To be fair Bells, you don't think that the lawyers acting for the hospital directly consulted the local priest who then directly consulted the bishop\archbishop who then consulted Rome before this went to court. As stupid as this sounds it sounds like the lawyers ran away with a case acting as lawyers are taught and using every trick in there book to win for there clients (the hospital) without thinking about how this would be viewed by the clients owners. And the Bishop probably only got a cursory word from some underling (probably not clergy) and didn't investigate any further
Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Bells
Staff member
They would have consulted with their clients when writing their brief. In fact, it is extraordinary for them to claim that they did not know.
Huh? You honestly think the pope knows about every decision made in a local catholic school, the church employs a beuocracy just the same as the education department does (know this for fact as I am friends with the guy in charge of one of the archdiocese and he's not a priest or brother, he's an education expert) and I can't see the hospital system being any different, this sounds like a case of left hand not knowing what right hand is doing
To Have Your Organ and Baby, Too
To Have Your Organ and Baby, Too
So, is a person now an organ?
Wait, what?
Further complicating the personhood debate is an Alabama bill intended to make abortion services harder to provide and receive, and all in the name of protecting the woman seeking an abortion:
Over at Jezebel, Katie J. M. Baker makes an obvious point:
Just like the Catholic Church's astounding flip-flop and flip back again on the philosophical assertion of fetal personhood, it's hard to figure how anti-abortion advocates like McClurkin expect nobody to notice—and laugh derisively at—their attempt to establish organ-person parity.
So how does this go? Is a fetus, in the legalistic outlook of the anti-abortion argument, a person or an organ?
It's getting hard to figure out which straw is which as the anti-abortion movement desperately grasps at and hurls each new handful.
____________________
Notes:
Lyman, Brian. "Ala. House of Representatives expected to take up abortion clinic bill Tuesday". The Montgomery Advertiser. February 17, 2013. MontgomeryAdvertiser.com. February 19, 2013. http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...expected-take-up-abortion-clinic-bill-Tuesday
Baker, Katie J. M. "Genius Alabama Rep. Says a Baby is the 'Largest Organ in a Body'". Jezebel. February 18, 2013. Jezebel.com. February 19, 2013. http://jezebel.com/5985082/genius-alabama-rep-says-a-baby-is-the-largest-organ-in-a-body
To Have Your Organ and Baby, Too
So, is a person now an organ?
Wait, what?
Further complicating the personhood debate is an Alabama bill intended to make abortion services harder to provide and receive, and all in the name of protecting the woman seeking an abortion:
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Pelham, would require physicians at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals; require clinics to follow ambulatory clinic building codes and make it a felony — punishable by up to 10 years in prison — for a nurse, nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant to dispense abortion-inducing medications.
McClurkin and other supporters of the bill, known as HB 57, argue that the nature of abortion should require strict regulations, and claim that abortion clinics have a higher rate of regulatory violations than any other providers.
"When a physician removes a child from a woman, that is the largest organ in a body," McClurkin said in an interview Thursday. "That’s a big thing. That’s a big surgery. You don’t have any other organs in your body that are bigger than that."
(Lyman; boldface accent added)
McClurkin and other supporters of the bill, known as HB 57, argue that the nature of abortion should require strict regulations, and claim that abortion clinics have a higher rate of regulatory violations than any other providers.
"When a physician removes a child from a woman, that is the largest organ in a body," McClurkin said in an interview Thursday. "That’s a big thing. That’s a big surgery. You don’t have any other organs in your body that are bigger than that."
(Lyman; boldface accent added)
Over at Jezebel, Katie J. M. Baker makes an obvious point:
My liver, heart, and skin are all very excited that we are now giving organs personhood rights, although the latter is slightly upset about losing out on its "largest organ in the human body" rep.
Just like the Catholic Church's astounding flip-flop and flip back again on the philosophical assertion of fetal personhood, it's hard to figure how anti-abortion advocates like McClurkin expect nobody to notice—and laugh derisively at—their attempt to establish organ-person parity.
So how does this go? Is a fetus, in the legalistic outlook of the anti-abortion argument, a person or an organ?
It's getting hard to figure out which straw is which as the anti-abortion movement desperately grasps at and hurls each new handful.
