"You'd be surprised how many drugged, underage or mentally handicapped young women have been gaming the system. Sorry, ladies, the free abortion ride is over."

(Thought the clip was funny so decided to share, but I can't help but TSB this a little bit, feel free to ignore: The GOP controlled US House is trying to redefine rape to pull funding away from rape motivated abortions, and the NC GOP that took over the general assembly is making it harder to get it covered by insurance & to require doctors in NC to show women a state sponsored website explaining that abortion is bad before they can go through with it.)

2/4/2011 2:14:06 AM

made me lol

2/4/2011 2:57:35 AM

I held my nose and read the Fox News interpretation of this story

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/anti-abortion-changes-definition-rape-critics-say/

and it seems that the outcry is from people that probably didn't read the bill (I haven't either) and are just going on the knee-jerk reaction of their favored anti-conservative media outlet.

Quote :

""The use of the term 'forcible' was not intended to change the meaning of the time-tested protections and exceptions currently contained in the Hyde amendment," he said in a written statement. "To avoid any confusion and to expedite the effort to permanently prevent taxpayers from being complicit in abortion and abortion coverage, we are restoring the text to reflect the exceptions for rape and incest included in the Hyde amendment." "

I don't understand how rape is anything other than forcible, so what the hell is all the uproar about? Are there non forcible types of rape? Or, are we talking about raping the passed out and the handicapped as not forcing because they didn't put up a fight? My guess is, we've had a slew of slutty girls showing up wanting to get their abortions paid for, alluding to the idea they didn't want to have sex but they didn't want to press rape charges, and they get their abortion paid for. I realize rape (real rape) is psychology destructive and victims might not want to accuse, but let the professionals (doctors) make the determination if they believe rape happened. If it didn't, then the slut doesn't get the abortion paid for with our tax dollars.

2/4/2011 6:54:10 AM

try to post relevant stories next time, supplanter, and not issues that have already been dropped

2/4/2011 7:05:47 AM

I'm not sure why but I find Kristen Schaal to be very attractive.

2/4/2011 11:05:01 AM

Quote :

"If it didn't, then the slut doesn't get the abortion paid for with our tax dollars."

alleyway abortions or more screaming shit-hellions

take your pick

2/4/2011 11:09:28 AM

it all come down to this:

was he hot as fuck?

2/4/2011 11:13:13 AM

as rbrth requested:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php?ref=fpa

Quote :

"New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life."

Quote :

"The sponsor of H.R. 358, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) is a vocal member of the House's anti-abortion wing. A member of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus and a co-sponsor of H.R 3 -- the bill that added "forcible rape" to the lexicon this week -- Pitts is no stranger to the abortion debate. But pro-choice advocates say his new law goes farther than any other bill has in encroaching on the rights of women to obtain an abortion when their health is at at stake. They say the bill is giant leap away from accepted law, and one they haven't heard many in the pro-life community openly discuss before. "

2/4/2011 5:14:35 PM

I don't understand how that would ever work... Doesn't the Hippocratic Oath state that basically, a doctor can't let someone die in front of them when they know they can help?

2/4/2011 5:21:50 PM

no, shit like that happens all the time when people refuse help due to their religion

2/4/2011 5:24:33 PM

Quote :

"no, shit like that happens all the time when people refuse help due to their religion"

not the same thing

2/4/2011 5:28:12 PM

According to Wikipedia, all but the modern versions of the Hippocratic Oath included a provision that physicians not perform abortions; even in the Ancient Greek version.

2/4/2011 5:33:40 PM

Wikipedia is often manipulated

Wikipedia also says that the Hippocratic Oath only forbids the use of abortifacient pessaries (vaginal suppositories), likely because they caused vaginal ulcers



[Edited on February 4, 2011 at 5:42 PM. Reason : -]

2/4/2011 5:39:14 PM

more reading on Wikipedia tells me that early Christians practiced abortion

and that many in the early Church did not believe that a fetus had a soul (the process of receiving a soul being called 'ensoulment') until the quickening - the point where the mother is able to feel the fetus moving

2/4/2011 5:57:00 PM

rape-ish, lol

2/4/2011 6:15:34 PM

i thought republicans didn't want the govt involved in the doctor/patient relationship--or is that only when it's obamacare

2/4/2011 8:23:22 PM

Rape-ish
Rape-esque
Rape-ished

Rape with benefits!


[Edited on February 4, 2011 at 8:28 PM. Reason : ]

2/4/2011 8:27:22 PM

as rbrth requested, take 2. yet another GOP anti-abortion bill:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers?page=1

Quote :

"South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon."

2/17/2011 11:04:06 PM

if the hardcore anti-abortion crowd wasnt so cowardly, that bill would pass w/ their support

if abortion is murder, than surely it is justifiable (morally that is, unless you fill ALL killing is wrong) to kill the person who is commiting murder w/ no hope of repercussions from the authorities. especially if the person being murdered is family.


http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/6874/celebrating-scott-roeder-baby-killer-killer/

2/17/2011 11:14:49 PM

jewre rewsat

2/18/2011 12:25:27 AM

A) This should be soap-boxed, because in chit chat you'll get even more bullshit
B) I disagree with the thrust of the bill, but I understand it.

