into our vaginas.

Memo to Republicans: My body, my choice. Stay the hell out of my uterus and my birth control methods, GOP. Clear?

uncle sam gynecologist abortion

small government my ass

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: This would "probably be the top politics story in the country if #GOPshutdown were not happening."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

abortion ban cartoon choice  nebraska

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Nebraska anti-choice bill states that anyone under 18 who wants to have an abortion needs written permission from a parent or guardian or she can't have it. She would be blocked from getting an abortion.

Written consent from a parent or guardian is required.

A 16-year-old foster child in Nebraska requested to get an abortion without consent, but she can't, because her parents no longer have the right to be considered her parents. They abused her, so their parental rights were stripped by the state.

The teen felt she couldn't support a child financially or "be the right mom that she would like to be" and felt she needed to end the pregnancy, but no parents were available to give written consent.

Watch the video for more details, but the upshot is this:

A male judge was the one to decide for this high school student whether or not she could have an abortion, because she wasn't "sufficiently mature and well informed enough" to decide on her own.  So, again, if you live in Nebraska and you're under 18 and pregnant, you are forced to give birth against your will.

If you're under 18 and pregnant, Nebraskan legislators think you're too immature to have an abortion, but apparently not too immature to be forced to become a mother.

Abortion in Nebraska is legal for adults, but not for this teenager, because see, she was beaten up and neglected by her family, so the state made the decision for her.

And now, in addition to coping with her violent past, she must carry her pregnancy to full term, go through the trauma of a delivery and any possible complications, put the baby up for adoption, because, see, she's mature enough to handle all that-- all while trying to keep up with school and life in general-- but not grown up enough to decide what to do with her own body.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Judge rules bomb threat letter is "free speech" in anti-abortion case

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

what's the matter with kansas

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing our founders didn't think free speech meant writing a threatening letter to someone warning them that they were being watched and that their car would be bombed should they decide to continue their (legal) abortion training.

Did I say threatening? Pfft! Oh please. Nonono, there's no evidence of such a terrible, unChristian thing. The First Amendment covers all that, and besides, God said He was cool with it. We're good, go away.

Of course, this appalling story centers on the very same location where abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was murdered (in his own church, by the way).

Via CJOnline:

WICHITA — An abortion opponent’s letter to a Wichita doctor saying someone might place an explosive under her car is constitutionally protected speech and not a “true threat” under existing law, a federal judge ruled Thursday. [...]

It was a great victory for the First Amendment,” said her attorney, Don McKinney. “Obviously, we agree with the opinion. I appreciate the court held the U.S. Department of Justice accountable to the law and the evidence.”

Letter-writer Angel (yes, Angel) Dillard included this:

They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” the letter said. “You will be checking under your car every day <0x2014> because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.

Who could possibly interpret that as a threat?

But Dillard included her return address, see, a fact that the judge, in all his judgy wisdom, used to support his ruling.

Here's an excerpt from Dillard's deposition:

“I did what the Lord asked me to do. He impressed upon me that I needed to write the letter and I did.”

Well, hey, if the Lord asked you to threaten a life, who are you to say no? So much for that whole "pro-life" premise, huh "Angel"?

Please read the entire story here. And for some background: Kansas women’s clinic follows in Dr. George Tiller’s footsteps.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Take that! Judge's ruling keeps all four Wisconsin abortion clinics open despite new state law

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

curses foiled again

On August 1st I posted: Federal judge extends– for 3rd time– hold on WI law requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges.

In that post I reminded you of the many GOP-run states trying to eliminate women’s privacy and reproductive rights: WI GOP lawmakers pursuing change to state constitution to give fetuses a right to life.

And I also reminded you of Rachel Maddow’s astute and eye-opening segment: Bye-bye women’s rights: “If you live where the Republican party is in control now, right now, this is your life.”

Of course, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker signed an abortion bill requiring women to undergo unnecessary ultrasounds. Plus it “requires doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of where they perform the procedure.” See how he's reaching out to women voters?

