The Texas Filibuster

How about the either stop trying to pass laws regulating womens bodies, or they just pass one to make them slaves who can't leave the house without a male escort and permission already? I hear that's popular with some folks.

Well, first they aren't trying to regulate women's bodies, just trying to save the babies body. Second, the people who don't want people regulating women's bodies seem more than happy to allow women to regulate/destroy the babies body...considering the one lasts for 9 months and the other is permanent...which one is more " regulating?"
 
Just out of curiosity....how many laws regulating what men can do with their bodies are pending? I heard that a few hundred laws regulating women had passed this year, but 0 for men. Doesn't seem right. But women are second class citizens right?

I'm not going to argue fetus=alive or fetus=baby. I'll let others get emotional etc. I posted my view on this once, and that's the only time I'll get into that.

But, you're right...it's not an internal organ. It's also not a self-sufficient life form. I think it was Carlin who said that the GOP was only interested in them until they were born, then could care less until they were old enough to enlist and ship overseas to expand their business interests....I'm all for 'sanctity of life', but my dogs fixed, my cats are fixed, and I know quite a few people who should be. Mostly democrats, a few republicans, and 1 green party member to be exact. lol

I think Arni's right here. Perry will bully his way, then waste tens of thousands of tax payers money defending something that will ultimately fail at the high court level.
 
Well, first they aren't trying to regulate women's bodies, just trying to save the babies body. Second, the people who don't want people regulating women's bodies seem more than happy to allow women to regulate/destroy the babies body...considering the one lasts for 9 months and the other is permanent...which one is more " regulating?"

Republicans Push 700 New Laws to Regulate Women's Bodies

April 12, 2013


In the first quarter of 2013, states have proposed 694 provisions related to a woman’s body, how she gets pregnant, or how she chooses to end that pregnancy.

A new report released on Thursday by the Guttmacher Institute takes a comprehensive look at how the War on Women has continued past the election cycle and into 2013. It shows that the new legislatures across the country are still very much dedicated to restricting sex education, availability of medication, and abortion access for women. Indeed, 47 percent of the 694 provisions were directly related to abortion:

During the first three months of 2013, legislators in 14 states introduced provisions seeking to ban abortion prior to viability. These bans fall into three categories: measures that would prohibit all abortions, those that would ban abortions after a specified point during the first trimester of pregnancy and those that would block abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization (the equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period, the conventional method physicians use to measure pregnancy). All of these proposals are in direct violation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Legislators in 10 states have introduced proposals that would ban all, or nearly all, abortions. In eight states (AL, IA, MS, ND, OK, SC, VA and WA), legislators have proposed defining “personhood” as beginning at conception; if adopted, these measures would ban most, if not all, abortions.​

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.alternet.org/republicans-push-700-new-laws-regulate-womens-bodies

Supposedly in the Texas case, there were 26 amendments that were not discussed and Republican legislators ram-rodded the bill through the Texas House.



Governor Rick Perry imposed a 30-day 'special session' to advance the bill that temporarily suspends normal legislative rules, making it easier to steamroll efforts to block the bill from within the government and across Texas.
The special session was imposed after the bill failed in regular session, and SB 5 supporters are rushing to push it through before the session expires.
After passing the House, the bill will next go to the Senate. The governor is expected to enthusiastically sign the sweeping bill into law if it makes it to his desk.
"The bills Perry hopes to pass through the special session were too extreme to pass during the regular session," declared Busby. "It is a shame that our state leadership prioritizes the regulation of women's bodies over the pressing needs of Texans."
http://mobile.zcommunications.org/i...ing-anti-choice-bill-advances-by-sarah-lazare

Like I said. He and Cuomo would get along great.
 
But I guess the Texas GOP is ok with back alley bloody coat hangers and women dying as a result, long as they can pat themselves on the backs and strut in oversized hats. Are there any sane states in the US anymore?
 
the people who don't want people regulating women's bodies seem more than happy to allow women to regulate/destroy the babies body...considering the one lasts for 9 months and the other is permanent...which one is more " regulating?"

