Now, if you do not follow the Supreme Court these days, most rulings are 5-4 with Kennedy being the deciding vote. Kennedy decided to support a woman’s right to choose in Planned Parenthood v Casey. So I am not sure how this will be a victory for the religious right and/or pro life activists.
But let’s look at what the bill does.
A) It bans all abortions. No exceptions for rape. No exceptions to protect the life of the woman. No exceptions for anything. This makes the law evil, as any law that would require a pregnant woman to die because of her pregnancy is evil. Forcing a pregnant woman to die is the moral equivalent of state sanctioned murder. So much for him being pro life.
B) It seems to ban oral contraception. RS 40:1299.30 section E currently states:
Nothing in this Section may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions.
The proposed bill repeals this section (To amend and reenact R.S. 14:32.5(A) and R.S. 40:1299.35.0, to enact R.S.40:1299.35.1(11) and to repeal R.S. 40:1299.30(A), (B), and (E)). Birth control pills and the morning after pill work to prevent fertilization, ovulation, and implantation. Since the Labruzzo bill (under the legislative intent section) would consider the prevention of implantation to be an abortion (because the unborn would have the “right to life”), the bill would obviously prevent the sale of birth control pills and the morning after pill (which is just a higher dose of birth control pill). How will this prevent abortions when more unwanted pregnancies would take place under his draconian law.
It am absolutely certain that this law would be overturned by the Surpeme Court. However, Labruzzo is a disgusting hater of women for supporting this bill (as is any politician or voter who supports it).
And that plan includes women getting raped and impregnated. See, there is no possible situation that she can think of where an abortion is acceptable. Not for rape and not even to save the life of the pregnant woman. If you are a woman and you are raped, that is all part of God’s plan for you. Congrats!
(Of course, as I have argued other days and as others have argued today, if a woman actually gets an abortion, doesn’t that make the abortion part of God’s plan too?)
Sharron Angle’s candidacy pretty much backs up my theory of what is going to happen in November. These tea party people are going to run candidates that are so far to the right that the Democrats will win because nobody in the middle will be willing to vote for these nut jobs.
What is up with the conservatives in this legislative session?
First they passed legislation giving the Secretary of Health more power to shut down clinics if the clinic is deemed to be a danger to a patient of the abortion doctor. Of course, anyone with half a brain would realize that this is just an attempt to be able to call the fetus a patient of the abortion doctor and shut down abortion clinics for … wait for it… performing abortions.
They also will be requiring women to obtain an ultrasound before they obtain an abortion, you know because women make such rash decisions when making the decision to have an abortion and they can hardly be trusted to think for themselves, right Bobby?
Imagine your wife is pregnant. She has a life or death situation and the safest course of action is to abort the pregnancy. Would you want your doctor or hospital second guessing that decision? Would you want to be free to make sure the life of your wife could be saved?
Well, such a situation was faced in Arizona recently. A woman who was 11 weeks pregnant had a life or death situation and an administrator at St. Josephs hospital determined that they should go ahead with the procedure and save the life of the woman. The pregnancy was aborted and Margaret Mary McBride was excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Now, the Catholic Church is free to excommunicate whoever they please. If such abortions are against their religion then by all means, excommunicate anyone who obtains one. However, this is why we need to make sure that we keep religious beliefs on abortion out of government. If some Catholics, like Bobby Jindal, had their way… such abortions would be banned permanently. Any woman with a life threatening pregnancy would just have to risk death.
Jewish law requires abortion in such a circumstance. I do not wish to make a law that would require anyone to get an abortion. That should be up to you and your faith to determine what risks are best for you and your family. And shouldn’t a person always be able to save their own life, at least in the eyes of the law?
I called the Jeff Crouere show on WGSO 990 AM on Thursday morning to correct him about taxpayer dollars going to pay for abortions. The Senate language does not do this (no matter how many prolife politicians or groups want to claim otherwise).
Here is how you deal with their false claims.
A) Each area that has exchanges is required to have one plan that does not include abortion coverage. Anyone who doesn’t want to have a plan that covers abortion is free to choose that plan.
B) People who choose to purchase a plan via an exchange that does provide abortion will be doing so knowing that there was a non abortion providing plan. These plans are required to segregate the funds paid for with private dollars and only cover abortion services with those privately contributed funds. So even if abortions take place, they will be guaranteed to not be paid for with taxpayer dollars.
So no taxes go towards paying for abortion and no person will be required to put private money into a plan that covers abortions because they can always buy a plan that doesn’t cover abortions.
Anyone who is prolife who tries to tell you that tax dollars will pay for abortions is either a liar or uninformed.
I guess Tim Tebow was so impatient to be seen in the Superbowl that he couldn’t wait to get drafted and take his team there. Apparently, he will be staring in a commercial sponsored by Focus on your own damned the Family. Word has it that Tim will be reading a thank you note to his mother for not aborting her pregnancy when she fell ill (even though her doctors told her that it was dangerous to remain pregnant).