____________________
Notes:
Lyman, Brian. "Ala. House of Representatives expected to take up abortion clinic bill Tuesday". The Montgomery Advertiser. February 17, 2013. MontgomeryAdvertiser.com. February 19, 2013. http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...expected-take-up-abortion-clinic-bill-Tuesday
Baker, Katie J. M. "Genius Alabama Rep. Says a Baby is the 'Largest Organ in a Body'". Jezebel. February 18, 2013. Jezebel.com. February 19, 2013. http://jezebel.com/5985082/genius-alabama-rep-says-a-baby-is-the-largest-organ-in-a-body
Personally I do think abortions should be carried out in a hospital, of course in Australia that should be no big issue because we have public hospitals everywhere, the majority of our system is public. I worry that when they are done in clinics not directly in a hospital if the patient starts heamohraging that there isn't much that can be done without an operating room and full staff
IfIonlyhadabrain
Registered Member
Just curious about what you're referring to here.
Macabre
See #238 in this discussion. The short explanation is that life-at-conception was good enough for the Catholic Church until there was some money on the line, and then it wasn't, and then the hierarchy found out and, well, couldn't ignore the contradiction. It's macabre.
IfIonlyhadabrain said:
See #238 in this discussion. The short explanation is that life-at-conception was good enough for the Catholic Church until there was some money on the line, and then it wasn't, and then the hierarchy found out and, well, couldn't ignore the contradiction. It's macabre.
The word "abortion" isn't capitalized. It's not a proper noun. Nor is "bullshit."
(The above, BTW, is the perfect example of Skitt's Law.)
IfIonlyhadabrain
Registered Member
Thanks for the information.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Interesting commentary from today's Washington Post, in a review of the book Would You Eat Your Cat? Key Ethical Conundrums and What They Tell You About Yourself by Jeremy Stangroom.
Consider a hapless man strapped to a hospital bed for months while doctors transfuse his antibodies to a dying celebrity. If he insists on pulling out the IVs, is he guilty of murder?
So... Even if a fetus is considered a human being, is there a moral requirement for a woman to allow the fetus to use her body in order to survive?
So... Even if a fetus is considered a human being, is there a moral requirement for a woman to allow the fetus to use her body in order to survive?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No. What about the right to self-determination?
GOP VA AG and LACP
GOP VA AG & LACP
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is running for governor, hoping to become the successor to Governor Ultrasound.
The guy looking to replace the Cooch in the AG's office?
Well, he's the guy who wanted to jail women for failing to report miscarriages to the police:
Some months ago, I described Obenshain's bill, along with other examples from the culture, as among "absurd tales" that "exist without LACP as the statutory outlook".
This is the guy conservatives in Virginia want enforcing the law.
Keep an eye on how that one goes.
____________________
Notes:
Millhiser, Ian. "Virginia GOP Nominee For Attorney General Would Force Women To Report Their Miscarriages To Police". ThinkProgress. May 20, 2013. ThinkProgress.org. May 19, 2013. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...women-to-report-their-miscarriages-to-police/
GOP VA AG & LACP
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is running for governor, hoping to become the successor to Governor Ultrasound.
The guy looking to replace the Cooch in the AG's office?
Well, he's the guy who wanted to jail women for failing to report miscarriages to the police:
If a woman in Virginia has a miscarriage without a doctor present, they must report it within 24 hours to the police or risk going to jail for a full year. At least, that’s what would have happened if a bill introduced by Virginia state Sen. Mark Obenshain (R) had become law.
And yet, the Virginia Republican Party wants to make Obenshain into the state’s top prosecutor. This weekend, Virginia Republicans selected Obenshain as their nominee to replace tea party stalwart Ken Cuccinelli (R) as the state’s attorney general.
(Millhiser)
And yet, the Virginia Republican Party wants to make Obenshain into the state’s top prosecutor. This weekend, Virginia Republicans selected Obenshain as their nominee to replace tea party stalwart Ken Cuccinelli (R) as the state’s attorney general.
(Millhiser)
Some months ago, I described Obenshain's bill, along with other examples from the culture, as among "absurd tales" that "exist without LACP as the statutory outlook".
