June 19, 2013 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
In Kansas we are so adept at walking backwards. It's a good thing we have many great things in Kansas to be proud of, becuase archaic thinking and oppression is not doing it for most of us.
Don't kid yourself, we have no representation in our state government. The majority of Kansans I have talked to are so disgusted with our state government, they get physically ill at the prospects of living in such a arcade thinking government. My problem, how long is it going to take for Kansans to get rid of these idiots and vote in people that represent the people.
The majority of Kansas you talk to must be in Lawrence. Go west of Topeka and it's a completely different state.
I keep hearing this but it bothers me. The vast majority of the population of Kansas is in the east. Looking at demographics, the western and central part of the state is depopulated and continues to depopulate in a downward spiral. Given that representatives to the state legislature come from specific districts that aren't population based, it leads me to believe that a good two thirds of the legislature represents the same population numbers that one third of them do (from the eastern third of the state). This sets up a situation where all kinds of political hay can be made. In truth, the legislature DOESN'T represent the majority of the state's population. When, through gerrymandering and other political fancy footwork, the vote of a representative that represents 5,000 people carries the same weight as someone representing 50,000 people, something is very off.
"But state Rep. Allan Rothlisberg, R-Grandview Plaza, opposed it, saying, "If we're having people in the education system, I don't want them involved in any way, shape or manner in killing babies.""
So now they are concerned about education.
"So now they are concerned about education."
No.....they're concerned with PREVENTING education.
WHY would a woman put a leech inside her body, in the most private of female places? Why would she put cayenne pepper there? Why might a woman swallow lye? Gunpowder? Why would a woman hit herself about the abdomen with a meat pulverizer? A brickbat? Throw herself down the stairs? Why would she syringe herself, internally, with turpentine? Gin? Drink laundry bluing? Why would she consume medicine made of pulverized Spanish fly?
Because she wanted to end a pregnancy. Historically, women have chosen all those methods to induce abortion.
The first known descriptions appeared around 1500 B.C. in the Ebers Papyrus, an ancient Egyptian medical text that mentioned an abortion engineered by a plant-fiber tampon coated with honey and crushed dates.
For most of history, abortion has been a dangerous procedure a woman attempted to perform on herself. In private. Without painkillers.
If the Supreme Court were ever to overturn Roe v. Wade, or if anti-abortion forces continue to successfully chisel away at a woman’s access to safe abortion, many women will still choose abortion — by their own hands. Leeches, lye and Spanish fly are still among the many tools available to the self-abortionist. So are knitting needles, with predictable, disastrous consequences. There is no law that will end the practice of abortion, only laws that can protect a woman’s right to choose it, or not, and to keep it the safe and private procedure still available to us in 2013, 40 years after the Supreme Court made it legal.
By Kate Manning, page A21, The New York Times, January 22, 2013.
An article appeared recently about Texas women crossing over into Mexico for illegal abortions. The state has so tightly regulated the procedure and placed it so far out of the reach of poor women who can't travel long distances to out of state clinics that they are actually seeing this as a viable option, along with the horrendous consequences.
I think you can look for more and more of this kind of thing to occur unless or until SCOTUS takes it up.
This argument is a complete fallacy. What sense is there having something legal just because people will do it even if it's illegal. That's like saying murder shouldn't be illegal because people do it anyway.
It IS kinda like that, BUT it's more like saying that women MUST be enslaved by impregnation. The whole point is that this is a religious issue. We're supposed to leave religion OUT of government. We can't let religiose state governments decide what is human LIFE and what is potential human life. Without a SOUL, a fetus cannot be considered human. A SOUL is a religious idea. This is a no-brainer. No fetus is more than human tissue. A fetus is not human. A WOMAN IS! Let a woman decide what is best for her and society. An unwanted fetus is a burden which the state is not willing to support. This is a proven fact.
It behooves the government to increase overpopulation, thereby creating a greater possibility of having an enslaved populace which can be more easily controlled.