The point is that the woman involved gets to choose--not you.
 
Just out of curiosity....how many laws regulating what men can do with their bodies are pending? I heard that a few hundred laws regulating women had passed this year, but 0 for men. Doesn't seem right. But women are second class citizens right?

I'm not going to argue fetus=alive or fetus=baby. I'll let others get emotional etc. I posted my view on this once, and that's the only time I'll get into that.

But, you're right...it's not an internal organ. It's also not a self-sufficient life form. I think it was Carlin who said that the GOP was only interested in them until they were born, then could care less until they were old enough to enlist and ship overseas to expand their business interests....I'm all for 'sanctity of life', but my dogs fixed, my cats are fixed, and I know quite a few people who should be. Mostly democrats, a few republicans, and 1 green party member to be exact. lol

I think Arni's right here. Perry will bully his way, then waste tens of thousands of tax payers money defending something that will ultimately fail at the high court level.

at least it isn't Sharia law....

thanks for doing my dirty work, BTW...
 
If I have no legal interest in my child till its born then maybe men should be given the legal option to deny support. If I have no say in if she kills it, I shouldn't have to pay for it if I don't want it.

A baby is not an internal organ.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

well, as it stands, men deny choice, so they have to pony up the cash.

BTW, making a baby takes two. carrying takes one. And the price is much higher than a few bucks every month.

But that's beside the point.
 
well, as it stands, men deny choice, so they have to pony up the cash.

BTW, making a baby takes two. carrying takes one. And the price is much higher than a few bucks every month.

But that's beside the point.

There are plenty of pro life women...so spare me the "men deny choice" hype.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
First off, as a Texan, I must say that Perry is an idiot. I did not vote for him. I believe we could have done better electing a trained, yet brain damaged, chimp rather than this man.

Also, I see the argument against abortion. But I also see many problems with the overall argument. For example, access to birth control and teaching actual use of such methods instead of this abstinance only BS. Grow a brain, and a spine, be a responsible adult and teach this to kids. Otherwise shut up about things like the immorality of teen abortion or abortion in general. News flash, if women have to fight to get any form of effective birth control, they will get pregnant. If they don't want it, it will be aborted. Whether by a medical professional trained for such, or by a coat hanger in their bathroom.

Now, I am not one who supports abortion of a fetus capable of surviving outside the womb. That is murder. Early term abortion within first 10 weeks is certainly preferable if that is the only option.
And yes, we should have clean and well equipped clinics. But many of these regulations exist already. And many, if not most clinics already follow these regulations. This bill is more about nitpicking small issues that really sound good to the uneducated or easilyh manipulated. However it is underhanded tactics to force many clinics to shut down in order to be up to code. Now there is nothing unsafe about most of these clinics, but they know forcing them to close down for minor insignifigant things mean many won't be able to continue operation.
And I must point out as others have, the underhanded way they are doing this is JUST LIKE what was just pulled for the passing of anti gun laws, among others. Why is it ok if YOUR side does it? The answer is that it isn't. Even if I agree with content (and I don't, 99% that I know here don't either) I completely disagree with the process. It's not ok, no matter which side is doing it.
 
786136068.jpg

Hmm, that pose looks somewhat familiar...
 
They'll be Republicans then :p.

Can't care less which political party they are but I too thought that, Don :D.
 
Here we have a group of democrats fighting for abortion, which disproportionally affects minorities, kinda the way the Nazis targeted minorities...
The same way Margret Sanger targeted minorities...
 
It's an indisputable fact, you're saying, that the Democratic Party is targeting minorities much as Hitler did?



No, but, nice try. I'm saying minorities get abortions at a far higher rate, just as Sanger, the other Eugenicists and Nazis liked.
 
Here we have a group of democrats fighting for abortion, which disproportionally affects minorities, kinda the way the Nazis targeted minorities...
The same way Margret Sanger targeted minorities...

so it excuses the right using Nazi tactic in pushing their agenda through?
okies....
 
Back
Top