This is the guy conservatives in Virginia want enforcing the law.
Keep an eye on how that one goes.
____________________
Notes:
Millhiser, Ian. "Virginia GOP Nominee For Attorney General Would Force Women To Report Their Miscarriages To Police". ThinkProgress. May 20, 2013. ThinkProgress.org. May 19, 2013. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...women-to-report-their-miscarriages-to-police/
What is with your unending war against babies? What did they do to you which gave you an uncontrollable desire to murder them? Now you don't even want those murders recorded? Most fighter pilots tally their kills as skull and cross bones, perhaps you could knit a few extra stitches to a quit you infanticidal maniac.
Bells
Staff member
What in the hell are you talking about?
You have been trolling through this forum in the last few hours, posting nonsense to simply troll.
Unless of course you think women should be reporting all miscarriages to the police so they can be investigated for murder?
Windlestraws
I am told that this sort of thing doesn't happen, is a straw man.
Kate Sheppard, explains the Mississippi situation for Mother Jones
—and notes the problem:
And while there are some—for instance, prosecutors—who might think this sort of thing is straightforward, many are not buying it.:
Indeed, Mississippi is preparing to prosecute for murder a woman named Rennie Gibbs, who is accused of murdering a fetus with cocaine at age sixteen.
That last point has a good deal of support, including the AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of OB/GYNs.
For abortion foes, it's nice work if you can get it—perpetuating the problem one purports to palliate is great job security. But this is all cynical politicking, not any genuine quest for justice.
Even judges see the problem.
To the other, we have an answer on the LACP issue in the context of rape: Women who are pregnant as a result of rape must take extra care to not entertain any mental health problems, as any behavior undertaken in that state of mind may be held against them in a court of law.
In Mississippi, at least. Or Alabama. Or South Carolina. Or Indiana.
According to the anti-abortion crowd.
As Lynn Paltrow of NAPW explains:
The trend is clear; what stands out in this case is that what some would dismiss as hyperbole has come from the mouth of a state supreme court justice°.
That is to say, it really does happen.
____________________
Notes:
° state supreme court justice — It is worth noting that Justice King has only been on the state's highest bench since February, 2011, after his appointment by Gov. Haley Barbour. That is to say, he's no flaming liberal.
Works Cited:
Sheppard, Kate. "Mississippi Could Soon Jail Women for Stillbirths, Miscarriages". Mother Jones. May 23, 2013. MotherJones.com. May 23, 2013. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/buckhalter-mississippi-stillbirth-manslaughter
Paltrow, Lynn. "Prosecutors, Judges Increasingly Indict Pregnant Women Using “Personhood” Status Rejected By Voters". RH Reality Check. April 5, 2012. RHRealityCheck.org. May 23, 2013. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/04/05/personhood-measures-in-disguise/
I am told that this sort of thing doesn't happen, is a straw man.
Kate Sheppard, explains the Mississippi situation for Mother Jones
On March 14, 2009, 31 weeks into her pregnancy, Nina Buckhalter gave birth to a stillborn baby girl. She named the child Hayley Jade. Two months later, a grand jury in Lamar County, Mississippi, indicted Buckhalter for manslaughter, claiming that the then-29-year-old woman "did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, kill Hayley Jade Buckhalter, a human being, by culpable negligence."
The district attorney argued that methamphetamine detected in Buckhalter's system caused Hayley Jade's death. The state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case on April 2, is expected to rule soon on whether the prosecution can move forward.
If prosecutors prevail in this case, the state would be setting a "dangerous precedent" that "unintentional pregnancy loss can be treated as a form of homicide," says Farah Diaz-Tello, a staff attorney with National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a nonprofit legal organization that has joined with Robert McDuff, a Mississippi civil rights lawyer, to defend Buckhalter. If Buckhalter's case goes forward, NAPW fears it could spur a wave of similar prosecutions in Mississippi and other states.
The district attorney argued that methamphetamine detected in Buckhalter's system caused Hayley Jade's death. The state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case on April 2, is expected to rule soon on whether the prosecution can move forward.