While the religiose may pretend to believe, or idiotically believe and promote the religious idea that the weak will inherit the earth, this is not the case. Anyone who does not believe this is not seeing the state of our servitude to corporate greed.
The STATE does not care about us! The STATE cares about the profit of those who are in the business of owning...THE STATE!
Certainly there are those who believe that human life is precious. That is the nature of life, pure and SIMPLE! We pretend to be the dominant species in this world and tend to prove it by destroying life in our desire to dominate life.
We are not any KIND of GOD. We are idiots promoting the ideas of idiot belief. THAT is WHY their is the separation of church and state! Don't be overrun by the idiocracy. Don't be consumed by the idiocracy. Don't be dumbed down by the idiocracy. Don't be an idiot.
Allowing death is allowing life, in the grand scheme of things...and allowing the cessation of fetal development is not even allowing "death"! It's not any worse than eating genetically modified corn. Both are somewhat horrible but should not be punishable offenses. OK. Maybe ALLOWING genetically modified corn should be a punishable offence.
Anyone who believes that encouraging the embryonic development of more unwanted humans on the planet is a GOOD thing cannot be considered anything but a religious zealot or an idiot. This planet is unable to support the current population, in its current state of golden calf worship. Anyone who does not believe this is an idiot.
OK. We're all idiots. We tend to want a dream world, which we'll never see. So DIE, already! :)
At one time, the Catholic church didn't think a person had a soul until they were baptized. But that has changed now. Of course, orthodox Catholics think that each sperm and egg is a human. Does this mean that women are suppose to bury and mourn her menstrual blood? Both we are not a Catholic nation. We have a right to believe or not believe when life begins. If you believe it's when the sperm meets the egg that's your business, but it's wrong to force your religious beliefs down other's throats.
Hmmmmm, somebody's been smoking the bad stuff....
Hmmmmm, somebody's been smoking the bad stuff...
This is the same logic we use for handing out free needles to drug addicts, or free shopping carts to the homeless. Or bailing out investment banks after extremely risky behavior. Taking the risk out of bad behavior is moral hazard. And this is really to say nothing of the elimination of life. It has now become a national imperative because we as a country are having fewer and fewer babies. We need more children, desperately. You don't want the child? There are ten couples out there who would adopt it.
"We need more children, desperately."
There are seven billion people on the planet already, a billion of which are going without clean water and adequate nutrition at any one time. We need some children to perpetuate the species, but we don't need a lot of them.
It's not even about world population or fullfilling the dreams of those who can not have children. This is a human rights issue. It may be the mother's fault for allowing herself to become pregnant, but it's not her fault that the couple who unfortunately can't have children, can't have children.
Forced birth as an issue of national imperative (with a side helping of punishment for bad behavior). My, what a compelling argument you make, sir.
Ever read The Handmaid's Tale? It's starting to look less like fiction.
This is as silly as it gets.
bring cupcakes for a classroom party.
You can't do this anymore either thanks to the liberals. Too much sugar for the kiddies.
what school do you go to?
Sounds like whining to me.
I believe it's more of a food allergy concern than anything. If it was merely the caloric intake issue, 30 minutes of hide & go seek or kick ball during recess would take care of that.
My kids grade school made that change back when Bush was president.
Same with mine!
Thread-reading Oopsy. Flag on the field.
All my comments were removed. Not sure exactly why, I didn't get impolite, I don't believe I was wrong at any point. At the very least, I'd like to know when my comments are being removed, and why.
The other comment in the thread collapsed in a weird way that now makes no sense as a result.
consumer1, you're lying. That is to say, you're saying something that isn't true, and you know it's not true.
It's disturbing that you use such a tactic to try to derail the conversation. I know it happens all the time in political punditry, but it's disturbing, nonetheless.