Try to think like a real pro-life person: if an individual, once conceived, is alive, then there's really not any justification for killing it. It has not committed a crime (it can't have committed anything, really, under any interpretation of the law). At the same time, it is an extant individual, with the rights of life accorded to it.

I realize the goal is to make the sponsor of this bill out to be an asshole. And maybe he is. But consider for a moment the possibility that he's actually concerned with defenseless members of society. Assuming that's the case, is he really such a bastard?

2/18/2011 12:39:58 AM

I will allow abortions to prevent the death of the mother to become illegal when the newborn baby can be brought up on manslaughter charges.

2/18/2011 3:46:52 AM

Quote :

"A) This should be soap-boxed, because in chit chat you'll get even more bullshit"

"Rape Rape" isn't a joke to begin with?

2/18/2011 4:13:23 AM

2/18/2011 5:04:12 AM

^

2/18/2011 5:33:35 AM

Quote :

"i thought republicans didn't want the govt involved in the doctor/patient relationship--or is that only when it's obamacare"

while the term republican seems to describe me less and less, I don't think the gov't should be involved at all. no free abortions, no anti-abortion laws, etc. oh yeh, and no obamacare either. if a woman wants an abortion, fine, go get it, under your own dime.

2/18/2011 7:56:57 AM

Quote :

"I don't think the gov't should be involved at all"

What about situations where it is one of the medical procedures covered by the health benefits package you have through your employer? What if you happen to be a librarian or teacher? Many republicans (including the GOP controlled Apex town council) say that counts as government funding of abortions, that shouldn't be covered.

Quote :

"no free abortions, no anti-abortion laws"

What about the government maintains a website saying abortion is bad, and what if the doctor is required to show you that before carrying out a procedure you've decided on together? Spending gov money on that, and wasting doctors/patients time on that isn't restricting abortion/isn't really an anti-abortion law according to many republicans.

2/18/2011 8:07:02 AM

Quote :

"if a woman wants an abortion, fine, go get it, under your own dime."

But what if it's rape-rape?

2/18/2011 8:25:08 AM

One major problem I have with the whole not covering abortions is that in some situations, the baby is going to die by the time they are born, and have no hope for living. Case in point: anencephaly. To force a woman to continue through a pregnancy when the kid has that condition is just cruel. :\ And if you want to know what anencephaly is, look up a picture

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 8:35 AM. Reason : I say "to force" because some women can't afford an abortion on their own dime]

2/18/2011 8:34:47 AM

Quote :

"Anencephaly is the absence of a large part of the brain and the skull. "

I think I'll go ahead and not google image that

2/18/2011 9:09:10 AM

yeah, that's what happened with my mom's second pregnancy. She had an abortion.

2/18/2011 9:18:01 AM

I guess lewisje is proof of what happens when you don't have an abortion in that situation.

2/18/2011 9:48:22 AM

The Supreme Court found that it is not necessary to include in an abortion law the exception for the health of the mother. In Gonzalez v. Carhart, a partial birth abortion case, the Court basically said that the previous rule that every abortion ban had to include an exception for protecting the woman's health was no longer required.

In Europe, Poland is very strict on abortions. Because of their Catholic faith, they don't allow them at all, even when the mother's health is at risk. A woman over there had been told by her doctor after she had her second child that if she got pregnant again, blood pressure issues of some kind would cause her to go blind. She got pregnant again, likely accidentally, and petitioned the government to have an abortion. They denied her and she went blind as a result. She sued under Human Rights protections in the European Court and won.

There has never been a case like that in the U.S. yet, but if this keeps up, there likely will be.

2/18/2011 4:35:39 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure why but I find Kristen Schaal to be very attractive."

2/18/2011 4:40:40 PM

Quote :

"South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers"

jesus christ, dude, do you just enjoy posting sensationally false reports? jesus!

the bill says NOTHING about allowing harm to come to abortion providers. it's just more sensationlist drivel from the bullshit talking-points blogs you like to read

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 5:33 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2011 5:32:32 PM

in response to supplanter....

Quote :

"What about situations where it is one of the medical procedures covered by the health benefits package you have through your employer? What if you happen to be a librarian or teacher?"

sounds like shitheads to me. if the insurance company covers it then I don't see what the issue is. gov't employee insurance should be comparable to their counter-parts in the private world.

Quote :

"What about the government maintains a website saying abortion is bad, and what if the doctor is required to show you that before carrying out a procedure you've decided on together? Spending gov money on that, and wasting doctors/patients time on that isn't restricting abortion/isn't really an anti-abortion law according to many republicans."

gov't website is stupid. but any good doctor will tell the patient the risks and alternatives to major surgery. i don't see why abortion is any different. should a doctor be forced to show patients a state website? not really, but any doctor should always inform patients fully, to include dangers, benefits, risks, alternatives, etc.

2/18/2011 5:41:06 PM

Quote :

"I don't understand how that would ever work... Doesn't the Hippocratic Oath state that basically, a doctor can't let someone die in front of them when they know they can help? "

I guess you have never heard of a DNR order, or a living will?

2/18/2011 8:59:49 PM

^ Those are obviously not the same as just letting a woman die because the pregnancy is killing her.

2/19/2011 12:40:51 PM

I thought this may have been a Fall Out Boy song.

2/19/2011 1:37:54 PM