Guest Post by ProChoiceGrandma
The irony of this stepped-up crazed anti-abortion anti-choice movement is that Sarah Palin is considered by her bots as their exalted leader. If you take Sarah Palin at her word (gafaww!), she said in her speeches that she considered an abortion (would that be exercising a choice, Sarah??). In fact, the only reason Sarah Palin would have aborted her faked pregnancy of Trig is if John McCain had lost the Republican nomination on 3-4-08. Instead of announcing she was 7 months pregnant on 3-5-08, Sarah Palin would have had the simplest abortion of all time, as no surgery is required to remove the long scarves:
This scarf-removal-abortion would have been even easier than the Wite-Out abortion Palin had in 1989.
For those who simply worship Sarah Palin because she is so “pretty” or “hot”, put a tiara on this picture.
Jason Linkins at Huffington Post did an admirable job setting forth some of the absolutely outrageous proposed anti-choice legislation nationwide, ranging from justifiable homicide of abortion providers to the death penalty for having a miscarriage:
1. Iowa Bill allows the “Justifiable Use of Deadly Force” to protect the unborn:
Bill Premise: Two bills have been combined into one to essentially define an unborn fetus as a person. In protecting that person, the Iowa legislature wants to allow the use of deadly force against abortion doctors or family-planning practitioners. The far-reaching consequence is that if this bill passes, persons that harm or kill abortion providers would be protected under state law from persecution.
2. Nebraska Bill Revives “Justifiable Homicide”:
Bill's Premise: In an effort to expand a bill that started in South Dakota, Nebraska's bill uses justifiable homicide as a means to curb abortions. In the event that a woman wants to protect her unborn fetus, the bill expands to third parties in addition to the pregnant woman, her husband, parents, and children to protect under the law the use of force against abortion doctors or others that endanger the fetus.
The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.
3. Georgia Moves to Criminalize Miscarriages:
Bill's Premise: A Georgia lawmaker wants to make abortion illegal in the state, but doesn't simply stop there. The way the bill is worded effectively criminalizes miscarriages, and the death penalty looms as a punishment. Mother Jones' Jen Phillips calls this measure "the apex...of woman-hating craziness."
4. South Dakota’s Pioneering Foray into “Justifiable Homicide”:
Bill's Premise: South Dakota has the bill that Nebraska emulated regarding this issue. It altered "the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child." That meant that is theoretically would have allowed "a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion--even if she wanted one."
5. Pennsylvania Wants to Regulate Clinics:
Bill's Premise: A bill showed up in the Pennsylvania state house that would change the classification of abortion clinics. The bill's sponsors want "the state to apply the same regulatory standards to abortion clinics that are applied to other freestanding surgical facilities." This, in turn, would lead to the shuttering of many facilities that perform legal abortions. Restricting the ability of women to have these procedures is the intent of the bill; no one is sincerely concerned about enhancing the safety of these patients.
6. Kansas Considering Two Laws Limiting Abortions:
Bill's Premise: Two bills recently passed the state house. One is an enhanced parental consent bill, that would "require doctors to obtain parents' consent before performing abortions on minors.to limit abortions in the state." The second is a fetal personhood bill that would place "strict limits" on abortions after the 22nd week of gestation, "based on disputed research that fetuses can feel pain at that point of development."
7. Virginia Cracks Down on Clinics:
Bill's Premise: The Virginia Senate approved a measure similar to Pennsylvania's proposed bill, to reclassify abortion clinics. They want them to "meet the same regulatory and architectural requirements as outpatient surgical centers." As with Pennsylvania, the intent here isn't to enhance or improve patient comfort -- it's to shut down clinics. The implications for Virginians is that this law could close "17 of the state's 21 outpatient clinics."
As one of the bills supporters said: "This is about protecting women's health, and you can look at me like that if you want." The reason anyone was looking at him "like that," is that people have a way of looking at people who are disingenuous liars.
Bill's Status: Passed.
8. House Passes Planned Parenthood Defund:
Bill Premise: House Republicans proposed an amendment to H.R. 1, a complete de-funding of Planned Parenthood. The point was to prevent taxpayer money from going to Planned Parenthood that would have been used to fund abortions.
