Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    Thank you too much!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    I'll buy the "War on Abortion" Matty if you'll willing to go with "War on Human Fetuses." Alternatively, if you go by legislation that Obama has supported in the past we could also go wtih "War on Living Babies That Have Just Survived an Abortion." That has a certain ring to it.

    That is, of course, if you want to stick with this "War on" rhetoric.



    Nope.  I don't buy it.  

    For one thing, Plan B works in the fertilization stage before any fetus is formed.  Pro-lifers oppose Plan B out-of-hand...even mistakenly, unscientifically calling it the "abortion pill".

    Pro-choicers are campaigning for a choice, the right to choose; pro-lifers are campaigning to deny a choice, rescind a right, and/or invade women's privacy.

    Pro-lifers are picketing clinics to prevent legal abortion services.  Pro-choicers are picketing to keep big government out of their uteruses.  

    The public would have no idea an abortion was perfomed, so others are not affected.  But a birth is a public event, posted in the paper and certified for all to see.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    nobody cares about the tiny number of fringe people who vote solely based on being pro or anti abortion.....the nation has bigger problems and this garbage is just a distraction...

    conservatives love women....does Obama pay the few women in his White House the same as he pays the men??  NOPE!!  Do the women on MSNBC get equal pay???  NOPE!!! 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    This just shows that the republicans are as crazy as ever.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    "Pro-choicers are picketing to keep big government out of their uteruses."

    Pro-choicers are picketing for abortion on demand , paid for by taxpayers, through the ninth month, and partial birth abortion.

    Sex selection abortions like China? No problem, it is a 'choice".

    The holy grail of liberal court decisions, Roe v Wade , 40 years ago, said it was constitutional and legal to make abortion illegal after the first trimester..got a problem with that? Is that government in the uterus?

    If it is between the doctor and the woman, and any requirement to have an ultrasound to determine the age of the fetus cannot be allowed,  then how is Roe v Wade's first trimester limit on abortions to be enforced? It isnt. 

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to Brown:

    "It has been speculated that this legislation is intended to criminalize rape victims. This is a misinterpretation of the intent of the legislation.



    Intent? Speculated? That was the direct result of the actual words on the page.

     

    Fine. You aren't evil, you're just a major dumb@ss.

     




     

    Anyone who has to read and interpret statutes and legislation know there are a lot of major dumb@sses out there who are sloppily drafting bills...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    Monty Python references are over the top?  I thought it was cute.  Go look in the mirror yourself you take things way too seriously.  Bombs away!

     

    Actually I was referring to the "War on" rhetoric as being over-the-top. Monty Python references are always welcome.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    She can clarify till the cows come home.  Her little law violates Roe, and is heartless and stupid.




    I agree.. there's no getting around what the original intent was if you read the bill. Thankfully..it seems the GOP tide is starting to turn to where clowns like her will become more irrelevent.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    It's not easy to choose which of our dutiful Virginian's comments is the tighter pretzel, so here's the first.  Fortunately for him, he only has to hold the position for the duration of this thread.  Or until Rep. Brown completes hers (whatever it is). 

    Of course, none of this is pretzeling, and certainly not backtracking.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    The moonbats are on their morally superior "high horses" again ...they really want to  believe that some NM legislator wanted to punish a rape victim and put the victim in jail.Thereby  proving yet again  to themselves how superior they are, and how  conservatives wage a "war on women"...

    "On Thursday, Brown issued a statement that she said clarifies the intent behind her bill. In it, she said she plans to submit a substitute draft soon. Her statement reads:

    "It has been speculated that this legislation is intended to criminalize rape victims. This is a misinterpretation of the intent of the legislation.

    'House Bill 206 was never intended to punish or criminalize rape victims,' said Rep. Brown. 'Its intent is solely to deter rape and cases of incest. The rapist—not the victim—would be charged with tampering of evidence. I am submitting a substitute draft to make the intent of the legislation abundantly clear..."




     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain.

    And Twain said this before the liberal blogosphere existed....

    The point is, the rape victim could not be charged with tampering with evidence. So all the hyperbole and posturing about intending to put a rape victim in jail  is worthless.. so the legislator explains what the bill is about..and the attack machine claims she is "backtracking"

    This is a common scenario , where a draft bill is spun by the liberal attack machine as something it isnt...see "ultrasound bill, Virginia, 2012"

    If a rape victim was coerced to have an abortion by the rapist, then the rapist could be charged with tampering with evidence. Cannot see how that violates Roe v Wade.




    Tighter.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "Seriously? The rapist sticks around to coerce an abortion to cover his tracks... You think there is such a scenario as a likely possibility? Likely enough so you need a new law about it?"

    No, dont think it is a likely possibility. Would be interested why this state lawmaker drafted this bill, was it based on a real instance...

    The point is, as the lead attack dog angryman said "Ya can't make up shiite this stupid."

    Yet the HuffPost liberal media machine did make it up, didnt they??

    You wont hear any backtracking from HuffPost, however, just claims that the  lawmaker is 'backtracking' and 'covering her tracks" ...and the liberal attack machine moves on to the next target.




    Tighter.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "Pro-choicers are picketing to keep big government out of their uteruses."

    Pro-choicers are picketing for abortion on demand , paid for by taxpayers, through the ninth month, and partial birth abortion.

    Sex selection abortions like China? No problem, it is a 'choice".

    The holy grail of liberal court decisions, Roe v Wade , 40 years ago, said it was constitutional and legal to make abortion illegal after the first trimester..got a problem with that? Is that government in the uterus?

    If it is between the doctor and the woman, and any requirement to have an ultrasound to determine the age of the fetus cannot be allowed,  then how is Roe v Wade's first trimester limit on abortions to be enforced? It isnt. 

     

    Tighter. 

    (And while we're here, throw in a rear guard reference to Virginia's transvaginal ultrasound requirement.  Which might also be re-packaged as not having been rolled back either.)

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    bump  




    OK, but it only prolongs how long you'll have to hold the pretzel position.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    "Virginia's transvaginal ultrasound requirement..."

    For those who rely on Jon Stewart for their political knowledge...Virginia passed a law requiring an external ultrasound, not a transvaginal one..

    Seven states require ultrasounds before abortions. Twenty states regulate some aspect of ultrasound exams, including requiring abortion providers to give women the option to view the image or listen to the fetal heartbeat if an ultrasound is performed. Eleven other states have legislation pending. If all of the measures pass, more than half of the states will have laws governing ultrasound exams before abortions.

    Without an ultrasound, there is effectively abortion on demand through the ninth month of gestation. Which is what the zealots want, but wont admit to....

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    So the progressives actually believe this state legislator  wanted to pass a law putting rape victims IN JAIL.

    How delusional...but it fits their warped prejudices...

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    [QUOTE]

    "Virginia's transvaginal ultrasound requirement..."

    For those who rely on Jon Stewart for their political knowledge...Virginia passed a law requiring an external ultrasound, not a transvaginal one..

    [QUOTE]

    After it, too, was rolled back.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    From a health perspective, ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying.

    In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Now this is a new twist, and a new low, in the wingnuts incessant war on women.

    From a health perspective, ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying.

    In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share