Aside from the accuracy of your comment, it's horrifying that you place cupcakes and reproductive rights on the same level of importance. It's also disturbing that no one else bothered to call you out on that point.
The measure declares that "the life of each human being begins at fertilization" and "unborn children have interests in life, health and well-being that should be protected."
But those goddamn kids are on their own once they're out of the womb.
So any pregnant woman (whether she's aware of the pregnancy or not) could be charged for endangering the life of the fetus in her womb if she drinks alcohol or smokes tobacco.
Seems to black and white for me. Allowing course materials in the classroom that teach human sexuality should be allowed not prevented. This action alarms me and I'm not a woman. I would like to think our leaders would have some compassion to woman.
Wrong leaders. These are Teapublicans. They could care less about you.
They're specifically targeting Planned Parenthood with this one, because they have curriculum and classroom materials that don't actually encourage kids to get abortions or become sluts, but anything that isn't abstinence only is work of the devil.
Late last night, a Federal judge published a decision striking down Idaho's 20 week abortion ban based on the junk science of "fetal pain". At the same time, he struck down an Idaho law that mandated that all first trimester abortions occur in a clinic or hospital with a physician present, effectively outlawing abortion by RU-486/Cytotec. In the opinion portion of his ruling, he was quite harsh with the Idaho legislature, stating that he found, “compelling evidence of the legislature’s ‘improper purpose’ in enacting it,” " In stating his ruling, he invoked the "undue burden" test developed under Roe in PP VS. Casey.
This may very well go to SCOTUS and be the first real challenge to Roe. That remains to be seen. In the meantime, it would be wise to speculate on what this means for the future of Kansas' anti-abortion laws.
"the life of each human being begins at fertilization"
Hmm..... And there are 39 days left until income taxes must be filed. I do believe I'm going to claim roughly 39 more dependents on my KS income tax this year. Let's see how far this "life begins at fertilization" goes......
It's a fetus not an IRA contribution, it's also pretty tough to fertilize 39 eggs in one year without medical intervention, other than that I'm totally on board with your thinking.
It's not hard to fertilize 39 eggs in one year if you're a dude.
Yeah but imagine the child support!
I do not like abortion. However our representatives are wasting time and eventually our money as in attorney fees when this bill gets challenged and over turned. Why aren't these folks paying attention to jobs, the Ogallah aquifer, foster placement status, the depopulation of western Kansas and so on? I already know the answer.
Because those things are hard.
It's called pandering to their electorate...
Literally the stoning ages. I guess the gov only wants a very small number of Kansans. He talks business and job growth and then cuts those quality of life issues a company has to have to employ top employees. The product a company puts out is only as good as it workers. You cannot get great workers to move to Kansas if you threaten them!
The gov is not forcing a stop to abortion, and for the most part I do not support them. My niece considered it, but she could not and we were here to help her. Rape is another matter. But a women's rights are fundamental, not just men's . Dummying down Kansas and basically the only ones who can afford to educate their kids, went the way of the dark ages, hitler. Get the hint. Not all the smartest scientists, philosopher, doctor .... Come from wealthy families.
There is movie about the only way one can live is to buy time. Is Kansas planning on trying that. Far fecthed?! with this state government..... I am not so sure.
In Time is a good movie, conceptually thought-provoking.
This would also have an impact on fertility treatments in Kansas. Might have to go to surrounding states. My guess is that those doctor's aren't going to mess with zygotes and embryos that might not sustain, and get charged with murder.
I don’t have a problem with this legislation if they implement the full range of consequences it brings to the women of Kansas. If life begins at fertilization, then we must ban certain forms of hormonal birth control. In-vitro fertilization must be made illegal, since there is a chance it won’t be successful. What would they do with the extra fertilized eggs? To destroy those would be murder, to exempt in-vitro fertilization from this law is hypocrisy. The state will need to create a new department to investigate miscarriages. Each miscarriage would have to be investigated to make sure it wasn’t caused by a woman with the intent of ending her pregnancy. How long does a woman stay in jail for causing a miscarriage? At what point will the mother need to apply for a Social Security number for the fetus? How much do you think an airline, theater, sport stadium or other venue should charge the fetus for a ticket?
