The Conservative War On Women

FSeven wrote:

If embryos are people. And let's say we won't achieve an attach rate of 100% for 15 years, then that means an embryo put in storage today will be 15 years old already when it is successfully attached. Add 9 months for pregnancy and the mother will have given birth to a 16 year old!

That means of course that upon birth it will immediately and legally be permitted to apply for a drivers' learning permit. Wonder what that insurance premium will look like. And two years after birth will be able to purchase a pack of cigarettes and vote in elections. And since young people mostly vote Democrat, the GOP and moral majority might want to rethink this strategy.

Yes, but veterans tend more to vote Republican, so just keep 'em on ice for another two years and draft those chain-smoking infants!

Yonder wrote:
Bruce wrote:

How can they think there wouldn't be consequences for that kind of action?

Why would they worry about consequences? Having the evil, anti-Christian government oppress them for their righteous deeds, so that they will be rewarded in the next life for their strength in dealing with that persecution, is the best case scenario for them.

If your goal is intimidation and disruption, the publicity from a court case could be beneficial. Make the woman seeking the abortion believe that she has no dependable source of assistance.

Cod wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Bruce wrote:

How can they think there wouldn't be consequences for that kind of action?

Why would they worry about consequences? Having the evil, anti-Christian government oppress them for their righteous deeds, so that they will be rewarded in the next life for their strength in dealing with that persecution, is the best case scenario for them.

If your goal is intimidation and disruption, the publicity from a court case could be beneficial. Make the woman seeking the abortion believe that she has no dependable source of assistance.

Yeah, there is probably no better outcome for them than it going viral, and women in need thinking "I can't call this volunteer driver organization, I might get kidnapped!"

Edit: A cool, but far smaller scale plan would be to have a bunch of embryos fertilized and then put them in your freezer. It may cost tens of thousands of dollars for the operation, but I think that the 50 dependents you can legally declare on your tax return will wipe out that cost and start turning you a profit in short order.

Cod wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Having the evil, anti-Christian government oppress them for their righteous deeds, so that they will be rewarded in the next life for their strength in dealing with that persecution, is the best case scenario for them.

If your goal is intimidation and disruption, the publicity from a court case could be beneficial.

IMAGE(http://imageshack.us/a/img823/237/24vn.jpg)

Hypatian wrote:

D: I don't even...

This really alarmed us this morning. Just one reminder that getting an abortion in Texas can be very dangerous. pic.twitter.com/bdHCZ3F3lM
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYulPU3CAAAsFqf.png)

As a number of people pointed out in response to that tweet: Because kidnapping is a really good idea. :X

On the 'plus' side TX has a shoot first stand your ground law. First wrong turn on the way to the clinic, or first refusal to let the person out and you can legally shoot them at point blank range.
Wait... actually that is a horrible thing. But still AFAIK legal.

All this talk reminds me of this. Relevant part starts at 2:47.

Supreme Court lets abortion ruling stand (Elise Viebeck, The Hill, 2013-11-12) wrote:

The Supreme Court will not revive an Oklahoma law requiring women to undergo an ultrasound prior to receiving an abortion.

The justices declined Tuesday to hear an appeal from state officials, letting stand a previous ruling against the ultrasound law by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

*cheer*

Hypatian wrote:
Supreme Court lets abortion ruling stand (Elise Viebeck, The Hill, 2013-11-12) wrote:

The Supreme Court will not revive an Oklahoma law requiring women to undergo an ultrasound prior to receiving an abortion.

The justices declined Tuesday to hear an appeal from state officials, letting stand a previous ruling against the ultrasound law by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

*cheer*

But, but, what will Jesus think if we don't insert things in vulnerable womens' vaginas against their will?

Yonder wrote:

But, but, what will Jesus think if we don't insert things in vulnerable womens' vaginas against their will?

Isn't that kinda how Jesus came into being?

Yonder wrote:

But, but, what will Jesus think if we don't insert things in vulnerable womens' vaginas against their will?

"My Dad! Something's terribly wrong down there because reason and rationale are showing." - Y'shua

OG_slinger wrote:
Yonder wrote:

But, but, what will Jesus think if we don't insert things in vulnerable womens' vaginas against their will?

Isn't that kinda how Jesus came into being?

Methinks you need to reread the book where that's mentioned.

OG_slinger wrote:
Yonder wrote:

But, but, what will Jesus think if we don't insert things in vulnerable womens' vaginas against their will?

Isn't that kinda how Jesus came into being?

All this because some hussy 2000+ years ago didn't want to tell her husband she was pregnant by another man. I guess if you lie, go big.

California was sterilising it's women prisoners as late as 2010

• Doctors under contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sterilized nearly 150 female inmates from 2006 to 2010 without required state approvals – and there were perhaps 100 more dating back to the late 1990s.

• Former inmates and prisoner advocates say prison medical staff coerced the women into agreeing to the surgeries, targeting those deemed likely to return to prison in the future.

• From 1997 to 2010, the state paid doctors $147,460 to perform tubal ligations, according to a database of contracted medical services for state prisoners.