Well, Scotty, you've had another setback. Per The Cap Times:

The state’s four abortion clinics — two of which were slated to close — will remain open following a preliminary injunction issued late Friday by a federal judge in a case involving hospital admitting privileges for abortion doctors.

U.S. Judge William Conley’s ruling will keep Planned Parenthood’s Appleton abortion clinic and the Affiliated Medical Services clinic in Milwaukee open to perform abortions.

Conley wrote, “On this record, the admitting privileges requirement is a solution in search of a problem. Devoid of any documentation of a medical need or purpose in Wisconsin, the governor nevertheless signed the act on July 5, 2013.”

Oh snap.

The trial begins at the end of November, and the clinics will remain open until the case is resolved.

Kansas, Tennessee, Utah, Arizona, North Dakota all have similar laws, but the court blocked Alabama's efforts. Please watch Rachel Maddow's segment on the growing number of states trying to deny women their rights.

So, GOP, how’s that extreme makeover thing workin’ for ya?

abortion GOP elephant hangers

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: Texas state troopers caught on camera probing genitals of women at routine traffic stops

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

welcome to texas

So you thought Gov. Bob "Ultrasound" McDonnell and the Republican party were the only ones who probed women against their will? Think again.

Did I say "probe"? No, more like rape. Forcible entry.

I nearly didn't write this post, because it was so disturbing that I wasn't sure I could bring myself to get past my anger and was momentarily frozen in disbelief, outrage, shock. I got over it. I'm writing about it. Women-- women who posed no threat to anyone-- have been systematically violated by state troopers, right out in the open on Texas roadsides.

This has become all too common, sadly. When will it become illegal to penetrate women's genitals, humiliate them, treat them as less than human? And publicly, without shame (!), both politically (in the case of forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds, which are proudly touted as "safety measures," but used as a deterrent to shame women who feel they need legal abortions) and physically (in both cases).

Just read and watch what's been going on during routine traffic stops:

extremumspiritum:

Jul 5, 2013: BRAZORIA COUNTY, Texas -- Two women subjected to body cavity searches on the side of Highway 288 have filed a Federal lawsuit against the officers involved.

David Schechter:

Published on Dec 18, 2012: First search occurs at 2:52

In a new lawsuit, Angel Dobbs and her niece Ashley Dobbs, of Irving Texas, say they were searched inside their underwear by female Texas Trooper, Kelley Helleson, after a routine traffic stop in Dallas in July.

The trooper who pulled them over, David Farrell, says on tape he saw them throw a cigarette butt out the window and smelled marijuana when he pulled them over. No drugs were found and they were released with a warning. The cousins say the trooper who performed the search used the same pair of gloves on both women. The cousins are now suing the Department of Public Safety.

Story on WFAA.com: http://bit.ly/TXZuNP
Lawsuit: http://bit.ly/UaSOPN

"Cavity searches," my ass. These women were assaulted.  Via The Daily News:

Multiple highway patrol officers in Texas have been captured by dash cams doing 'unconstitutional' cavity searches on women's genitals during traffic stops. Lawyers and civil rights advocates say the 'mind-boggling' searches are all too common.

The first video was graphic enough. Two women, as shown in a Texas state trooper’s dash cam recording, are probed in their vaginas and rectums by a glove-wearing female officer after a routine traffic stop near Dallas.

A few days later, a second video surfaced. It was an eerily similar scenario, but this time the traffic stop was just outside Houston, and with different troopers. Two women, pulled over for allegedly speeding, are subjected to body cavity searches by a female officer summoned to the scene by a male trooper... In both invasive incidents, the female troopers don't change gloves between probes, according to the horrified victims.

Standard practice: Check.

In full view of passing motorists: Check.

Unconstitutional: Check.

Unsanitary: Check.

Lawsuits filed: Check.

Trooper indicted for theft over missing bottle of Vicodin belonging to one of the women, suspended: Check.

Mind-boggling: Check.