Yeah, manslaughter at minimum for miscarriage
We could do what Bobby Franklin wanted to do in GA and make every "unauthorized" period a "crime scene". Of course we would have to determine what "unauthorized vaginal bleeding" means. Who would determine that? How may legislators can a woman get up her hoohah?
Crime scene tape belts would become the fashion.
This is another ridiculous argument. There is no incentive to change laws and practices on movie theater tickets for unborn children just because their life is protected at conception.
Perhaps her post was ironic, but definitelynot ridiculous.
This bill is ridiculous. Thsi legislature, this governor, this Kansas neo-Republican Party: all are ridiculous and should be locked up.
For God's sake, people, are we never to wake up?
Pregnant women in any state could use the commuter lanes without penalty. Pregnant women could also claim the child tax credit as soon as the pregnancy test shows positive.
I realize that you and other posters are trying to make points by including your comments about miscarriage and infertility. However, to those of us who have suffered from either or both of these, your comments are hurtful and rude. Please think about our suffering and grief before you speak so cavalierly about issues you obviously have never experienced.
Even though I think this legislation is ridiculous, the comments being made here are unacceptable.
This type of legislation affects infertile couples and women who suffer miscarriages greatly. There are many legal issues that would affect IVF and other methods of conception. Additionally, each person's coping strategy with the loss of a pregnancy/or infertility is different. You make quite an assumption about whether or not any of the individuals have suffered from either.
If comments on topics such as these cause you emotional pain, it simply would be best for you to avoid them.
Sweet. You can now start declaring that life on your taxes for a tax deduction, right?
Life actually beginning at fertilization occurs only about 30% of the time according to some texts. Most of those fertilized eggs are flushed out because they don't attach to the uterine wall, aren't fertilized in time to attach or some other mishap.
Oh my god. You are going to make these anti-choice people have a cow. You are using science. Don't do that, facts confuse them.
I would like to know how they justify overriding a woman's right to her own body. They are so concerned with "protecting life," but don't care anything about the life of the woman who is carrying the fetus. Cause I guess once you are born, you are on your own if you are a woman.
I would like to know why a women's right to sex overrides the rights of an unborn child. Who's to say that a women having sex, obviously disregarding the potential consequences, shouldn't be responsible for the life she created (not even counting the 0.1% exception of rape, incest, etc).
Is going through an abortion not a consequence?
I don't get this thinking from the extreme pro-life folks. An abortion to them is not a consequence or exercising personal responsibility for a woman's decisions. But according to their "information" abortion is so horribly traumatic and terrible for a woman that she must be protected from them.
Either it is no big deal for the woman (which, according them, is why women just have them for the craziest reasons all the way up to birth) or it scars them in every way imaginable, leads them to getting breast cancer and destroys any future chance of having a healthy pregnancy.
"Who's to say that a women having sex, obviously disregarding the potential consequences, shouldn't be responsible for the life she created."
Well, I suppose that we could start with the woman who isn't Going to be responsible for the fetus, or the child when it is born and develops. All the pontificating on how people should take responsibility for their sexual choices is just warm fuzzies to cover over the cold fact that many of them Won't take responsibility, and the sanctified life that the child supposedly has will frequently be one of poverty and neglect, and often a further burden on the resources of everybody else.
So let us know when responsibility is a prerequisite to getting knocked up, and maybe we'd have something to go with.
"I would like to know why a women's right to sex overrides the rights of an unborn child. Who's to say that a women having sex, obviously disregarding the potential consequences, shouldn't be responsible for the life she created (not even counting the 0.1% exception of rape, incest, etc)."
Because people who think like that don't care about the "unborn child' at all, they only care about punishing women for having sex. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any exceptions for rape or incest to abortion bans.