Now, that decision was her choice to make and she was free to either take that risk or not because of Roe v Wade. Women’s rights groups are taking the angle that CBS should not be helping to promote a group that they feel is anti-woman and anti-gay. I would take a different approach though. The choice to have an abortion is one that I will never have to face and it is a choice that I would not wish on anyone. Women who have to make that decision are likely having a hard enough time of it as it is, they do not need people telling them what choice they should make… pro or con.
The only people that should be giving advice on a medical procedure, unsolicited, are doctors. Any other advice on abortion should be given when requested only. And to encourage women to not obtain abortions when their lives are in danger is absolutely and 100% irresponsible! Imagine a woman who is given false hope of life from a Superbowl commercial. She goes against her doctors recommendations and decides to not abort her pregnancy. She then dies because Tebow thanked Mommy and her family (perhaps her other children) have to go on without her… all because some extremist conservatives decided that it was a good idea to guilt women into the choice that was not best for them or their families.
Instead of calling for the commercial to be pulled, perhaps a counter-commercial should be aired to confront this one instead. A commercial both proclaiming the support of the ability of Tim Tebow’s mother to make that choice and showing how irresponsible it is for people without medical degrees to be convincing sick people to not get treatment.
So let me get this straight. The party who claims to be pro-life and wants to protect embryos is only caring about criminalizing abortion and not worrying about reducing their numbers? How is that for not being genuine?
Republicans also affirmed their hatred of homosexuals by continuing their support to ban gay marriages. I am sure that marriage defenders David “who would Vitter do” Vitter and Larry “toe tapping” Craig will be leading the battle charge on this one. I’m shocked they are not calling for both a return to Jim Crow laws and a constitutional amendment to keep women in the kitchen and out of the voting booth. Could the Republican Party be any more archaic?
Fred Thompson has come out with his view on abortion and it is one that will bother both sides. He doesn’t support a national ban preventing abortion, which will push the extremists in the pro-life wing of the Republican party. He also believes that it shouldn’t be a federal issue, which would upset those who vote pro-choice. If you alienate both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion argument, I find it hard to believe that you could win the White House.
Of course, Matt Lewis (on town hall) asked a very silly question.
Furthermore, if one believes life begins at conception, as Thompson says he now does, then he also believes abortion is murder. Why wouldn’t the 14th Amendment then apply to the unborn?
The fourteenth amendment states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis mine)
Clearly the 14th amendment does not apply to the unborn. The unborn are not born (duh), are not naturalized, and do not meet the legal definition of “person”. If the unborn where legal “people” they would have social security numbers or some other form of identification that could be placed on them, and you would be able to write off your embryos on your taxes.
I guess I should actually limit that label to those “pro-life” pharmacists who don’t want to dispense oral contraceptives.
The Pope recently stated that Pharmacists should be able to be “conscientious objectors” when it comes to prescribing medications that would violate their religious beliefs. This would allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medications legally prescribed by a Doctor. I have several problems with this idea.
First of all, why should a pharmacist be able to impose his/her moral beliefs on someone else, especially when it comes to their own health-care? Obviously the woman seeking to purchase contraception has no moral issue with taking the medication. Obviously the doctor prescribing the contraception feels that the choice of medication is appropriate. The pharmacist should not interfere in the decision making process because it violates his/her own set of morals.
I am sure that the pharmacists know that as part of their job description that they may be asked to dispense forms of contraception. Did these pharmacists inform their employer of their moral beliefs before getting hired? I mean, if someone who observes the Jewish faith applies for a job, it is vital that he/she explain what restrictions on scheduling would be required (i.e. that no scheduling can take place from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and on high holy days). If such a person did not inform the employer of those scheduling restrictions beforehand, then the employer would be unable to work around those restrictions. The same holds true with pro-life pharmacists. If they did not inform their employers of their religious beliefs that made them incapable of dispensing certain medications, then how is the employer to be expected to work around those restrictions?
The reason that pro-life pharmacists are hypocrites is because they are making money from the sale of those items they find so immoral. They knowingly work for a company that makes money, in part, by selling contraceptives. It doesnt matter that they are not going to be the ones dispensing the medication. Even if some other pharmacist dispenses the contraceptives, the company is still generating a profit from the sale of these pills. So part of their paycheck comes from profits from the sale of contraceptives. If they feel that the use of a contraceptive that may prevent an embryo from implanting is murder, then they are clearly profiting from that murder. This makes them hypocrites.
The bottom line is that pharmacists know what their job will be before going to school. Nobody is forcing them to do that job and they are free to quit whenever they wish if they feel that their moral code will be violated by dispensing oral contraceptives. And to accept a paycheck from a company that makes money selling those oral contraceptives gives them absolutely no credibility.