9. GOP Tries to Redefine Rape:
Bill's Premise: H.R. 3, also known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," was an attempt to...well, prevent taxpayer money from going to fund abortions. This is something already enforced by the Hyde Amendment, but anti-abortion forces in Congress prefer to pretend this isn't the case, so that the specter of abortions being funded by Federal dollars can be raised time and again (see also: The Stupak Amendment). What made the language of this bill particularly mental was the way it redefined rape, making abortions only allowable in the case of "forcible rape."
That meant that if you were coerced, drugged or otherwise incapacitated by a rapist, too bad for you. Bizarrely, it also excluded statutory rape, and incest, unless the incest survivor was a minor.
10. South Dakota Tries Again:
Bill's Premise: After their "justifiable homicide" bill got shelved, South Dakota lawmakers set their sights a little lower and are debating House Bill 1217, which would force women into a veritable obstacle course in order to obtain a legal abortion.
Per Jillian Rayfield on TPM, the measure would require women to first meet with a doctor, then consult with a "pregnancy help center" (where she'd be pressured to not have an abortion), then wait 72 hours after this second consultation before having the procedure. The bill is designed to make it as onerous as possible on women seeking these procedures; it falls especially heavy on the poor, who would have to take additional time off work, and make extra long-distance trips in a state where 98% of the counties have no abortion provider at all.
Bill's Status: In debate.
And more recently, 'Ohio Senate committee schedules unborn child as witness.'
If James O’Keefe or Lila Rose are operating the “ultrasound” equipment, you can almost bet the fetus will “testify” under oath.
With all these so-called “Christians” leading the battle against abortion and invoking the word of God or Jesus as justification for their battle, where exactly in the Bible does it condemn abortion? {{crickets}}
In actuality, if you want to take the nearly 2000 year old Bible literally as God speaking, it seems God actually approves of inducing a miscarriage/abortion. Take a look at Numbers 5:11-
31. God says that if a husband suspects his wife has been unfaithful, she is to be given "bitter waters" to induce a miscarriage:
5:27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the (bitter) water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration (curse or swearword) among her people.
As a follow up on this “bitter waters” and “her thigh shall fall away” from the Bible, I found an interesting article: "History of Contraception (May 2009)", written by Malcolm Potts, MD Bixby Professor of Population & Family Planning, Division of Health & Medical Sciences, UCLA at Berkeley, USA and by Martha Campbell, PhD President, Venture Strategies, Berkeley, California, USA
Is this the “bitter waters” mentioned in Numbers 5:11-31?
Herbal remedies for bringing on delayed menstruation abound in history and in contemporary folk culture. One ancient method of unusual interest was the use of an herb called silphion exported from the ancient Greek city of Cyrene in North Africa. The plant was said to be worth its weight in silver. It is not clear whether it was an oral contraceptive or oral abortifacient, although extracts of related living species prevent implantation in mice. Efforts were made to grow the plant in other parts of the Mediterranean, but they failed, and the herb was harvested to extinction in classical times. Silphion was portrayed on the Cyrene coins.
Embryotomy to save the mother's life during labor is mentioned in ancient Jewish writings. Rhazes describes such a method:
If … the semen has become lodged, there is no help for it but that she insert into her womb a probe or stick cut into the shape of a probe, especially good being the root of the mallow. One end of the probe should be made fast to the thigh with a thread that it may go no further. Leave it there all night, often all day as well…. Some people screw paper up tight into the shape of a probe and after binding it securely with silk smear over it ginger dissolved in water.
The GOP/TeaParty's most useful rabble-rousing tool is anti-choice rhetoric to win the votes of the churchy-type folks who simply and blindly parrot theocratic babble verses from nearly 2000 years ago when the world was flat. While many say they feel comfort in reading the “Good Book” which contains extreme violence, I personally prefer “Game Change”. We live in the 21st century and I would feel a lot more comfort if all of our government representatives would use real life reason to solve our real life problems, not theocratic hyperbole.
+++
Please re-tweet:
