A bill under consideration in the Mount Rushmore State would make preventing a Negro man from smiling at a White woman a "justifiable homicide" in many cases.
I really hope other states don't get ideas from this...Georgia's already been whittling days and months from the maximum amount of time a woman can be pregnant and still get it terminated. The (helpful, amazing, supportive, cheap) clinic that does abortions in Atlanta has to move around the days they're open, hide their building (you often see protesters hanging out on the road with no idea where to go), a police escort to get to the door, a series of voice-boxes and buzzing-in areas to get into the actual building, and an 8-hour wait in a secured area where they ask you all sorts of questions, not all of which are for counseling purposes...
If people would just mind their own damned business!
Sadly, Texas currently has an "emergency legislation" bill going through the House/Senate to require all women who want an abortion to get a sonogram and listen to the fetus's heartbeat then wait 24 hours before getting an abortion. Un-effing-believable.
Texas has a $24 billion budget deficit to deal with and forcing women to get a sonogram is emergency legislation? No. And start spending my tax dollars appropriately. While abortion is not a choice I would make for myself, I will support the right of any woman who does want one to get one safely. Grr. Aarrgh.
What they never seem to consider in these cases is women who have been raped. Can you imagine? You're already suffering from the trauma of being attacked (in most cases it's by someone you know), and then you discover you're pregnant. Not only is that alone traumatic, having an abortion is still a difficult choice. It's not the baby's fault how they were conceived. Still, it's perfectly understandable that a woman wouldn't want to bring a child conceived by rape to term. Then you're forced to consider, in the state you're in, that this child is alive and a person. This is compounding trauma after trauma here, why does no one stop and think about this? What about the dangers of having a child under the age of 21? Most people don't know that it takes until around 21 years for your reproductive system to sort itself out completely. There are higher instances of illness, complications, Down's Syndrome and low birth weight in children born to young women, not to mention higher instances of child abuse and neglect.
I see what you mean, and it seems these laws always have a behind-the-scenes feeling of "Don't people know this is wrong?" Like the lawmakers are the only ones who have EVER considered the morality of the choice. Like the women who sit in those buildings or on waiting lists or in counseling or at the hospital don't think about these things.
What they never seem to consider in these cases is women who have been raped.
Don't be silly. It's obvious that, in fact, they ARE totally considering women who've been raped, *and they think the stupid sluts deserved it*. If they'd been PROPER women, nobody but their husband (or father) would ever have a chance to see them in a sexual light, and THAT isn't rape.
It's just more right-wing, fundie, pro-life bullshit (inconsistent messages at best from that group). It's not an easy decision for anyone (or at least, I think it shouldn't be easy, but hey -- it's their lives, not mine), but it's a strong-arm, bullying tactic to subject these women to that. You're right--it just heaps trauma on trauma.
I just hope that if this piece-of-crap legislation gets enacted (Veto, Darwin!), doctors let the women wear eyemasks and listen to iPods turned up loud during the sonogram. Letter of the law, baby, not the spirit.
And for the love of cake, teach kids about birth control and the consequences of having a baby before they're ready! Abstinence-only education a) obviously does not work -- we have an increasing teen pregnancy rate b) leads to the spread of STDs -- syphilis is making a comeback, fercryin'outloud (if you believe the ads).
And I have yet to see a teenager (or an adult for that matter) that could combat hormones and temptation.
Ooh! What about women who are blind and/or deaf? What then, hmmm?
I move a further amendment to the bill; that members of the SD Legislature be expressly added to the list on the principle that governments should not be beyond the reach of their own statutes.
-- Steve wonders if these chickenhawks are willing to face the "2nd Amendment solutions" they are so eager to advocate for others.
Wow, and I thought the redefining rape thing was the rock bottom for this month. Nope, South Dakota has managed to nestle up right next to it.
How fucked up would it be if someone who supported this kind of agenda got legitimately pregnant and then went to a clinic with the pretense of getting counseling just so that their relative could then "justifiably" kill the doctor?
Got a better one for you. You are pregnant, and you legitimately want an abortion.
The father of the child, or any of his family, or any of YOUR family, can legally kill any doctor who agrees to gives you the legitimate medical procedure that you have a right to get.
I know, reference to that scenario is in the article.
I think mine is worse, honestly. At least in your situation, the pregnant woman is going to the doctor for legitimate reasons, not just as a set up. My scenario has the exact same characteristics as yours except the pregnant woman is a zealot masquerading as someone who wants help just to get another abortion doctor killed and further that agenda. She can then say she's "seen the light" and have the child as she was planning to do the whole time.
Actually, the first one seems worse to me, because of the likelihood that the woman will be stuck carrying a child she does not want to term. And will then ahve to deal with feeling like someone was killed because of her.
Note: the sponsors' defense is that it would only encompass illegal abortions. Section 2 here (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm)) says that a relative would need to have "reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished."
That said, I'm sure a creative lawyer and/or "pro-lifer" could find any number of ways to jump through that hoop. Something like "Jeebus says abortion = great personal injury, so that's my 'reasonable ground'" might fit the bill.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 03:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-16 08:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 05:01 pm (UTC)If people would just mind their own damned business!
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 07:42 pm (UTC)Texas has a $24 billion budget deficit to deal with and forcing women to get a sonogram is emergency legislation? No. And start spending my tax dollars appropriately. While abortion is not a choice I would make for myself, I will support the right of any woman who does want one to get one safely. Grr. Aarrgh.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-16 06:12 pm (UTC)What about the dangers of having a child under the age of 21? Most people don't know that it takes until around 21 years for your reproductive system to sort itself out completely. There are higher instances of illness, complications, Down's Syndrome and low birth weight in children born to young women, not to mention higher instances of child abuse and neglect.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-16 11:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-16 11:51 pm (UTC)Don't be silly. It's obvious that, in fact, they ARE totally considering women who've been raped, *and they think the stupid sluts deserved it*. If they'd been PROPER women, nobody but their husband (or father) would ever have a chance to see them in a sexual light, and THAT isn't rape.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-17 05:31 pm (UTC)I just hope that if this piece-of-crap legislation gets enacted (Veto, Darwin!), doctors let the women wear eyemasks and listen to iPods turned up loud during the sonogram. Letter of the law, baby, not the spirit.
And for the love of cake, teach kids about birth control and the consequences of having a baby before they're ready! Abstinence-only education a) obviously does not work -- we have an increasing teen pregnancy rate b) leads to the spread of STDs -- syphilis is making a comeback, fercryin'outloud (if you believe the ads).
And I have yet to see a teenager (or an adult for that matter) that could combat hormones and temptation.
Ooh! What about women who are blind and/or deaf? What then, hmmm?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 05:25 pm (UTC)-- Steve wonders if these chickenhawks are willing to face the "2nd Amendment solutions" they are so eager to advocate for others.
chickenhawks
Date: 2011-02-15 06:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 07:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 07:21 pm (UTC)How fucked up would it be if someone who supported this kind of agenda got legitimately pregnant and then went to a clinic with the pretense of getting counseling just so that their relative could then "justifiably" kill the doctor?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 07:36 pm (UTC)The father of the child, or any of his family, or any of YOUR family, can legally kill any doctor who agrees to gives you the legitimate medical procedure that you have a right to get.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 07:47 pm (UTC)I think mine is worse, honestly. At least in your situation, the pregnant woman is going to the doctor for legitimate reasons, not just as a set up. My scenario has the exact same characteristics as yours except the pregnant woman is a zealot masquerading as someone who wants help just to get another abortion doctor killed and further that agenda. She can then say she's "seen the light" and have the child as she was planning to do the whole time.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-16 05:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 09:47 pm (UTC)That said, I'm sure a creative lawyer and/or "pro-lifer" could find any number of ways to jump through that hoop. Something like "Jeebus says abortion = great personal injury, so that's my 'reasonable ground'" might fit the bill.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 10:27 pm (UTC)Abortion pretty much by definition would be a "great perosnal injury" to the fetus.
So, like always, the pro-lifers are lying.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 07:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 07:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 08:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-15 10:57 pm (UTC)Guess who sucks! Is it YOU, South Dakota?!?
Date: 2011-02-16 07:38 am (UTC)Re: Guess who sucks! Is it YOU, South Dakota?!?
Date: 2011-02-16 06:14 pm (UTC)