If prosecutors prevail in this case, the state would be setting a "dangerous precedent" that "unintentional pregnancy loss can be treated as a form of homicide," says Farah Diaz-Tello, a staff attorney with National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a nonprofit legal organization that has joined with Robert McDuff, a Mississippi civil rights lawyer, to defend Buckhalter. If Buckhalter's case goes forward, NAPW fears it could spur a wave of similar prosecutions in Mississippi and other states.
—and notes the problem:
Mississippi's manslaughter laws were not intended to apply in cases of stillbirths and miscarriages. Four times between 1998 through 2002, Mississippi lawmakers rejected proposals that would have set specific penalties for damaging a fetus by using illegal drugs during pregnancy. But Mississippi prosecutors say that two other state laws allow them to charge Buckhalter. One defines of manslaughter as the "killing of a human being, by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another"; another includes "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth" in the state's definition of human beings.
And while there are some—for instance, prosecutors—who might think this sort of thing is straightforward, many are not buying it.:
The cause of any given miscarriage or stillbirth is difficult to determine, and many experts believe there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to drugs in utero can cause a miscarriage or stillbirth. Because of this, prosecuting Buckhalter opens the door to investigating and prosecuting women for any number of other potential causes of a miscarriage or stillbirth, her lawyers argued in a filing to the state Supreme Court—"smoking, drinking alcohol, using drugs, exercising against doctor's orders, or failing to follow advice regarding conditions such as obesity or hypertension." Supreme Court Justice Leslie D. King also raised this question in the oral arguments last month: "Doctors say women should avoid herbal tea, things like unpasteurized cheese, lunch meats. Exactly what are the boundaries?"
Laws that criminalize hurting or killing fetuses are pitched as ways to protect pregnant women from abuse but are often used to prosecute those same women, NAPW says. The group has documented more than 400 cases across the country in which these laws have been used to detain or jail pregnant women. Earlier this year, Mississippi's neighbor to the east, Alabama, set its own precedent for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use. In January, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld convictions against two women—Amanda Kimbrough and Hope Ankrom—for "chemical endangerment" of a child, under a 2006 law that was written to punish people who expose children—not fetuses—to illegal drugs. Kimbrough gave birth prematurely to a baby boy who died shortly thereafter; she was charged after testing positive for meth. Ankrom gave birth to a healthy baby boy, but she was charged after he was found to have marijuana and cocaine in his system.
Laws that criminalize hurting or killing fetuses are pitched as ways to protect pregnant women from abuse but are often used to prosecute those same women, NAPW says. The group has documented more than 400 cases across the country in which these laws have been used to detain or jail pregnant women. Earlier this year, Mississippi's neighbor to the east, Alabama, set its own precedent for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use. In January, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld convictions against two women—Amanda Kimbrough and Hope Ankrom—for "chemical endangerment" of a child, under a 2006 law that was written to punish people who expose children—not fetuses—to illegal drugs. Kimbrough gave birth prematurely to a baby boy who died shortly thereafter; she was charged after testing positive for meth. Ankrom gave birth to a healthy baby boy, but she was charged after he was found to have marijuana and cocaine in his system.
Indeed, Mississippi is preparing to prosecute for murder a woman named Rennie Gibbs, who is accused of murdering a fetus with cocaine at age sixteen.
Buckhalter's lawyers contend that both Buckhalter and Gibbs are collateral damage in the abortion wars in Mississippi, one of the most anti-abortion states in the country. A 2011 state ballot measure there would have granted full rights to fertilized eggs, making all abortions illegal all the time. That measure failed, but abortion foes have pledged to try again in 2015, and lawmakers are working hard to close the state's last remaining abortion clinic. Charging a woman with manslaughter for using drugs while pregnant is just a backdoor way of establishing legal "personhood" for fetuses, says Diaz-Tello.
But as McDuff pointed out in oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, even the state's law defining homicide as including the killing of a child at "every stage of gestation" includes a specific exemption for women seeking a legal abortion. If a woman can legally terminate an unwanted pregnancy, he argued, how can she be jailed for unintentionally ending a wanted one?
Perhaps the most perverse impact of prosecuting Buckhalter, her lawyers say, is that it could lead to more abortions. Fear of prosecution "may cause a mother to seek an abortion that she might not have otherwise have sought," particularly if she is dealing with drug or alcohol addiction, Buckhalter's lawyers argued in a court filing.