They didn’t even search my socks or my shoes,” [Angel] Dobbs said. "I just couldn’t fathom how you could search someone’s butt and their vagina, and not search their socks or shoes... Until the news got involved, nothing happened.

In the other case cited, Officer Callous expresses his crass disdain as he passes the rape baton to Ms. Ogyny:

She is about to get up close and personal with some womanly parts,” Turner tells Hamilton. “She is going to search you, I ain’t, because I ain’t about to get up close and personal with your woman areas.”

How professional. What a gentleman.

Do you know how violated I feel?” Hamilton pleads.

WTF: Check.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Federal judge extends-- for 3rd time-- hold on WI law requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

abortion GOP elephant hangers

So many GOP-run states trying to eliminate women's privacy and reproductive rights, so little time: WI GOP lawmakers pursuing change to state constitution to give fetuses a right to life.

And then there was Rachel Maddow's astute and eye-opening segment: Bye-bye women’s rights: “If you live where the Republican party is in control now, right now, this is your life.”

Of course, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker signed an abortion bill requiring women to undergo unnecessary ultrasounds.

Hey GOP, how’s that reachy-outy, makeovery, reinventiony thing workin’ for ya?

So much for "small government."

For the third time, a federal judge is highlighting the failure of the Republican party to rebrand itself. Via JSOnline:

Madison A federal judge Wednesday extended for another week a hold on a state law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges.

This is the third time U.S. District Judge William Conley has temporarily blocked the law from going into effect. He now has placed it on hold until Aug. 8, or until he decides whether to issue a preliminary injunction that would be in place for a longer period.

Conley said he expected to rule on the injunction by the end of the week. If approved, that injunction would likely remain in effect until at least November, when Conley will preside over a trial on the constitutionality of the requirement for doctors who perform abortions.

The law in question "requires doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of where they perform the procedure. It also requires women seeking abortions to get ultrasounds, but that provision has not been challenged in court and has gone into effect."

So Wisconsin women... you ready for a change yet?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

WI GOP lawmakers pursuing change to state constitution to give fetuses a right to life

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

fb obama personhood joke

Wisconsin GOP State Rep. André Jacque claims to be trying to fix a "loophole" in his state constitution, or as I like to call it, banning abortion, the legal procedure guaranteed by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that gave women a constitutional right to choose.

Of course, by trying to establish "personhood" for fetuses, Jacque's little antics would also result in making in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, and some forms of birth control like IUDs and the morning-after pill illegal.

I covered this kind of backward attitude yesterday in Dep’t. of Obvious: The GOP “really seems to be struggling with that compassion thing.” But the party continues to implode daily, inspiring more posts on their inability to evolve. At all.

Jacque's proposal is so bad that even some of his allies, such as Wisconsin Right to Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group, are opposing it:

Susan Armacost, the group's legislative director, said the measure would have no practical effect, could harm other anti-abortion efforts and would cost groups like hers millions of dollars to conduct a referendum campaign.

At least she's on the right side of this one, despite her pro-forced birth policies.

More from JSOnline:

MadisonLess than a week after an anti-abortion measure was signed into law and blocked by a federal judge, some Republicans are pursuing a change to the state constitution meant to give fetuses a right to life.

The measure — aimed at keeping an anti-abortion statute on the books if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses course on the issue — will have a difficult time passing the Legislature because it has divided anti-abortion groups, with some saying it could inadvertently work against their movement.

Article I of the state constitution begins by declaring, "All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Rep. André Jacque (R-De Pere) wants to drop the word "born" from that part of the constitution, so it begins, "All people are equally free and independent." He also wants to add a sentence to the constitution that says, "As applied to the right to life, the terms 'people' and 'person' shall apply to every human being at any stage of development."

Don't even start me (scroll).

By the way, is Jacque also in favor of food stamps, Medicaid, and other programs that would keep actual children alive once they're born? Or does "right to life" only apply to cell clusters and feti that may or may not be viable outside the womb?

Hey GOP, how’s that reachy-outy, makeovery, reinventiony thing workin’ for ya?

More details at the link.

personhood

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare