Vaginas Must Be Republican Kryptonite June 14, 2012

Vaginas Must Be Republican Kryptonite

Lisa Brown (D-West Bloomfield), a member of the Michigan House, spoke out against a handful of antiabortion bills being considered by House Republicans on Wednesday.

One of the points she wanted to make was that she has religious beliefs about abortion, too, but she doesn’t pass legislation in favor of those beliefs. Republicans/Christians ought to do the same.

Rep. Lisa Brown

So she said as much on the House floor on Wednesday. You’ll want to watch this video…:

I’m Jewish. I keep kosher in my home. I have two sets of dishes. One for meat and one for dairy, and another two sets of dishes on top of that for Passover. Judaism believes that therapeutic abortions, namely abortions performed in order to preserve the life of the mother are not only permissable but mandatory. The stage of pregnancy does not matter. Wherever there is a question of the life of the mother or that of the unborn child, Jewish law rules in favor of preserving the life of the mother. The status of the fetus as human life does not equal that of the mother. I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no’.

The Republicans didn’t know what to do. On the one hand, Brown made a perfectly fine argument that they had no response to… but, on the other hand, SHE SAID THE DIRTY “V” WORD!

So they responded by banning her from the House floor today:

“What she said was offensive,” said Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville. “It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.”

Right, how dare she use the proper medical term when talking about abortion…

That wasn’t enough, either. Another female House member, Barb Byrum, tried to introduce an amendment to the abortion regulations bill that would stop men from getting vasectomies unless their life was in danger. Kind of like what the men are doing to the women.

So the Republicans banned her, too.

And then they passed the anti-abortion bill by a vote of 70-39. Every Republican and six Democrats voted in favor of it.

I can’t understand why any women who care about their personal health — and any men who have a heart — would vote for a member of that party. What they’re doing to women because of their deranged religious beliefs is despicable.

(Thanks to Joshua for the link)

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • DG

    A vacant statement.  She has religious beliefs that happen to coincide with what she believes but doesn’t pass legislation based on the fact that they are religious, but merely her beliefs?  Only a post-modern world would see that and say ‘wow, profound.’ 

  • Jennifermn21

    This is terrifying. This is a clear, and terrifying violation of our rights as women, and I’m not just talking about Constitutional rights, I’m talking about the right that says I AM ALLOWED TO DECIDE MY OWN FUTURE, AND WHETHER OR NOT I WILL BE A MOTHER. If you’re so concerned about the baby, bring me a surrogate, we’ll do a transfer, then YOU can birth and raise it.
    Have fun.

  • Gregory Lynn

    What a bunch of despicable cretins.

  • “What she said was offensive…”

    5th panel… Man, I <3  Zach Weiner.

  • The Captain

    No, she’s saying that she is not forcing anyone to adhere to her religious beliefs. She is not trying to pass legislation that says others have to have an abortion. She is leaving that for others to decide for themselves. It’s the antiabortionist that are passing legislation that forces others to adhere to their religion.

  • Flora

    Perhaps the worst part of this is that Rep. Callton would not say “vagina” in front of women. That’s some incredibly sexist bullshit when he thinks we’re too delicate to talk frankly about our own body parts, or that he apparently sees no harm in talking about vaginas in front of men.

  • If they’re going to demand legislation to regulate women’s vaginas and other body parts they should be able to say and hear the words.   

  • Ursula

    This both frightens and saddens me.  I had an friend a few years back that worked for Planned Parenthood, I don’t know what she did, professionally she was an artist but also a staunch feminist and she told me that should abortion legislation ever be overturned she and others were planning to learn how to preform abortions safely and secretly so that women would not have to return to back ally butchers and hacks (like an underground railroad for abortion).  At the time I thought she was being extreme, now though maybe not.   This of course was just one woman talking about her dedication to womans rights and safety, not an agenda of Planned Parenthood.  Though, as a woman, a liberal and a gun owner I wonder if I could go to the republican convention this year as its just across the bridge from me and shoot those legislators who would disregard my rights so easily.  Florida is a “stand your ground state” after all and these people present a real danger to my rights to my life. Please note that last sentence was not at all serious as I hope I never have to harm another as long as I live.  I never comment though I’ve followed this blog for years, this just struck a chord in me.  And if they balk at the word vagina, what would happen if they were called out in public as being cowardly cunts?

  • Good and Godless

    As supportive of abortion her religious views are the statistics indicate that Jewish women account for a tiny proportion of the abortions where as the religions adopting an anti-abortion stance (or a please tax me stance) have a higher proportion of the abortions.Who’s having abortions (religion)?Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.A make believe book as  no merit in establishment of good policies. If we continue to renegotiate abortion laws from the most recent compromise these right wing wackos will only shift closer to their own positions. We must revisit the fundamentals, and they are “Does a woman have a constitutional right to carry a fetus to term at all?” Then we can negotiate to the common ground and leave to their choice.

  • Gunstargreen

    Can’t wait until we’re officially a third world theocracy. Won’t be long now.

  • What was she supposed to do?  Use some euphemism?  My “little lady”?  “Mr. Beaver?”  What could be less offensive than the correct terminology- ‘vagina’?

  • Good night, nurse. I’m GAY and don’t even mind the word “vagina.” These guys need to grow some testicles (i.e., be adults) and grow up. Too bad that I don’t live in Michigan because I would vote for her in a flash, just for that speech.

  • They want to run the country [into the ground[, but can’t handle proper anatomical terminology? Give me a break.

  • observer

    I think anyone in such a position who finds the body to be offensive need to get out of the House floor, go back to their play rooms, and stay there until their balls drop. If you can’t fucking handle how the female human body works, let alone the human body in general, you are in a piss poor decision to make any rules regarding the body.

    This is how life works gentlemen. Either Grow up, or get the hell out and let the actual adults handle these things.

  • John Major

    I think causing all the fuss about the word used was just a ruse to block and invalidate dissenting opinions.

  • Guest

    you cant transfer a fetus you moron

  • prolifeatheist

    Do any of you even consider the possibility that the pro-life position is solely based on what constitutes a life, i.e. a fetus, and not some surreptitious plan to “control women”? 

    Also, do you support abortion for any reason whatsoever – the logical conclusion that holds a “woman’s choice” as the preeminent value in this debate.  So you would have no problem with woman aborting gay babies (let’s assume a test will exist)?

  • vexorian

    Things are alive, starting at sperm/egg, then the zygote, the fetus, etc. All are alive no question there.

    Are they people? To me, it is quite clear that a fertilized egg is not a person. As to a 9 months fetus, that is harder to differentiate. It is a good thing that abortions happen much earlier.

    Regardless of whether the fetus is a person or not. It is still true that nobody has any duty whatsoever to, for example, donate organs to other people.  As usual, your rights finish when the rights of others begin. And a forced pregnancy involves that, a woman donating her organs and body for months to another person.

    Thus, anti-choicers are not only arguing that a fetus is a person, but that the fetus is some sort of super-person. Deserving of far more rights than what a person normally gets. The right to force another human being to sacrifice her body to allow it to live.

    But regardless, you are free to believe that aborting is wrong. And you would be welcome to use that opinion in case you do get pregnant have to decide between staying pregnant or not – The pro-choice stance is that if you think abortion is wrong, you can choose not to do it. But please leave other people with a different opinion in this, horribly subjective topic to pick other decisions.

  • vexorian

    It is scary but telling that the guys behind these new laws have the maturity level of a 13 years old teenage boy who thinks vagina is a dirty word.

  • 69ingchipmunks

    I think a woman would be more insulted to refer to her own genitalia as “Va-jay-jay”. When you have a show called “The Vagina Monologues” in the US, how can this incident be deemed damning?
    And compared to the seemingly vulgar act of telling our kids how sex works, how is this so damning? 

  • Thegoodman

    If the Rethuglicans can stop global warming with denial, make the earth just 10k yrs old with only words, surely they can transfer a fetus. Not that hard dude, believe in prayer.

  • prolifeatheist

    My intention is not to discuss the admittedly sticky matter of what is and is not a life.  Rather I’m concerned with the frame, apparent all throughout this thread, presented by pro-choicers.  They contend that pro-lifers are all about restricting woman’s rights, that keeping women down and perpetrating patriarchy are the primary, often sole, purpose of pro-lifers. 

    It seems that the pro-choicers refuse to even consider the possibility that pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to protect life (whether you agree with the pro-life definition of life is inconsequential for this particular discussion) and that they’re not mean old men trying to “get inside a woman’s vagina.” 

    Note that the pro-choice side refuses to even acknowledge legitimate and I would say admirable motivations for the pro-life side.  No, we’re all just evil men keeping women down!  

  • I realize this is a serious discussion about a serious topic, but I have to say I busted out laughing when I read this.

  • Thegoodman

    As soon as there is an in utero test for gayness, abortion will be legal and encouraged in all 50 states. If there is one things conservatives like less than women’s rights, its the gheys.

    Who should decided when is the “right” and when is the “wrong” time for an abortion? Do you think we should spend time money and energy thinking of every imaginable scenario on the planet that a woman may want an abortion, or should we just simply let the women decide?

    Have you ever considered the possibility that the pro-life position is solely based on convincing self righteous privileged assholes that they have the right to tell others what to do with their bodies? No one is forcing abortions. Mind your own damn business.

  • Thegoodman

    Given the audience, “Satan’s Coin Purse” may have been more appropriate.

  • Personally, I support the absolutely unfettered right of a woman to have an abortion for any reason. Because the future child will have an illness. Because it will be gay, or not gay. Because it will be a boy. Because it will be blonde. Any reason. At any time, up to where science and society choose to label it a person (probably, sometime in the third trimester, and after that if it’s a matter of the mother’s health). To me, the reason isn’t an issue at all.

    And FYI, you can’t abort a baby.

  • I’m not sure “sexist” is the right word here. Sexism is understandable, if regrettable. It’s a natural result of the way our brains are wired… although most people can largely override it by conscious decision. What this guy says doesn’t strike me as sexist, but as a sign of some deep psychological damage. He’s screwed up, in a serious way. This isn’t the sort of person you’d want to be alone with, or have around your children. And certainly not the sort of person who should have any governance responsibilities.

  • Phlnlyss

    You know what she ment jackass.

  • I believe women should have the right to chose: if, why, how, when and where; from conception to birth and yes I will support you (yes you) through it.  This is redic

  • eskomo

    “pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to protect life”

    But once the baby is born, the Republican party will do as little as possible to protect its life.

  • Well if you look at the history of sexism, this fits in with very old fashioned beliefs about women and that they’re too frail to handle anything so vulgar. It’s very old-fashioned sexism. And the fact that he says he wouldn’t say that in mixed company (as in, he’d say “vagina” in front of men and not in front of women) is incredibly sexist. It’s as if our body parts are too embarrassing that we should never hear about them…Leave all the anatomy and technical, vulgar terms to the men.

  • Kevin_Of_Bangor

    As did i…

  • Yeah. Maybe he’s both sexist and seriously fucked up. Either way, he doesn’t belong in the position he’s in.

  •  If the antichoice side ever did anything to support life outside a woman’s uterus I’d begin to believe their claims that they’re working to preserve life rather than control women.  So far they haven’t risen to the challenge.

  • Mike

    I doubt if Rep. Callton uses the correct medical term when he does…

  • Adam Casto

    As someone who grew up southern baptist, I can assure you it most definitely is not always “a desire to protect life”. Some have convinced themselves it is. Just Google the phrase “male gynecologist” and see all the fundamentalist bullshit that comes up. There is a lot of sexual repression and deep-seated jealousy/possessiveness that drives much of what I see as the “debate” over women’s issues. If they were actually concerned about life, they would be willing to have a practical discussion on what constitutes life and not just fall-back to defaults based on flaky dogma. 

  • TiltedHorizon

    Mike Callton: “….I would not say that in mixed company.”

    But you have no problem trying to legislate the shit out of that which we shall not speak of. If you can’t even use the proper medial term then you should not be allowed to regulate it.

  • Donalbain

    Mike Callton should expect a visit from the Daily Show in the next few days. I would guess Samantha Bee will be going to say “vagina” to him quite a lot.

  • Coyotenose

     “A vacant statement.”

    An ironic statement.

  • Coyotenose

    Seems like the next legislation Brown and Byrum should introduce is a bill to ban all proper medical terms from the House floor. If they object to that, they’re contradicting themselves.

    So of course they’ll object to that.

    Next step? A bill to ban all grown-up words.

    Speaking of which, as a card-holding Baby-Eating Atheist, those Michigan Republicans are starting to look mighty good. Add enough BBQ sauce, and I bet you’d hardly notice the saturated-with-feces taste.

    Oops. I used an offensive word. My bad. I meant to say that they’re wah-wah babies and full of shit.

  • jose

    Maybe this is some new version of the southern strategy. Republicans openly embraced racism to win the votes of the white racists, sacrificing any hope to reach to any other collective – but it was worth it because obviously majorities have more votes than minorities.

    Since feminism continues to be pretty much the word of Satan, maybe they’re openly embracing hate for women, confident that every person in America who hates women will vote for them.

  • jose

     lol that possibility has been considered many times and thoroughly refuted more times than the claim that there are no transitional fossils. There’s no point wasting server space on that old claim. Find yourself another excuse.

    If you desire to protect life, go chain yourself in Washington to protest against all the undeclared wars your country is making in three different continents and all the innocents your army is killing.

  • Why is vagina offensive? Why do people like have things toned down to suit them? Vagina is vagina. That is the correct name of vagina. I am sure the issue here is not because she said “vagina” but because she said “my vagina”…

  • Perhaps there should be a list of words that are forbidden to be said in the chamber: reason, logic, and that horrible v word.

  • OK, I have two comments on this.

    1. The correct response to the Republicans who apparently can’t bear to hear the medical term Vagina, is to picket the steps of the house with signs and everyone chanting ‘Vagina’, with the occasional crazed screaming of ‘Penis’.

    2. What sort of system of governance is it when a duly elected member of government can be banned from the duly appointed location of government? That’s just crazy. Seriously time to get rid of ‘old white guys’ with a 13 year old mentality.

  • AxeGrrl

    if they balk at the word vagina, what would happen if they were called out in public as being cowardly cunts?

    Calling them cunts would be disparaging cunts, not the other way around 🙂

  • AxeGrrl

    Maybe he’s an Oprah fan who’s fond of ‘vajayjay’ 🙂

  • AxeGrrl


  • Michael

     I doubt he KNOWS the correct medical term.

  • Drakk

     Actually, can I get a biologist to weigh in here? Given that it’s possible to impregnate a woman using IVF, so half the “transfer” is possible already, is it not possible to extract the zygote from another woman if caught at a stage when it’s still completely composed of stem cells?

    Assuming extraction of a single celled zygote is possible (and I’m not sure if there’s a reason it shouldn’t be) the only thing I could think of that would prevent a successful transfer is rejection by the surrogate mother. Immunosuppressants maybe?

    (All hypothetical of course)

  • Lara

    Protecting life, yes? But only the life of a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus, right? That’s why anti-choice Republicans tried to pass bills allowing doctors who object to lifesaving abortions refuse to refer their female patients to someone else, all they’re legally obligated to do, and name it something like The Protect Life Act. Protecting life is why a nun was excommunicated for permitting a lifesaving abortion on a hospital medical board for a 27 year old mother’s wanted pregnancy when she had four other kids at home. Or why the 9 year old in Brazil pregnant after her stepfather raped her even after doctors ruled her frame too small to sustain twins until viability. Life! Even pregnant children deserve to die for their fetus because female sexual maturity renders you a nonperson in the eyes of an antichoicer. Nice ty, play again. And tell the members of your movement to stop passing laws about withholding information or lying to patients, invasive testing, slut-shaming, and general insensitivity (like shrugging off carrying a nonviable pregnancy to the point of septicemia) if their concern is “life” not punishing women.

  • Lara

    Corrections : why the 9 year old was excommunicated too, and *try again.

  • sunburned

     Don’t you think that may be the point of the comment……. moron?

  • Anomynom

    Send them all a link to this youtube clip:
    It’s… very much topical XD

  • sunburned

      “They contend that pro-lifers are all about restricting woman’s rights”.

    Because that is the ACTUAL end result that they are shooting for, regardless of their *professed* motives.

  • Kevin S.

    Exactly. And it was realizing this that helped swing me from pro-life to pro-choice.

  • TheAnalogKid

    I have the feeling that Carlton and his fellow, male members of the Michigan House of Representatives often use a four letter word that isn’t aunt among themselves. 

  • “Respect the decorum of the house.” Wow. First rule of Vagina Club…

  •  “refuse to even consider the possibility that pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to protect life”

    It’s been considered, but the actions and words of pro-“life” proponents put the lie to that assertion. This issue (the topic of the OP) is just one of a massive number of examples of this.

  • CultOfReason

    What better way to silence the opposition than to ban them.  Seems to me the conservatives aren’t even pretending to live in a representative democracy any more.  It’s all out theocracy for them.

  • ReadsInTrees

    I love the picketing idea. I’m also in favor of adding “vulva” because THAT really seems like a word people are afraid to say. You hear people saying things like, “Everyone saw her vagina!!” when they really mean that “Everyone saw her vulva!” 

  • ReadsInTrees

    Actually, a biologist might agrue that sperm/egg, zygotes, and fetuses are NOT life, because they don’t match the scientific definition of life. By definition, an organism is considered “alive” when it can undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and adapt to their environment in successive generations through natural selection. Obviously, the latter two points are for when an organism is in an adult state, but the rest of the points are required for something to be “alive”.  

  •  No I think it is religiously motivated and a way to stove Christianity down everyone’s throat.

    As for the reason,  it does not matter, my body my choice. I choose to never have one ( because I personally do not believe in having one). But my rights end where another person’s begin. I have no right to tell another person what they can and cannot do with their body. Especially if I am the government. Funny how these politicians are more worried about an unborn baby then the children out there that are already in the system. If you want to prevent abortions then teach prevention of pregnancy. Provide conceptives. We cannot have it both ways.

    We cannot say  do not have an abortion and  no contraceptives in the same sentence and expect it to work. That’s what the republicans want us to do. Teach your kids abstinence, if they get pregnant no abortions. Then what happens? There are families in poverty because they are not educated on how to prevent pregnancy. The government is giving them assistance. This is a huge problem in American.  The child grows up and does the same thing. A  viscous cycle of government spending. That could have been prevented. Why not tackle that problem?

  • OuyevolituB

    So, a fetus is “alive” at about 20 weeks then?

  • OuyevolituB

    This woman didn’t use “vagina” in a medical context.  She used it to make her political point.  I imagine the speaker of the house would have the same reaction if some dick-wad got up there and started talking about penises. 

    And this woman didn’t even get the medical terminology correct – if that’s what she was trying to say.  They were discussing contraception.  That has to do with the uterus – not the vagina.  This woman doesn’t even know her own lady bits.  Sad.


  • Fsq

    The GOP is an evil entity. How any self respecting person cannot see that is beyond me, and beyond hope.

    GOP = Gross Old Patriarchs.

    NO MORE.

    And what six Dems voted for this horrible bill?

  • Kodie

    No, they want the babies for themselves:

  • Fsq

    Does it really matte what we call him? All we know, by actions, is he is a very dangerous and repressive old fucker.

    Concentrate on getting him out, not on what is the proepr term to call him.

  • evilunderthesun_JLT

     I’d grant that their motives are legitimate if they promote proper sex ed, protections for mothers (e. g. paid maternity leave including a job guarantee ie that they can’t be fired because of it), and financial aid to single mothers. All of that is in place in e.g. the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, and Germany, all of which have much lower abortion rates than the US while having comparable abortion rights.

    If they were really so much interested in “saving lifes” they’d do everything they could to reduce unwanted pregnancies and remove reasons why women have abortion.
    But they’re against all of these measures. On the contrary, they’re against contraceptives that help prevent unwanted pregnancies, too.

    The only thing they’re interested in is in removing access to save abortions, knowing full well that this will cost lifes, too, because women who desperately need an abortion will then turn to unsave methods to get them.

    That is not admirable. It is despicable.

  • Tainda

    I’m more disgusted by the 6 democrats that voted for it than the typical republican misogynists.


  • SphericalBunny

    You reminded me of this; 

    It’s a short piece of fiction, set in the not too distant future where abortion has become illegal. It narrates the lives of several different women, including those that have become exactly what your friend suggested. Heart achingly poignant, but I would encourage everyone to read and share it please – and no, I’ve got nothing to do with the author.

  • Drakk

     Please do elucidate as to what the proper political term for female genitalia is.

  • Kodie

     Because they also feel that the solution to all those problems is everybody be Christian – wait until marriage to have sex and consider every child a blessing because it is the product of marriage. I wonder how many problems we could solve by just having the Christians back off. This is where we get the idea that (as said in another thread’s comments?) the religious are ignorant. The ones that want to change the laws to coordinate to their beliefs are ignorant of what other people want, how other people wish to conduct their lives, about science, about hormones, about poverty, and about modern solutions to ancient problems (like mostly unavoidable pregnancy). The world is swirling down the drain because everyone’s not a Christian, everyone’s doing things their own way and causing their own problems. And a lady in Congress said “vagina”! An educated woman who knows how her body works and the terms to use for the parts of it should not be allowed to make laws!

    To consider “lust” a sin! It’s as natural as wanting to eat lunch. In the way that they suggest that their solutions are the best solutions – no birth control education, pretend there’s a uterine holocaust occurring, blocking marriage equality for gay people so they can’t be eligible to adopt…. these are economic sanctions. Once people find themselves in a bind, they’ll come around, they’ll see that Christianity is right. Keep your knees shut tight and find a man who will marry you first. Then don’t have you own ambitions because you were “designed” for motherhood. Funny if one were designed for motherhood why do they have so much trouble with the obscenity of breastfeeding.

    They are not interested in life, they are interested in everyone being controlled. I have heard so many Christian arguments for the “punishment” angle. They want options limited if you choose some other way than Christian, and just accept your child as punishment for having sex. Such a sick attitude. People living in the cycle of poverty should consider their living situation before they have sex, right. But don’t give them free birth control or allow them to be educated about birth control at the age when they start getting interested in it. Punish them for not going about it in a Christian way, which makes presumptions on their marital status, by the way. Consider them all unmarried slutty heathens who cast their own fate. All they need is Jesus. They don’t need birth control and they don’t need abortions. If they don’t like forced abstinence, then they will have to live with forced birth.

  • She has the good sense to make secular arguments in a secular governing body of a secular nation, even if they are rooted in her faith. Other religious people should follow her lead!

  • Also please share the appropriate times and contexts to talk about the vagina. If discussing abortion legislation isn’t one of them, something’s off with your analysis.

  • I LOVE that GOP deacronym!

  • Barefoot Bree

     Either that or because she told them “no means no!”

  • Barefoot Bree

     The pro-life position may be solely based on what constitutes life, but unfortunately, the entire issue of abortion is many times more complicated than that single, simple judgment call – and it is that, by the way. Controlling women – i.e., removing their ability to choose for themselves – IS one of the side effects of all this anti-abortion regulation, whether you choose to focus on it or not.

    It’s easy to do a slippery slope on any issue. One mark of being a mature, thinking individual is to be able to determine where on that slope you stand, and make coherent arguments for it. It doesn’t need to be all the way at the top OR all the way at the bottom for it to be valid and defensible. Another mark is to recognize that issues and complications come up with even the most reasoned, defensible stance – and those issues will and can be taken up one at a time and reasoned through.

  • OuyevolituB

    Never.  It’s about the uterus…not the vagina.  Do you know the difference?  I can forward you some medical links if you need them. 

  • Stev84

    I’d just call it prudishness. The inability to talk about anything that’s even remotely sexual. Very common in America.

  • Stev84

    According to Wikipedia, Jews make up 1.4-2% of the American population (depending on how you define being Jewish). So they are represented almost perfectly in the abortion numbers.

    Of course Christians have the most abortions. They are most of the population!

  • OuyevolituB

    You should pay for my health insurance – otherwise you hate men. 


  • OuyevolituB

    You understand that her comment was not derogatory because she used the term “vagina,” but rather because she tried to smear the speaker of the house, right?

    I guess they didn’t teach you what context is in High School. 

  • sunburned

    ”  but rather because she tried to smear the speaker of the house, right?”

    I’m guessing the *context* is lost on you.  After all the speaker is supporting a bill that would effectively tell this lady what she can and can’t do with her vagina that he is definitely interested in.

  • Stev84

    Sex-selection is very problematic and really not in the best interest of a society. You only have to look at China and also some parts of India now to see what happens when this is done on a large scale and there is a resulting lack of women. You can easily find rational, logical reasons why the state has a right to restrict that practice.

  • Yup, the Republic of Gilead.

  • I do know the difference, you condescending ass. Are you seriously saying that the female reproductive system is off limits in a discussion about reproduction? You were exactly as incensed when Republicans proposed probing women’s vaginas, right?

  • I’d say that sex-selection is potentially problematic. In certain societies (like China and India) it is having a social impact, although there’s also evidence that the problem is self limiting, as apparently the value of female children is increasing in those places.

    In the U.S., sex-selection is rare, and has no societal impact at all. If that should change, we can look for rational ways to deal with it. But until that happens (and it’s very doubtful it ever will), we’re far better off not trying to define the reasons why a woman can or cannot get an abortion.

  • OuyevolituB

    It’s her uterus…not vagina.  God damn… you don’t even know the biology which is pretty typical because you’re just repeating some talking point you heard on MSNBC.

  • She’s also not telling other people to keep four sets of dishes in their house.

  • OuyevolituB

     Oh, do you mean having a trans-vaginal ultrasound? And just so you know, every single OB/GYN I know would do a TVUS on a women that is less than 10 weeks gestation.  I suppose you consider that “rape,” but no OB/GYN would ever proceed with an abortion surgery without this procedure due to insurance reasons.  And if you don’t believe me – you can google it.  OB/GYN’s pay some of the highest malpractice insurance rates in the medical profession.  So, the next time you want to blame docs for performing a TVUS prior to an abortion operation, you can thank the lawyers. 

  • A Reader

    “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.”
    I think that’s my new favorite quote on abortion, haha 🙂
    Also, wtf? “I wouldn’t even say it [VAGINA] in mixed company.” Seriously? In no way is saying “vagina” offensive, especially in the context in which she used it. She wasn’t making a sex joke or saying anything that was in any way perverse. She was using a medical term for female anatomy. Get over yourself, Callton.

  • Rwlawoffice

     A agree.  Her comment was not in keeping with the context of her speech at all.  It was thrown in to be provocative and disrespectful. 

  • Rwlawoffice

    It appears that the only way that the opponents to these bills  can argue is to throw out the word vagina in an attempt to claim sexism.  The Michigan bills set medical standards for the abortion clinics that are consistent with other out patient surgical clinics.  They also shockingly require that the clinics have malpractice insurance and , get ready, actually require a doctor to be present during the procedure.  They also require that the doctor make sure that this is actually the ladies choice and that she is not being coerced.  How dreadful is that!. For all those that scream, that abortion needs to be legal so that women can make that choice and have it done in a safe medical environment, these bills assure that that actually occurs and Planned Parenthood objects.  What that shows is the truth behind that vile organization-  its all about the money.

  • Your desire to protect life may be admirable on its face, but when that desire encroaches on other people’s basic rights to their own bodies, your motivations become extremely questionable.  The end result is always going to be an unacceptable restriction of women’s basic rights, even if that’s not your primary intent.  The goodness of your intentions don’t matter when the end result is slavery.

  • Fsq

    My canoe and the little man in the boat seems rather apropos, especially since this was a Michigan pol, the home of Hiawatha.

  • sunburned

     Yeah, because the typical route to the Uterus is through the…..Oh, fuck I give up.

  • Fsq

    Begin making your exit strategy NOW. Seriously. It is NOT going to get better, so do what you can right now, but plan on getting out within the next three years.

    No joke. No “crazy man sitting on 40,000 gallons of diesel and crates of ammo in the cabin” but for real, get out.

    I have begun moving forward with my ex-patriation plans, and I should be able to leave the country for good within 12-18 months.

    Anyone who has the means or methods to get out, shoud. Go read Naomi Wolf’s book, and see what is happening.

    Be scared.

  • We know uteri are more relevant to a discussion about abortion than vaginas.  Brown probably knows it to.  I think her point was more about the debate that had been going on. 

  • Fsq

    You are REALLY stretching on this, and are being a true disingenuous ass.

    Are you male or female?

    Do you have a medical degree, or for that matter, any degree beyond a GED or high school diploma? If so, what is it?

    I think you are just trying to act like a smarty pants, so I guess in that respect., so as as you have found a way to make yourself feel superior, I guess that ius the important hing for you isn’t it?

  • A: Doctor performs trans-vaginal ultrasound on patient because doctor decides said ultrasound will aid in the procedure he or she is going to perform.

    B: Doctor performs trans-vaginal ultrasound because the state compels him or her to do so, regardless of the indvidual situation or the doctor’s professional recommendations.

    See the difference?

    And way to blow over that strawman–no one is blaming doctors for performing trans-vaginal ultrasounds.  No one.  People are, however, rightly pissed that legislators with no medical training whatsoever are attempting to force doctors into performing them, regardless of the situation.  It doesn’t matter if it’s something that most doctors do as part of their regular routine.  It’s ultimately the doctor’s–and patient’s–decision.  NOT the state’s.  If a woman does not want a procedure performed that her doctor doesn’t think is necessary in her case (she’s been raped and it brings on powerful triggers, the pregnancy is visible with a regular ultrasound, etc.) but the state says that she cannot have an abortion unless she has a trans-vaginal ultrasound, that’s coerced rape.  They’re forcing her to have a wand inserted into her vagina against her will (and her doctor’s medical decision) in order to obtain an abortion–a legal medical procedure–even if it isn’t medically necessary.  If my doctor thinks I should have a procedure done because it is in my best interests, fine.  If my doctor is forced to make me undergo a procedure whether it’s necessary in my case or not, then that’s coercion by the state. Giving that power to the state–to a bunch of jackasses who don’t know ectopic pregnancy from preeclampsia–is insanely dangerous, and a completely unethical way to practice medicine.

  • Rwlawoffice

     Isn’t it sadly ironic that under the guise of women’s right, women are choosing at an alarming rate to abort young female babies because they do not want to raise a girl.

  • Fsq

    you are a true asshole. No sugar coating it. Plus, you think her wording was to be dismissed because it is disrespectful? What is more disrespectful? A bunch of evil, old white men telling women what they can do with their vaginas/uteruii/vulvas etc? Or the fact that someone dared stand up to them and say “We WIll Not Be Treated as Second Class Citizens!”

    You and your ilk R”Law” are the true problem in this country and world.

    Let me tell you something slick, you are a fucked up, vile, inhumane and inhuman bag of blood and protoplasm. You rob the moral people of oxygen and use your FUCKED UP MYTHS and incoherent “logic” to try and repress entire segments of the population based on nothing but a book of myth and some asswipe named “jesus” who by most arcehological accounts NEVER EVEN EXISTED AS JUST A HUMAN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    I am fed up with you and your type, and the fact you are trying to push the country, and world, back into the dark ages.

    I wish nothing but a foul plague upon you, your scummy wife and your children. You are vile and gross and should do the world a favor and take your own life.

  • Obviously he knows the term… I expect he learned it off a bathroom wall in elementary school. He just never learned enough biology to know that it’s actually a proper, anatomical word. All he can do is shuffle his feet and giggle when he hears it… especially in mixed company. Pathetic.

  • Fsq

    well, you have shown no ability for recognition of thought or cognitive abilities, so I say we abort you.

    Go read more pamphelts from your preacher and then act like you have an advanced degree in biology or human development.

    Oh yes, and slick, I have a Master’s in Mammology and another Master’s in Medical Ethics, so I’d say I may be a wee bit more qualified than you to discuss the issues.

    Go fuck yourself.

  • Mind sharing your age bracket?  Emigration is easy.  Immigration gets harder as you get older.  Although I presume Botswana is probably easier than Denmark.

  • Rwlawoffice

    You simply cannot have a rational discourse can you?

  • No, it’s not a real issue. It’s a fabricated issue, just like in the U.S. Not enough Canadians, or Americans, are selecting the sex of their children to have a measurable effect on the ratio of boy/girl births. There is no social impact.

    This is something that the anti-abortion folks are attempting to use as a political tool, that’s all. Every exception or legal roadblock they can create to legal abortion brings them one step closer to their goal of eliminating it completely.

  • Salty

    If pro-lifers were genuinely most concerned with protecting life, and reducing abortion, they would be leading the charge to provide comprehensive sex education to kids AND access to birth control for poor women.    Instead, they are de-funding Planned Parenthood and shilling abstinence nonsense despite clear, overwhelming evidence that it does not work.    Obvs.

  • These men are sexual predators. They are attacking the women of their state as surely as any rapist ever did. The fact that they are on the street is bad enough, let alone in charge of the legislature.

  • They aren’t. And if they were, there’d be nothing sad about it.

    And you can’t abort a baby.

  • Fsq

    Hey Rich,

    No worries. I am 44.

    Botswana is intersting in if you invest enough (in my case, purchasing the eco-lodge) in the country or its national parks and preserves, you are allowed permanent resident status fairly quickly and easily. There are still some hoops to jump through, but none too difficult, provided of course (isn’t this always the case though) you have ample funds and means.

    I also am fortunate in two ways:

    a) I did well with my two careers and was able to invest wisely, save a few dollars and made some smart moves vis-a-vis houses and property

    b) I am one generation-removed from Norway on one side of my family, and based on that, if I choose, I could apply for permanent resident in Norway based on lineage/heritage. Once I become fluent in Norwegian and meet some citizen criteria, I can apply for citizenship and a passport. I will most likely do this in about a decade, as I hope to spend at least ten years in Botswana and exploring that portion of Africa. I am a fairly “feral” guy (as if you couldn’t tell from my snakr and *ahem* exhuberance in argumentation) and live for wild open spaces that are still somewhat untamed – most likely a result of growing up in Alaska.

    Anyway, I will say this about the USA, I will absolutley miss the natural history. Man, I tell you Rich, the USA is FANTASTIC in terms of wilderness, ecosystems and natural history! I will very much miss what North America has, but then again, Africa doesn’t suck!

    It is sad that things are getting/have gotten to the point in this country that people have to leave. But I honestly do not see it getting any better. And when you see asswipes like RWLaw and his ilk turning the country into a Christian Taliban/Theocracy, couple with the average slob in the street being convinced to vote against their own interests (witness the Wisconsin recall ecelction) I see it as writing on the wall. We get ONE SHOT at life, and I feel emotionally drained and depressed from the changes in this once great country. Because we only get one shot, and I honestly do not see it getting any better, it is time to go.

  • There’s an extra level of irony there about the value difference between women and men.

  • Fsq

    Would you have rational discourse with Pol Pot or Ceucescu?

    Go fuck yourself you vile, oppresive, repugnant, dishonet, spinning, self-righteous horro of a human being.

  • Fsq

    and oh yes,


  • Of course it’s also about vaginas you disingenuous braindead donkeyfucking asspool. The GOP not only want control of women’s wombs, but their sexy naughty bits as well.


  • To be disrespectful? You mean just like how a group of white male assholes have legislated control over the wombs of women?

    Yeah, you go with that. “Disrespectful.” I’d be punching teeth in, not using words out of an anatomy text. THAT’S disrespectful.

  • Dmcgaughy

     Really??  That’s the argument you are going with?  Then why would the gavel not be used every time a lawmaker speaks from the “heart”.   Using a proper medical term incorrectly should get you banned!!!  “I have a gut feeling”… no, no representitive… you are out of here – that’s not even a medical term. 

  • Damn straight they do. I’ll bet after the two women representatives were banned from speaking, some of the Good Ol’ Boys were fiercely and smugly texting each other: “It’s about time those goddamned c*nts shut up.”

  • OuyevolituB

    Well, I’m an Atheist, so talking to my preacher isn’t going to do much good. 

    And my MD/PhD (in Neuroscience)  probably trumps your masters degree.   As I’m sure you learned in your medical ethics classes, a fetus becomes viable at about 20-22 weeks nowadays. 

    Anything else you’d like to add?

  • sunburned

    “Her comment was not in keeping with the context of her speech at all.”

    Yeah, nothing like the context of keeping the government, and by extension the speaker, out of the reproductive tracks of women. 

    Your right, it HAD nothing to do with that.

    What is absolutely mind blowing is that her remarks are *offensive* but the bill aimed at limiting the rights of what women can do with their bodies are A-OK?

    And you have the audacity to complain about *rational* discourse….LOL.

  • Fsq

    hey dickstain,

    I would bet that most of the usual posters here would support a single-payer health plan for ALL, which would include you. So, I would say, careful what you wish for slick.

    Out of curiosity, do you support a national health plan? Do you think “Obama/Romney” care (remember, ol’ Mittens passed the same basic health plan in Massachusetts when he was the Guv) is “socialized medicine”? DO you support the troops and military? DO you support VA hospitals? DO you like watching football? You knowm the NFL and all? You like the NFL?

    Answer those HONESTLY and without typical GOP spin, and I will then get out the scalpels and begin to tear you and your “notions” apart.

  • Fsq

    Somebody has been reading those church and GOP pamphelts again…I am not naming names, but the poster who HAS been has an onscreen moniker that when spelled backwards is ButILoveYou….a very condescending and typical christian platitude, which when run through the translation machine reads “Go Fuck Yourself” in christianese.

  • Fsq

    you are lying, and you know it. You do not have a Phd in neuroscience. You wouldn’t be wasting time here if you did.

    And tell me slick, where di you get this alleged degree? Where did you do your post-doc? Intership? Residency?

    Where di you study? How many schools did you interview at before getting accepted into the medical program? What rotations did you go through before deciding on what was it, oh yes, neuroscience?

    How about some citations?

  • Fsq

    your mother did us all a great disservice when she opted to let your father give it to her instead of just blowing and swallowing during that heated night in the backseat of the Buick Roadmaster.

  • OuyevolituB

    Wow.  This thread is bringing out all the femi-NAZI’s.  

    Guess what.  When you decide to have unprotected sex and get pregnant, you are now responsible for the lives of TWO people – you and the fetus. 

    I guess your great parents never taught you that.  

  • Rwlawoffice

     I assume you know that Botswana is over 60% Christian don’t you? Almost as Christian as this country.

  • OuyevolituB

    Do you really want to compare degrees?  I have a MD/PhD. 

    I’ve also been an assistant to numerous abortion procedures. 

    I’m not anti-abortion.  I think that it is a valuable tool to reduce unwanted pregnancies during early pregnancy.  However, I’ve also been involved with some late-term elective abortions and I’m not very proud of that.   Abortion is not a very pleasant thing – for everybody involved, which is why I’m against it.  If a mother waits until 20 weeks to get an elective abortion, something is wrong.  Very wrong.  If you’ve been witness to a late-term abortion, you know what I’m talking about. 

    Yes, there are cases when a fetus has some congenital defect and that is truly devastating to the family.  But most of these things can be determined (and aborted) well before 20 weeks. 

    Plus, the only pregnancy that is truly a risk to the mother’s life  is an ectopic one. 

  • A Hangman on Tyre

    So, any stats on how many women die at these clinics in Michigan that these new standards are required?  Any medical advice that states it is necessary for them to meet sugical standards when it isn’t surgery?  Has there been any study to show the current clinics are unsafe?  I am also sure there is lots of proof these clinics are all run without malpractice insurance?

    How about a law that requires doctors to ask every woman if she’s being coerced to have a baby she doesn’t want?  I am sure if they want these clinics to provide a safe environment, they’d be willing to help them secure funding to upgrade? 

    Spin it however you want – all it is is putting unnecessay rules around abortion clinics to make it harder for them to deliver the services.  They can’t outright outlaw the clinics so they are putting up rules to shut them down and eliminating any funding to ensure they can’t meet the new rules.

  • A Hangman on Tyre

    It was only a matter of time until you revealed yourself…..femi-nazis…really? 

    Because we know all preganancies come from having unprotected sex right? 

  • OuyevolituB

    I understand the difference and I actually agree with you.  The gov’t should have no say in the decision between the doctor and the patient. 

    However, when 99% of OB/GYNs would do a TVUS regardless, then you are simply turning this in to a political matter  not a medical one.  

  • Fsq and I are practicing our “Good Atheist/Bad Atheist” shtick to take on the road.

  • OuyevolituB


    No, I don’t support socialized health care for everyone.  I don’t disagree with social net programs like medicaid for poor people however. 

    Yes, I support VA Hospitals (because those people earned their “free” healthcare – they still have to fall below a minimum wage amount to qualify for “free” healthcare if you didn’t know that already)

    I hate football. 

  • I offer clarity:

    “femi-NAZI’s” (WTF is the apostrophe there for?) as you and your ilk use the term are defined as “Women who refuse to shut up and be willing fuck toys for Good Ol’ Boys and who also won’t cook, clean, handle all of the icky parts of raising children on their own. Also, they refuse to bring me a beer while I’m watching football and rub my feet on command.”

    Those damned wimminz, eh? All uppity and voting and demanding equal rights and refusing to get the FUCK back in the KITCHEN. This country is falling apart lemme tell you.

  • Stev84

    A while ago there was also a case where the Republicans found the word “uterus” to be offensive or something

  • sunburned

     I would think that finding the little bugger would be a bit of a task.

  • Right, because so many women CHOOSE to get raped and get pregnant, which the bills didn’t leave an exception for.
    A fetus is not a person. Human, yes. Person, no. There is a big difference.Also, way to Godwin the thread.

  • OuyevolituB

    Yes, those 0.1% failure rates for contraception are probably the cause of the majority of unwanted pregnancies in this country. 

    Oh wait, they aren’t.  Try again. 

  • Plus, the only pregnancy that is truly a risk to the mother’s life  is an ectopic  one.

    If you actually believe that, and you actually have an MD, your license to practice should be revoked on the basis of gross incompetence.

  • amycas

     Most people just don’t know the difference.

  • Want to know the difference between those TVUS screenings and the ones your pals on the right proposed? The former is voluntary, and the second is not. We have a special word to describe involuntary penetration. I’m glad to know you’re on the side that believes government should be able to rape.

    Also, way to not respond to my first point. Vaginae are entirely germane to the discussion. The persistent, consistent Republican attempt to control women is an issue we face as a country, and not talking about it isn’t going to make it any better.

    Furthermore, is vagina a dirty word while uterus isn’t? Why is this so?

  • jdm8

    It strikes me as very prudish at best.  But it wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out that this was simply crocodile tears, and it was just a ploy to shut her out of the discussion by any legal and procedural means possible.

    As an aside, I know about the town he hails from.  Being from Nashville, MI is not something to be proud of.  It’s a small rural town known for disproportionately high poverty rate, alcoholism and meth use.

  • Rwlawoffice

    You crack me up.  In an attempt to insult you just come across like an idiot.

  • amycas

     They turned it into a political matter by trying to legislate it.

  •  Lol, perfect!

  •  Or that having a clear sense of the significance of teh term is simply beyond him.

  • If 99% of OB/GYNs would perform a TVUS regardless, then the lawmakers attempting to legislate it on the remaining 1% are the ones turning it into a political matter, not the people opposing it.

  • amycas

    When you assume that consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy, you are using pregnancy to punish women for having sex. Consent to sex =! consent to pregnancy.

  •  Speaking of which, it has always fascinated me that women get the reputation for being two-faced while men have such an elaborate set of conventions for behaving one way around women while another around men.

  • Qsf


  • I <3 you. For real.

  • Drakk

     So you’re nitpicking terminology AND you’re tone trolling.

    I think you’ll find a great many things which are capable of entering the uterus go through the vagina, too.

  • Tainda

    I’m quite fond of the penis actually.  I also think hardcore feminists are annoying as piss.  Just because I enjoy saying vagina doesn’t make me a man hater.

  • Caroline

    Oh goodness I’m feeling faint. So many uses of va.. va.. oh my I can’t bring myself to say it. Good thing I wasn’t on the house floor, I might have fainted dead away. I’m just so fragile. Thank goodness those republicans will make sure no ones uses that awful word in front of me. *Gets into time machine back to 1850* 

  • Kodie

     I think you’re a liar. Please provide citations for this “99%” claim.

  • Neil

    No, I can’t find any rational reasons to encourage state action on that issue.  Because this is America, not China or India, and it has never once been a problem here.  If it ever starts to become a problem that actually has a big negative impact on society, we can have that discussion then.

    Or do you want EVERY possible future problem to be legislated against in advance, no matter how unlikely it is to become a real problem, and no matter whose current freedom it would restrict and no matter how ugly and restrictive the process of enforcement would be?  Maybe we should pass a law saying that all dead people must be shot in the head, so that they can’t come back as zombies…and if that’s a little traumatic to loved ones, or against people’s religious beliefs, too bad, we just can’t take the risk.

    It’s funny how people are willing to engage in all kinds of speculation about possible problems when the issue is letting women control their own bodies.   It’s almost as if facts, logic, and reason go right out the window and people reveal that they really do believe that they should be able to control the most intimate details of other people’s lives!    

  • Neil

    No, it isn’t sadly ironic, because there is no “alarming rate”. 

     In fact, all I’ve seen are willing liars like you, waving around a very limited, culture-based happening that has no noticeable effect on the larger society, and crying “epidemic” with absolutely no real numbers at all-  knowing the whole time that it could never reach a number large enough to have a detrimental social impact that would necessitate government action and trump the rights of individuals.

    No, you have no facts, or honesty, or sense of basic decency, or respect for women.  But you are perfectly happy to use your over-hyped, very limited problem as a pretext to deny all women, most of whom would never even consider sex-selective abortion,  control over their own bodies and access to information. 

    You are a completely dishonest and disgusting person who lives in fear of losing unearned religious privilege and authority, and who has no respect at all for other humans.  You’ve proved that time and again on this website, but I think you may have hit a new low.  God damn, what a piece of shit you are.  

  • allein

    Don’t forget that the legislated ultrasound is performed at least a day before they are allowed to have the actual procedure, so they can be sent home to think about it some more.

  • Neil

    We don’t refuse to consider your possible good motivations.  We simply note that they are irrelevant.  Irrelevant because we do not believe that your personal feeling should trump another human being’s right to control their own bodies and reproduction.  It is the most personal decision possible, and we simply don’t agree that the state or other individuals have any right, any need, or any standing to challenge those choices.  Period.  If you want kids, have them…and leave everyone else alone. 

    Most of us also notice that most pro-lifers will band together and put forth all kinds of restrictive religious-based legislation, and refuse women all kinds of rights, if it advances their goals.  Most of you have no principles at all and will gladly support attacks on women if you think it saves a few fetuses.  You put the unborn at such a higher value than living human beings that it disgusts us.  It offends my moral sense.  It offends my sense of logic.  It offends my love of freedom and the sanctity of controlling one’s own life.

    We don’t respect that at all, nor should we.    

  • Neil

    THIS!Prolifeatheist- you need to answer Salty’s concerns, my concerns, and a few others before you have even a chance of being taken seriously. 

    Why should your love of unborn fetuses, or personal theories of existence or life, trump basic bodily autonomy for women, the kind that men have had for all of history?  We are in no danger of dying out, but quite the opposite…the state simply has no pressing reason to force women to give birth… except to enforce right-wing & religious social policies.  Keeping women in slavery to reproduction and limiting their options in life, keeping the population high, keeping labor cheap and poor people over-reproducing, keeping a large underclass of people with few resources and little chance for advancement or education…THOSE are the social results of  anti-choice policies. 

    If the government has any interest in insuring the security and the future of our country and the human race, then pro-choice policies will follow from that, not anti-choice.  We need to reduce population growth. We need better society-wide education.  We need less people on the edge of poverty and starvation.
    And if we are to take seriously the issues of freedom and autonomy  for women, that interest only points even more closely to a pro-choice policy.

    You ask us to take you at your word, yet you can provide no reasons except your muddled, unexplained personal feelings to restrict the most personal choices a woman can make, and you ally yourself with positions that help reinforce religious and authoritarian rule over individuals. 

    Time to give your “feelings” a good self-examination and ask yourself what makes you, or your feelings for any random fetus, so damn special.   

  • Rwlawoffice

     How many babies killed solely because they are girls is enough for you to say its alarming?  I know that the pro abortion crowd believes that any reason to abort is a good reason, including using the aborted fetus in an art project, but to claim that this isn’t happening is a bald face lie.  It is happening at a horrible rate in other countries and is starting to happen here.  Planned Parenthood even helps people accomplish it as proven by two videotaped conversations in two different locations:

  • Neil

    I know it sounds extreme to many, but your concerns are not that far-fetched.  Plenty of over-reaching authoritarians have been killed over less important issues, and in many cases it was a necessary change for the better. 

    There are people in this country, right now, who openly and constantly fantasize about a bloody second revolution and the mass killing or purge of liberals, feminists, and  non-christians.  And all they are asked to put up with is other people having freedom, and paying some tax to provide education and prevent mass homelessness and hunger.  Being expected to participate in civilization without being able to have absolute rule has provento be  too much to expect from certain right-wingers and religious tyrants.

    Women, n the other hand, are being asked to kindly put up with state and religous control of their bodies and reproduction, and true second-class citizenship, just to appease a minority that has attained power way beyond their numbers or direct interests.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…if we all woke up tomorrow with the roles reversed, and it was men who were being asked to submit to such control, either the issue would be dropped immediately, or a bloody and merciless revolution would  be the result.  For the reord, I have zero problem with women being as militant as they need to be to claim their independence.        

  • Neil

    Learn to read, moron.  Form comprehension, not for lame-ass trolling points.

  • The killing of baby girls is reported to occur in India, and less often in China. I’ve never heard of a case in the West, however. Outside of “ordinary” child abuse, the killing of babies is not at all common in the U.S. or Canada.

    I don’t know of anybody who supports killing babies, or who wouldn’t be alarmed by any such cases.

  • Stev84

    Yes, it’s not a problem in the west. But to assert that it’s some slippery slope for future completely unrelated abortion restrictions totally is silly as well.

    Your last paragraph is absurd. Unlike Christofascist, I’m able to make distinctions about different situations and don’t generalize.

  • But you don’t need to agree with her reasons. The point is, they are her reasons, and while anybody can disagree with her, nobody should have the right to interfere.

  • Oh, they’re clarified, it wasn’t ‘vagina’ it was ‘no means no’.


  • SteveS

    Of all the places I can think of where freedom of speech ought to be sacrosanct, the floor of a legislature seems the most necessary. Our democracy is being killed before our eyes.

  • Rwlawoffice

    We have had this discussion before. I know you don’t think the unborn are babies. I do so I will use the term to describe the killing of girls still in the womb.

  • This is an English language forum. You are using some unidentified foreign word “baby”, which means something different than any English dictionary will show. That makes dialog impossible.

    It doesn’t matter if you think that “baby” is an acceptable word for an unborn person. I might think “idiot” is an acceptable term for a lawyer, but that doesn’t make the two synonymous, and I therefore wouldn’t use the incorrect word if I wanted to be understood. You can’t just invent a new meaning for a word and expect to be understood.

  • LifeinTraffic

    I’m calling BS on this. “No means no” can, in no way that I can figure, be construed as “so offensive” it can’t be said in “mixed company.” If so, my grandmother, who’s been telling me “No means no” forever (“I said you can’t have that candy bar. No means no, so stop asking) shouldn’t have been allowed to take her kids into grocery stores.

    Does anyone buy this revisionist backpedaling? They could at least try to do a better job of not making it obvious.

  • OuyevolituB

    The proposed bill has a medical clause – which includes exemptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. 

    You didn’t actually read the proposed bill, did you?

  • OuyevolituB

    Why don’t you say that to you grandmother after referencing you vagina and she how she reacts. 

    Oh, that’s right, context means nothing to you idiots. 

  • LifeinTraffic

    Uh, what? First of all, they’re now saying *specifically* that the word “vagina” had nothing to do with it, just “no means no.” Which means that your analogy doesn’t hold, if you believe them.

    That said, my grandmother uses the word “vagina.” We’ve talked about vaginas, penises, uteri, vulva, foreskin, anal sex, impotence, prostate cancer, Viagra, and myriad other things that make the whole “say that to your grandmother” thing just ridiculous. If my grandmother ever tried to tell me what to do with my reproductive rights, I’d absolutely tell her “stay out of my vagina, no means no.”  And she wouldn’t be shocked, offended, or think it was dirty because…you know… VAGINA!!! Oh noze, not a medically correct term! Gasp!  Then again, she never would try to restrict my reproductive rights, because she respects my intelligence and my agency.  Just because you can’t have open discourse with people doesn’t mean others can’t.

  • Kodie

     I’d like to know more about this exceptional context you keep bringing up but not elaborating on.

  • LifeinTraffic

    And, again, if you can switch out “vagina” for any other medical term and have it not be offensive, then the problem wasn’t what she was saying, it was the fact that she was talking about vaginas that was the problem.

    If we required people with deviant septums to have them fixed: “I am glad you are so interested in my septum, but no means no. ” If the debate was about organ donation: “I am glad you are so interested in my kidney, but no means no.”  If the speaker had been discussing a mandate to keep nails trimmed: “I am glad you are so interested in my phalanges, but no means no.” 

    So yeah, context matters. 

  • vexorian

     The definition of life is a much discussed topic. For example, most ants do not reproduce. Are they less alive than the queen?

  • vexorian

     “They contend that pro-lifers are all about restricting woman’s rights,”

    Maybe they don’t talk to themselves with this intention, but their actions ARE all about restricting women rights.

    It is undeniable, at least for me. In order to protect this life, you must reduce women rights. And we are talking about the right to decide what goes in your body and what does not. So, like it or not, regardless of how good your intention is in protecting life, you would have to prove that this life is really worth this protection. Because it is a rather extreme measure to force women to stay pregnant.

  • LifeinTraffic

    Well, since every major news outlet in the country is saying it *doesn’t* have an exemption clause for incest or rape, can you provide a link to the text showing it does have this clause? 

    It also does not have a clause for fetal defect, such as a missing brain or spine.

  • OuyevolituB

    Watch the video.  It’s pretty clear.  

  • OuyevolituB

    It’s my “religious” belief as an Atheist that murdering is wrong.  But, I don’t want to impose my “religious” belief on others, so ….murder away!!!

  • LifeinTraffic

    No, it’s really not. As political rhetoric goes, this is really mild. 

  • LifeinTraffic

    Unlike abortion, murder isn’t legal.

  • Kodie

    I watched the video. I want you to explain it in your own words. 

  • Good and Godless

    And Jews eligible for abortions at .7-1% of the population (no dudes), and then with 15-20% of couples in America being infertile the prospective Jewish abortion percentage drops again.

    Still the point is a religion which does not condemn abortion is not taking up the majority of the abortions, and the perception of “holier than thou’s” is abruptly dashed.

  • Jesophnerrben

    This had little to do with the word and almost everything to do with the language. 
    She may have used a “proper medical term”, but she used it in an improper, sexual and personal context. A judge would’ve had her arrested for contempt of court.
    Don’t be flattered, Lisa. I’m not interested, either. 

  • OuyevolituB

     By “every news outlet” I think you mean MSNBC and the Huffington Post, so let me correct you. 

    Here’s a link to the actual bill:

    “(f) (d) “Medical emergency” means that condition which, on

    6 the basis of the physician’s good faith clinical judgment, so

    7 complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to

    8 necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her

    9 death or for which a delay will create serious risk of

    10 substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily

    11 function.”

    (a) “Abortion” means the intentional use of an instrument,
    13 drug, or other substance or device to terminate a woman’s
    14 pregnancy for a purpose other than to increase the probability of
    15 a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after
    16 live birth, or to remove a dead fetus THAT HAS DIED AS A RESULT
    18 THE PREGNANT WOMAN. Abortion does not include the use or
    19 prescription of a drug or device intended as a contraceptive.”

  • Neil

    Its like you gets the arguments(mostly), but still think that others owe  you an explanation for their choices.
    So we both agree that sex-selective abortion is not a problem in this country…but history has shown that any restriction on abortion in  this country  does, in fact, keep the “debate” alive,  opening doors for anti-choicers to push for more and more restrictions and keeping reproductive freedom from becoming the accepted norm …or have you been comatose since 1973?
    Why comment about problems that have no relevance to this country, while ignoring the obvious problem that red herrings like that only add to the long list of issues that will be raised dishonestly, only serving to further demonize women and derail acceptance of reproductive freedom?   
    As far as I can tell, you only do it because you really do think that women owe you and the state some kind of justification for their most personal choices, even though there is no real chance of the government having a clear reason to interfere that will protect society from some unidentified greivous  harm.

  • Neil

    Hey, Shithead…do you think you should be allowed to control your own body, or should the state and religious fanatics get to rule your body?  Do you own the person you want to murder, or are they a separate already autonomous human being?  Do you want them to be able to legally kill you as well?  Are they the same as a fetus, dependent on using your body for their own survival, while forcing you to accept health risks and years of legal responsibility?

    Do you see the differences in your crappy comparison, or will you decide to keep being a worthless, dishonest shithead?

  • Sue Blue

    Great!  I’ll show up with signs reading “labia”, “clitoris”, “mons pubis”, “pudenda”, “perineum”, and “introitus” – with a “glans”, “foreskin”, and “scrotum” thrown in for good measure!

  • LifeinTraffic

    I’m not sure why you quoted this, and it does nothing to “correct me,” as it this says nothing about exceptions for rape or incest or for fetal anomalies (please note that I did NOT say there was no life-of-the-mother exception). So, my point stands. And now, I wasn’t speaking of MSNBC or HuffPo, but thanks for making that assumption.

  • Sue Blue

    Right.  She could have said, “coochie” or “cooter” or “snatch”, or worse.  “Pussy” comes to mind…but I bet the stupid Retardlicans would have loved that.  After all, that’s the terminology they use when they get together to fart and smash beer cans on their foreheads.

  • Neil

    If my grandma tried to lay down rules for my reproductive organs and choices, she would hear much, much worse than “vagina” and “no means no”, you dishonest shit stain.  These men deserve much, much worse than a little disresepect. 
    Go troll you mom, pathetic loser.

  • LifeinTraffic

    What sexual context? The word vagina isn’t sexual, it’s technical. I have a vagina, and it’s with me all the time, even *gasp* when I’m not having sex. “Vagina” is no more a sexual term than rectum or mouth. Those orifices can, indeed, be used for sexual purposes, but that doesn’t make the words themselves sexual.   There was no sexual connotation to her statement. Though, frankly, given the debate is about reproductive rights, there’s no reason that should matter because sex is, in fact, involved. And, incidentally, not a “dirty” or “improper” topic regardless.

    This isn’t a trial, so what a judge would or would not do is irrelevant, and a strawman argument. 

    As to context, there’s just under 200 comments addressing why you’re just wrong (including the Repubs current line saying it wasn’t the word “vagina,” after all, that was the problem), so I’ll save the space by not repeating them all.

  • OuyevolituB

    No, I like abortions.  I think everyone should try it at least once in their life.  It’s really liberating ending the life of another human being that doesn’t have the same DNA as you do.  You wouldn’t believe the amount of power you feel when you kill someone.  It’s truly amazing. 

  • OuyevolituB

    What part about “criminal assault on the pregnant woman” did you not understand means rape and/or incest? 

    I didn’t realize that I was talking to sub-High School level readers.  I apologize for assuming you could read. 

  • OuyevolituB

    Keep your hands off my cock.  No means no. 

    I wasn’t implying that you wanted to touch my dick, so don’t take offense. 

  • LifeinTraffic

    Okay, REREAD that section. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    “remove a dead fetus THAT HAS DIED AS A RESULT

    The key words here are that a fetus *died as a result of* natural causes, or a criminal assault on the pregnant woman. NOT a fetus that was *caused by* a criminal assault on a woman, making her pregnant. You do see the difference, right? “Died as a result of accidental trauma or criminal assault” would mean, for example, if a woman was in a car accident or mugged violently and the baby died as a result of resulting injuries from the mugging. 

    And, still, nothing on fetal anomalies.

  • LifeinTraffic

    I am pretty sure no one was offended (though, incidentally, “cock” is not a medical term–try penis next time for analogy accuracy bonus points).   

    Possibly confused, but I doubt offended.

  • Kodie

     I don’t think you’re smart enough to be a neuroscientist. Those legislators are directly interested in Ms. Brown’s vagina and making laws about what she can do with it. Is she not allowed her religious freedom to get an abortion as needs be for her beliefs? Oh, of course not, because it’s the same god, and you know what he wants. Please put your dick back in your pants, big shot. You are just a troll.

  • OuyevolituB

    Fuck down syndrome babies.  Those kids are retarded and deserve to die anyway.  Amiright??

  • Kodie

    Non sequitur, dummy.

  • Those ‘assault on the pregnant woman’ laws have been  used to charge a woman who attempted suicide. 

  • OuyevolituB

    I think you mean uterus.  Nobody cares about her nasty vajayjay (in the parlance of Oprah). 

    And yeah, sometimes I don’t think I’m smart enough for my profession because I just don’t understand people who think a fetus is just a bunch of cells right up until week 39 of gestation – and then POOF it magically becomes a baby. 

    Like I’ve stated before, I’m not opposed to all abortions.  But abortion after 20 weeks is one of the worst things I have ever personally seen.  I wish I could erase it from my memory.  You’re probably lucky you didn’t have to witness a moving fetus being having it’s limbs ripped off.  I did and I’m happy that I’ll never be in an OR during an abortion procedure ever again in my life. 

  • OuyevolituB

    You think so?  Roughly 90% of parents who find out that their kid has Trisomy 21 (Down’s) get an abortion. (it’s easily detectable;y via amnio or CVS).  

    I’m actually OK with this if it’s done early.  Are you?

  • HughInAz


  • Kodie

    Yes, I think so. I think your comment had no place in that sequence of discussion, and you didn’t answer anything to do with the comment before that you were replying to. Keep up, fake neuroscientist.

  • RedSchwartz has a FUNNY song about this on YouTube, just search on YouTube for “Vagina Jase Bolger – Eric Schwartz”.

    My favorite lyrics in the song is the line that says: “Regulate it, Legislate it, Go on and invade it…. just don’t SAY it….”

  • Aselvarial

     Except hands and mouths are just as crucial to sex as vaginas.  So unless she was talking about sex with her vagina, I don’t see how vagina automatically equals rape, any more than hands and mouths automatically equal rape. In talking about procreation, saying “no means no” in reference to the vagina, is not referring to rape. it’s referring to the fact that other ppl, men specifically, do not have the right to dictate what our vagina is used for. Any more than we can say they aren’t allowed to use their penises for anything other than urinating.

  • Aselvarial

    when I was pregnant, my doctor actually DID ask me just that. She also had my husband step out of the room before she asked me that, and asked if I felt safe in my current situation. There are good OB doctors out there that support women’s reproductive rights. I don’t think she’d have been thrilled if I’d said I didn’t want the child as I got the feeling she was Christian (no direct evidence, just gut feeling) but, not once did i, a staunch anti-religion supporter, ever feel uncomfortable with her.

  • Aselvarial

     TVUS are not appropriate for every pregnancy. My second pregnancy was SO high risk that NOTHING was allowed in my vagina. And YES, the vagina is very very important to procreation so during all discussions of reproduction, it is very accurate to use the word vagina. How else do you think the fetus got there? or is getting OUT? the transporter?

  • LifeinTraffic

    Exactly. Neither “vagina” or “no means no” is offense, and the whole “context” argument here is just a smokescreen.

  • LifeinTraffic

    I know. And, it means every case of fetal death is open to the criminal investigation against the mother. The “pro-life” side argues that it’s just a protection for her, so in case someone assaults her and kills a wanted child she’ll have legal recourse. The reality, of course is that not only does that recourse already exist in most states in other forms, but there are ways to write it that don’t end in the kind of crap you linked above.

  • LifeinTraffic

    Right. It’s me, the one who could correctly read the bill and point out to you your error in comprehension, who is illiterate here. 

    Newsflash: ad hominem attacks don’t mean you’re right. They don’t mean you’re smart. They just mean you can’t come up with anything relevant.

  • LifeinTraffic

    “Nasty Vajayjay?” Really? That’s what you come up with? Yet another ad hominem attack, and one that shows just how justified you feel in calling a woman, or her genitalia, nasty? 

    If you’re a neuroscientist and you made it through Med school with this kind of crap, our education system needs even more of an overhaul than most people realize.

  • DG

    The biggest farce in the abortion debate?  Even by Planned Parenthood stats, the abortions due to ‘the life of the mother’ or the ‘health of the baby’ or the ‘rape of the mother’ are relatively few.  Other stats have them as far fewer than PP, but even PP admits that most abortions are for nothing other than, for the want of a better word, convenience.  The only procedure covered without need for medical necessity, for most cases abortions are simply a last line birth control.   If only the pro abortion side would admit that, it would be honest.  As it is, they hide behind the difficult cases that demand sensitivity, all the while keeping the floodgates open for an ethic that says nothing other than ‘we’d abort six million babies for better orgasms.’  Heinous.  Simply heinous.  All the contempt for human life that Nazis had, but for hedonistic narcissism rather than nationalism.  And her being Jewish on top of it.

  • But…you *are* a dick.

  • Mr. Dickhead never met a woman who really meant no.

  • Oh and, for calling us Nazis, you’re a fucking asshole too.

  • SabsDkPrncs

    If we’re going to pick new acceptable words for genitalia (can I still say that?), I’m going to lobby for “bearded clam” and “beef bus”.

  • Where is the farce? Abortion is the last line birth control. Who denies that? What’s wrong with that? Simpler birth control methods can fail: all have an intrinsic failure rate when used properly, some failures are attributable to improper use, bad judgment can lead to no use at all. Fortunately, abortion is available when other methods fail.

    Obviously, non-surgical methods of birth control are preferable, since they are less expensive, less invasive, and safer.

  • The Captain

    Great to see our resident troll is back. So two days after you posted something that was shown to be factually incorrect (which you ignored) you then pop back up to prove that it takes you only two post to fulfill Goodwins Law. Bravo!

    So what do we know about DG from these two post. Well he will use the force of law to require you to practice his religion while claiming it’s you who are doing it, all while invoking the nazis justify it. What an awesome bastion of intellectualism and freedom you are.

    Oh yea, no “babies” are ever aborted. “Babies” are something that gets born… either  learn what words mean or stop being a drama queen.

  • DG

    Those who insist on keeping the focus only on those rare cases of rape or the life of the mother, that’s who.  Oh, granted, there are those who say they would slaughter anything for better orgasms, but the pro-abortion movement tends to discourage them from being the face of pro-abortion rights.

  • DG

    That’s Godwins Law.  And second, there is nothing wrong with comparing things when the comparison is valid.  I completely enjoyed your deft changing of the subject to me, rather than dealing with the meat of my argument: that the emphasis on ‘life of the mother’ is out of proportion to why abortions typically happen.   Oh, and since you get to define human life based on your preferences, your right to condemn the Nazis for doing the same comes from where?

  • DG

    If her beliefs about abortion happen to coincide with the way she votes, how do I know she isn’t?

  • DG

    So you’re saying that they actually can vote according to their religious beliefs, as long as they say they’re not doing so?  You see the point?

  • DG

    Learn to listen Mr. Neil, not just pull out stock file comeback #234.4 H3, and post it.

  • S E C U L A R   A R G U M E N T S

    It is irrelevant if it happens to align with religious belief or not.  That’s not the point.  The point is that an argument from the Bible is no better than an argument from the Qu’ran or Gita or Harry Potter.  I don’t fucking care what you think your god said.  Somebody else thinks the same fucking god said something else.

    This isn’t a fucking theocracy!  We’re not Saudi Arabia!  We don’t make laws based on fairy tales!  (Well, sometimes we do, but that’s the problem).

  • The extreme cases are important ones. But I’ve never heard anybody who supports a woman’s right to abortions claim that they weren’t used as a last resort form of birth control.

    I’ve also never heard of a “pro-abortion” movement.

  • It’s times like this that I’m grateful for being a cultural Luddite.

  • I haven’t been in Canada in 10 years, so I’ll take your word for it.  I thought that when I was there in the 90s that it was illegal for a doctor to reveal the sex on the ultrasound, but that they would often mention some clues if they didn’t feel the family was a risk for sex selection.  That is, if the family wasn’t Asian and acting very traditionally, they might mention a sale on pink or something.

    I think this kind of thing is more a concern is IVF.  Much more efficient to pick an embryo then keep getting pregnant and having abortions.  

  • LifeinTraffic

    Um, huh? You do realize that being a “hardcore feminist” has nothing to do with hating men, right? That the definition is someone who is very firm in their belief that women deserve equal rights and equal treatment? And that feminists don’t have to be female, that there are many men who are feminists, because they believe in the same thing?

    Are there feminists who hate men? Probably. There are also those who don’t identify as feminists who hate men. There are feminists who love men, and those who don’t identify as feminists who love men.  Loving or hating men has nothing to do with feminism.

  • kaydenpat

    Good to see that there will be at least one public demonstration against this silly law.  And I love that Republicans feel that silencing their opposition is okay. 

  • kaydenpat

    Women have the right to reproductive health, part of which includes abortion.  Do you remember Roe v. Wade?  It’s still the law of the land.  There is nothing “Nazi” about women exercising their rights and Ms. Brown should not have been silenced by the Repub regime in Michigan for speaking out.

    Nazis also banned speech which didn’t please them.

  • kaydenpat

    What judge would’ve had her arrested?  For what exactly?  For speaking out in favor of women’s constitutional rights to abortion?  I’m sure that you as a Rightwinger would have all people arrested who don’t share your religious views.  Mrs. Brown correctly pointed out that as a Jew, she did not share the religious views of the anti-choice activists in the Michigan assembly.

  • LifeinTraffic

    Sadly, we’re right there with you. Despite being very politically active, we don’t feel we have any real political power here (read: we’re not rich and we’re not religious), and we don’t see the country getting better.

     The good news for us is that, once my DH graduates, almost any country in the world will expedite immigration  for us due to his (high-demand, low-availability) profession. It’s common for anyone who reaches their 3rd year of school to be actively recruited, so it’s mostly just a matter of deciding where you want to go. We’re considering NZ, but it’s not a foregone conclusion yet (they have a really, really liberal immigration policy for certain professions, his being one of them, which is nice). 

    We mulled the “stay and make a difference from the inside” thing for a long time, but we just don’t believe anymore that it’s realistic to think that will happen.

  • kaydenpat

    The law makes no exception for banning abortions even for rape or incest after the fetus reaches 20 weeks, except for the health of the mother.

    So Republicans are okay with forcing a rape/incest victim to give birth to the child of her rapist?  But there is no war on women, remember?

  • LifeinTraffic

    Be ready for the trolls to argue that there *is* a clause for rape and incest. There isn’t, and it’s been proved already; but, they’ll try again anyway, I’m sure.

  • The Captain

    Wow, your a thick one aren’t ya?! She said ” have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs”, which she does not ask for legislation to do. As she says, her religion says you need to keep separate sets of dishes, yet she has asked for no law to require YOU to keep two sets of dishes.  Now the antiabortionist has a religion that says abortion is wrong, yet pass laws saying SHE has to follow that religious belief. Do you get it now, or are you that thick.?

  • The Captain

    Wait, what? Lets see, you think YOU get to define life based on your preferences too, so I guess “your right to condemn the Nazis for doing the same comes from where?”

  • OuyevolituB

    Why the fuck would anyone who was raped wait 5 months to have an abortion?

  • OuyevolituB

    Please quote the part of the Constitution that says abortion is a right. 

  • Kodie

    1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that
    excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the
    mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the
    other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the
    Fourteenth Amendment.

    Pretty easy to research, fake neuroscientist.

  • OuyevolituB

    Name another condition that happens early in gestation that isn’t easily treated with medication or surgery and places the mother’s life at risk. 

    Placenta previa?  Nope
    Abrupto?  Nope
    HDNB? Nope
    Preeclampsia? Nope
    DIC? Nope

    I’ll wait for your answer. 

  • OuyevolituB

    Is that case law or is that in the Constitution?  There is zero mention of abortion as a right in the Constitution or the amendments. 

  • Kodie

    Are you illiterate or just lazy?

  • OuyevolituB

    The reasoning of Roe v. Wade is an embarrassment to those who take
    constitutional law seriously, even to many scholars who heartily support
    the outcome of the case. As John Hart Ely, former dean of Stanford Law
    School and a supporter of abortion rights, has written, Roe “is not
    constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to

    The court’s reasoning proceeded in two steps. First, it
    found that a “right of privacy” exists under the Constitution, and that
    this right is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or
    not to terminate her pregnancy.” Since this meant that the right to
    abortion is constitutionally protected, a state could interfere with the
    right only if it has a “compelling state interest” for doing so.

    the right of privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Various
    judges, according to the court, had found “at least the roots of that
    right” in the First Amendment, in the “penumbras of the Bill of Rights,”
    in the Ninth Amendment or in the “concept of liberty guaranteed by the
    first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” This vague statement is
    tantamount to confessing the court did not much care where in the
    Constitution this supposed right might be found. All that mattered was
    it be “broad enough” to encompass abortion.

    Even assuming a
    right of privacy can be excavated from somewhere, anywhere, in the
    Constitution, what does it mean? The court avoided defining the term,
    except by giving examples from previous cases. The trouble is,
    counterexamples abound. The federal “right of privacy” has never been
    held to protect against laws banning drug use, assisted suicide or even
    consensual sodomy–just to mention a few examples of crimes that are no
    less “private” than abortion. It is impossible to know what does and
    does not fall within this nebulous category.

    Even assuming that
    there is a right of privacy, and that its contours can be discerned from
    the court’s examples, surely it must be confined to activities that
    affect no one else. It would be an odd kind of privacy that confers the
    power to inflict injury on nonconsenting third parties. Yet the entire
    rationale for antiabortion laws is that an abortion does inflict injury
    on a nonconsenting third party, the fetus. It is not possible to
    describe abortion as a “privacy right” without first concluding that the
    fetus does not count as a third party with protectable interests.

    brings us to step two in the court’s argument. Far from resolving the
    thorny question of when a fetus is another person deserving of
    protection–surely the crux of the privacy right, if it exists–the
    justices determined that the issue is unresolvable. They noted that
    there has been a “wide divergence of thinking” regarding the “most
    sensitive and difficult question” of “when life begins.” They stated
    that “[w]hen those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine,
    philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the
    judiciary . . . is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

    to the court, the existence of this uncertainty meant that the state’s
    asserted interest in protecting unborn life could not be deemed
    “compelling.” But this leaves us with an entirely circular argument. The
    supposed lack of consensus about when life begins is important because
    when state interests are uncertain they cannot be “compelling”; and a
    compelling state interest is required before the state can limit a
    constitutional right. But the constitutional right in question
    (“privacy”) only exists if the activity in question does not abridge the
    rights of a nonconsenting third party–the very question the court says
    cannot be resolved. If it cannot be resolved, there is no way to
    determine whether abortion is a “right of privacy.”

    In any
    event, the court’s claim that it was not resolving the issue of “when
    life begins” was disingenuous. In our system, all people are entitled to
    protection from killing and other forms of private violence. The court
    can deny such protection to fetuses only if it presupposes they are not

    One can make a pretty convincing argument, however,
    that fetuses are persons. They are alive; their species is Homo sapiens.
    They are not simply an appendage of the mother; they have a separate
    and unique chromosomal structure. Surely, before beings with all the
    biological characteristics of humans are stripped of their rights as
    “persons” under the law, we are entitled to an explanation of why they
    fall short. For the court to say it cannot “resolve the difficult
    question of when life begins” is not an

    -Mike MCConnell, WSLexplanation. 

  • First of all, any surgery places a person at risk. Some people (who may be pregnant) may be placed at high risk by surgery.

    I had a friend who nearly died of adult onset Type 1 diabetes that occurred in the first trimester. She elected not to abort, against medical advice, and as a result was dangerously ill (the fetus died mid-term).

    Women with all sorts of other conditions- malignant hypertension, MS, lupus, heart disease, cancer- are at high risk in any pregnancy. Why do you limit your list to specific complications of pregnancy itself? The fact is, pregnancy is risky even for healthy women, and many women who get pregnant are not healthy to begin with. Those women are often advised to not get pregnant, and abortion is their first and best option if it occurs.

  • LifeinTraffic

    Can you seriously not think of a situation of rape or incest where the victim may wait 5 months? No? 

    Then that just shows you are incredibly out of touch with the reality of rape and incest, both of which aren’t crimes of sex, but crimes of power and oppression. 

  • Kodie

    The reasoning of Roe v. Wade is an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously, even to many scholars who heartily support
    the outcome of the case.

    You can speak for all those who take constitutional law seriously? Or you just found one article that does not reflect the Constitution at all. You asked where in the Constitution it said, well, you can whine about it, you can full-quote an academic-looking rebuttal, and you can even make a broad statement calling Roe v. Wade an embarrassment to “those who take constitutional law seriously” all you like, but that’s not where in the Constitution it says that abortion is a right. You don’t like it but it’s in the 14th Amendment, not out there in your “I can’t write anything in my own words unless the word ‘cock’ is involved” fake neuroscientist arguments.

  • Kodie

    McConnell even praised a judge who refused to enforce the law against antiabortion
    protesters. McConnell has also expressed doubts about constitutional doctrines
    requiring the separation of church and state.

    Just all of it:

    Basically, fake neuroscientist full-quoted a whiner who has no idea how the Constitution should be interpreted, a willful liar who will ignore the Constitution to infringe on people’s rights in favor of his religious belief. “Those who take constitutional law seriously” is a group that does not include Mr. McConnell, so it’s a mystery why he thinks he speaks for them.

  • lele

     There is a protest at the Michigan Capitol tomorrow, Eve Ensler is flying in to perform the Vagina Monologues with many female Dem legislators, including the 2 that were banned from the floor.  My vagina will be there!

  • Tom Sarbeck

    Introitus? Isn’t that the name of a part of the Catholic Mass?

  • OuyevolituB

    Unfortunately I love to waste time. 

    And do you really think I’m going to tell some random person on the internet (in a topic with religious nuts and pro-abortion nuts) where I went to school or where I work? That sounds like a superb idea.

    Where did you do your post-doc?  I didn’t do a “post-doc.”   Why would I? I entered residency right after med school.

    How many schools did you interview at before getting accepted into the medical program? 9, or 10 I don’t remember.  I interviewed at my top 5. 

    What rotations did you go through before deciding on what was it, oh yes, neuroscience?  I didn’t.  I did my 3rd and 4th year rotations after I got my PhD.  A neuro residency was pretty much a no-brainer (ha, I amuse myself)  after that. 

    I’m not really sure why you somehow object to me personally.  Is it because, as a person who has witnessed an elective abortion at 15 weeks, I know how disgusting that procedure is and I’m willing to tell others about it?

error: Content is protected !!