But as McDuff pointed out in oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, even the state's law defining homicide as including the killing of a child at "every stage of gestation" includes a specific exemption for women seeking a legal abortion. If a woman can legally terminate an unwanted pregnancy, he argued, how can she be jailed for unintentionally ending a wanted one?
Perhaps the most perverse impact of prosecuting Buckhalter, her lawyers say, is that it could lead to more abortions. Fear of prosecution "may cause a mother to seek an abortion that she might not have otherwise have sought," particularly if she is dealing with drug or alcohol addiction, Buckhalter's lawyers argued in a court filing.
That last point has a good deal of support, including the AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of OB/GYNs.
For abortion foes, it's nice work if you can get it—perpetuating the problem one purports to palliate is great job security. But this is all cynical politicking, not any genuine quest for justice.
Even judges see the problem.
To the other, we have an answer on the LACP issue in the context of rape: Women who are pregnant as a result of rape must take extra care to not entertain any mental health problems, as any behavior undertaken in that state of mind may be held against them in a court of law.
In Mississippi, at least. Or Alabama. Or South Carolina. Or Indiana.
According to the anti-abortion crowd.
As Lynn Paltrow of NAPW explains:
Mississippi prosecutors and judges are not alone. In Indiana, after 34-year-old Bei Bei Shuai grew so despondent that she tried to kill herself while pregnant and tragically lost her newborn, prosecutors charged her with murder (defined to include viable fetuses) and attempted feticide (defined to include ending a human pregnancy at any stage). In February, the Indiana Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision ruled that these laws could be used to prosecute Ms. Shuai. This is so despite the fact that attempting suicide is not a crime in Indiana and even though the murder and feticide laws in Indiana, like those in Mississippi, were specifically passed to address people who harm pregnant women — not treat women who become pregnant as potential criminals.
If Indiana’s Supreme Court upholds this judicially expanded version of the law, it will set a precedent and do what “personhood” measures do — treat eggs, embryos, and fetuses as separate legal persons and the women who carry, sustain, and nurture them as criminals when things go wrong. Pregnant women in Indiana who experience a miscarriage or a stillbirth that law enforcement believes was caused by something she did or didn’t do during pregnancy (think cigarettes, driving without a seatbelt, refusing cesarean surgery) could be investigated, arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated, and since the charge is murder — held without bail.
Moreover, if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, you can be sure that in Indiana a woman caught seeking or having an abortion would be charged with murder or attempted murder.
In Alabama, prosecutors and judges have also used their authority to circumvent a vote on personhood by broadly interpreting and applying the state’s 2005 chemical endangerment law. This law was passed to make it a crime to bring a “child” into an “environment” where drugs are “produced or distributed,” such as a dangerous methamphetamine lab. Local prosecutors decided, though, that it could be used to arrest and punish pregnant women who went to term and had used any amount of a controlled substance.
In other words, pregnant women, according to the prosecutors, are no different than meth labs and pregnancy is the same as “chemical endangerment.” Sixty women have been arrested and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has so far affirmed this misuse of the law. Like “personhood” measures that would redefine person to include the unborn, the court of appeals redefined the word “child” to include the unborn. They did this without a statewide discussion and without a vote, in spite of the fact that the legislature has repeatedly and explicitly decided not to make the chemical endangering law applicable to women who use a drug while pregnant.
If Indiana’s Supreme Court upholds this judicially expanded version of the law, it will set a precedent and do what “personhood” measures do — treat eggs, embryos, and fetuses as separate legal persons and the women who carry, sustain, and nurture them as criminals when things go wrong. Pregnant women in Indiana who experience a miscarriage or a stillbirth that law enforcement believes was caused by something she did or didn’t do during pregnancy (think cigarettes, driving without a seatbelt, refusing cesarean surgery) could be investigated, arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated, and since the charge is murder — held without bail.
Moreover, if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, you can be sure that in Indiana a woman caught seeking or having an abortion would be charged with murder or attempted murder.