• A prison administrator acknowledged that she tried to find workarounds, and the prison's ob-gyn defended the expenditure, saying:

"Over a 10-year period, that isn't a huge amount of money compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children – as they procreated more".

(haven't watched the video since I'm at work so not sure of the content)

Would be interested to know how that compares to male prisoners over the same period of time.

Irishwoman whose fetus had a fatal heart defect petitions U.N. over Ireland's ban on abortions when fetus can't live.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/woman...

*sigh* the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the argument about companies being required to provide birth control...

When did corporations begin to be treated as individuals? It seems like this was a sudden change or was I just not paying attention?

2010 with Citizens United.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize...

JC wrote:

When did corporations begin to be treated as individuals? It seems like this was a sudden change or was I just not paying attention?

Surely there are preliminaries, but one obvious and likely answer is "when Citizens United happened."

Though brazenly targeted at women, I'd hope people would see the broader implications regardless of genders if we allow big time corporations to mandate what people can and can't do with their just compensation. Insurance is as much a part of pay as the actual money, and we should all be concerned with the right to use it as we see fit being infringed. I wager the Pope doesn't agree, but when he made his earlier remarks about Capitalism being the "new tyranny," this is the case that sprung instantly to mind.

Edwin wrote:

2010 with Citizens United.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize...

Right, but was there nothing before this?

I honestly don't know.

The column I linked implied it was a long-held conservative fringe thought that got its first mainstream legitimacy due to Citizen's United. Don't think there's citation or the like, though.

JC wrote:

When did corporations begin to be treated as individuals? It seems like this was a sudden change or was I just not paying attention?

It particularly started back in 1886, with Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Maybe it comes from Japanese zaibatsu, and the deep-seated animist tendency to assign life to inanimate objects? Y'know, like how a businessman will bow to the vending machine that sells him schoolgirl panties?

It was definitely the late 1800s, when lots of corporate laws were established. Interestingly, if you start a company and neglect it, there are actually laws about that. They're protected in some ways that are similar to the way children are protected. They really are treated like people, even though they're just "ideas" more than anything else.

Wait, let me rephrase... They're treated BETTER than people. Some political movements seem to value corporations, sperm, and zygotes more than the value people.

Republican legislators ban almost all abortion coverage from health insurance plan in Michigan. Only if the woman's life is in direct danger will abortion be covered, but not in cases of rape or incest, nor to protect her health. A separate insurance will need to be purchased to cover abortions, but of course insurance companies are not required to offer this separate rider.

Rallick wrote:

Republican legislators ban almost all abortion coverage from health insurance plan in Michigan. Only if the woman's life is in direct danger will abortion be covered, but not in cases of rape or incest, nor to protect her health. A separate insurance will need to be purchased to cover abortions, but of course insurance companies are not required to offer this separate rider.

This will affect approximately 700 women per year, so its effects are hardly far reaching. That said, it shows the blatant lack of empathy and utter disregard for women the GOP shows by allowing themselves to be painted as the group that requires Rape Insurance.

And to do it in such a way to nullify Snyder's veto is just acrimonious. If the governor who raided seniors' pensions to pay the General Fund and made the shining gem in Union activity a Right to Work state vetoes an abortion bill, maybe you should rethink your activities.

I do not agree with the 700 figure. Insurance is largely about the "what if". It is about feeling that you are covered if you need it so while only around 700 would actually loose money the effect is a lot larger IMO.

realityhack wrote:

I do not agree with the 700 figure. Insurance is largely about the "what if". It is about feeling that you are covered if you need it so while only around 700 would actually loose money the effect is a lot larger IMO.

I did some digging; taking the total number of abortions performed in Michigan and then taking 3% of that (which is how I got my 700 figure) may have been a bit misleading. That's still the number of cases that would've been affected had this law been enacted last year, but:

a close friend of mine who works with the Michigan State Legislature wrote:

In case you didn't already hear: last night the legislature made it illegal for insurance companies to cover abortions and d&c (without an additional rider) including cases of miscarriage, fetal death, rape and incest. If you miscarry and need a d&c you have to pay for it out of pocket. If your baby dies in utero you have to wait for your body to miscarry or pay out of pocket. Regardless of the abortion debate this is an attack on Women's health care.

So it's quite a bit more alarming and far reaching than I first thought.

edit -- and because I had to look it up, it's safe to assume others might: d&c refers to Dilation and curettage.

If you want proof that anti-abortion fervor is primarily about punishing women and not saving babies, the fact that this bill doesn't make an exception for cases of fetal death is pretty compelling.

Yeah I saw where you got the 700 from, and I see that when you look at miscarriage etc. the number rises. I just though I would point out that it actually effects every person that decides they need a rider regardless of wither it is EVER used. Not to mention some that might not due to cost or likelihood of use but still feel under-protected and/or harassed by this craziness.

I feel like that is missed sometimes in abortion battles. Aren't all women effected who *might* want or need the service even if they don't in a given year?

Demyx wrote:

If you want proof that anti-abortion fervor is primarily about punishing women and not saving babies, the fact that this bill doesn't make an exception for cases of fetal death is pretty compelling.

Yeah, that part is quite terrifying actually. I think you can die if that happens and your body doesn't miscarry.