In Alabama, prosecutors and judges have also used their authority to circumvent a vote on personhood by broadly interpreting and applying the state’s 2005 chemical endangerment law. This law was passed to make it a crime to bring a “child” into an “environment” where drugs are “produced or distributed,” such as a dangerous methamphetamine lab. Local prosecutors decided, though, that it could be used to arrest and punish pregnant women who went to term and had used any amount of a controlled substance.
In other words, pregnant women, according to the prosecutors, are no different than meth labs and pregnancy is the same as “chemical endangerment.” Sixty women have been arrested and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has so far affirmed this misuse of the law. Like “personhood” measures that would redefine person to include the unborn, the court of appeals redefined the word “child” to include the unborn. They did this without a statewide discussion and without a vote, in spite of the fact that the legislature has repeatedly and explicitly decided not to make the chemical endangering law applicable to women who use a drug while pregnant.
The trend is clear; what stands out in this case is that what some would dismiss as hyperbole has come from the mouth of a state supreme court justice°.
That is to say, it really does happen.
____________________
Notes:
° state supreme court justice — It is worth noting that Justice King has only been on the state's highest bench since February, 2011, after his appointment by Gov. Haley Barbour. That is to say, he's no flaming liberal.
Works Cited:
Sheppard, Kate. "Mississippi Could Soon Jail Women for Stillbirths, Miscarriages". Mother Jones. May 23, 2013. MotherJones.com. May 23, 2013. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/buckhalter-mississippi-stillbirth-manslaughter
Paltrow, Lynn. "Prosecutors, Judges Increasingly Indict Pregnant Women Using “Personhood” Status Rejected By Voters". RH Reality Check. April 5, 2012. RHRealityCheck.org. May 23, 2013. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/04/05/personhood-measures-in-disguise/
How do you propose to give a "scientific" definition for "sapience" ... or to put it more bluntly, the parameters for establishing the terms "sapience" or even "human" rights has a strong historical record of being fluid. Any sort of socially defined right sits poorly with clamoring for borrowing from the so-called authority of science to establish a precedent (so for instance, there have been so-called "scientific" justifications for black people not having rights, women not having rights, children not having rights, etc etc)I cannot answer the poll because the proposition is incorrect.
The sole "human" right (voluntary action) accrues at "sapience", not conception. This leaves one scientific question to be answered, "when does sapience begin"? Have at it!
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
That cannot possibly be a toggle. It has to develop incrementally.
Add It to the List
Add It to the List
Chris Tomlinson of Associated Press explains the latest mind-bending nexus of rape and abortion:
Politically, it should suffice to note that it doesn't really matter if we put a woman's face on such stupidity; it's still stupid.
I mean, really?
____________________
Notes:
Tomlinson, Chris. "Texas Lawmakers Approve Abortion Restrictions". Associated Press. June 24, 2013. Swampland.Time.com. June 24, 2013. http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/24/texas-lawmakers-approve-abortion-restrictions/
Add It to the List
Chris Tomlinson of Associated Press explains the latest mind-bending nexus of rape and abortion:
The bill's sponsor stopped answering questions about her bill after the first two hours after she got into trouble denying Democratic amendments. When Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, called for an exemption for women who were victims of rape and incest, Rep. Jody Laubenberg, R-Parker, explained why she felt it was unnecessary.
“In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out,” she said, comparing the procedure to an abortion. “The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development.”
The remark about rape kits, which is not accurate, sparked widespread ridicule on social media sites. Laubenberg, who has difficulty debating bills, then simply rejected all proposed changes to her bill without speaking until the end of the debate.
“In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out,” she said, comparing the procedure to an abortion. “The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development.”
The remark about rape kits, which is not accurate, sparked widespread ridicule on social media sites. Laubenberg, who has difficulty debating bills, then simply rejected all proposed changes to her bill without speaking until the end of the debate.
Politically, it should suffice to note that it doesn't really matter if we put a woman's face on such stupidity; it's still stupid.
“In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out,” she said, comparing the procedure to an abortion.
I mean, really?
____________________
Notes:
Tomlinson, Chris. "Texas Lawmakers Approve Abortion Restrictions". Associated Press. June 24, 2013. Swampland.Time.com. June 24, 2013. http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/24/texas-lawmakers-approve-abortion-restrictions/
- Status