Because the US Constitution stated under Roe V. Wade that a woman has a greater right to her own body than an unborn fetus has to it. It's not a right to "sex", it's a right to do ANYTHING with her body, although having sex is among those rights. Jesus, fred, you'd think that having sex without consequences is only the right of men.
You DO know that no form of birth control is 100% effective, right? Do you really want to live in a world where women are that terrified to sleep with you?
It's telling how fredthemethaddict puts all of the responsibility (blame) on the woman. That's just rude. Apparently, he believes the only responsibility of a man is to force slave conquests to bear his spawn.
And a woman can make a baby ALL. By. Herself? I believe it takes two, so why should the woman have all the consequences against her??
"Even Norma Leah McCorvey (Jane Roe) has changed her mind about abortion and wants to see Roe vs. Wade overturned (now that she doesn't need one anymore)."
Let me rephrase this for you. If a new gun control law can prevent just one person from dying, it will be worth it. For all your hollering about smaller, less intrusive government, you should be totally against this bill. This is a Constitutional right!!! You are nothing but a hypocrite if you support all other Constitutional rights, except abortion! End of argument. Abortion has been debated, your side lost, grab your box of Kleenex, soak up your tears and move on.
Someone shooting at me with a gun is trying to kill a person - someone already born with full rights.
Trying to ban me from doing what I feel is best for my body is infringing on my rights.
Would you right-wingers please stay out of our vaginas????
More work for lawyers. I hope they start HOV lanes. Pregnant women can ride in them "alone."
Wonder if any OB-GYN's will log in on this one? Ah, KochKansas. Welcome to Muscular Sam's new Middle Ages. Next year they will try to outlaw masturbation. Can't waste sperm either. I believe a bill like this was introduced in Oklahoma last year. These bills are floating around in nearly all the states. Wonder why ALEC is passing them out? They generally want to just get rid of taxes, environmental regulations, unions, immigrants and poor people. Does anyone know why they care about this, or does ALEC have a Tea Party wing as well?
"Under the bill, a woman would not be able to get a late-term abortion based on a medical diagnosis that the woman will kill or harm herself."
In other words, the Kansas House has decided that it's better for a severely deformed fetus to die through the mother's suicide than from an abortion that saves the mother's life.
The Kansas Legislature: abortion by a doctor, thumbs down; simultaneous suicide and self-induced abortion, thumbs up!
Well, This WAS where my Question to the Kansas Legislature was posted. I asked why They were so interested in female reproductive organs and asked them to Please stay out of the Reproductive organs of my Wife, Daughter and Grand Daughter and get to work solving our States biggest problems, Jobs and the Economy. Not sure why it was Removed. No explanation received so far.
You catch that one gentlemen? fred says that going forward, no sex for you with any woman who doesn't want to get pregnant today :<
Fund the schools not out of state lawyers.
The issue of when life begins is a religious issue for most. What happened to my freedom of religion?
You still have a constitutional right to worship any religion you wish. You are not allowed to make laws based on that religion that violate other constitutional rights. Why is that so hard to understand?
Freedom of religion also means freedom to not have a religion, and freedom to not have other's religions imposed on them.
No it does not. No one has the right to repress someone's freedom of speech or religion just because they say they don't like it. No one should have a right to not be offended.
That's not what they said, at all.
It's not repressing your right to your religion at all. Believe whatever you want but you can't expect others to abide by and follow your religious standards just because they're your standards. Your freedom of religion ends at my front door.
Words from the judge that overturned Idaho's "fetal pain" law:
“The State's clear disregard of this controlling Supreme Court precedent and its apparent determination to define viability in a manner specifically and repeatedly condemned by the Supreme Court evinces an intent to place an insurmountable obstacle in the path of women seeking non-therapeutic abortions of a nonviable fetus at and after twenty weeks’ gestation,” wrote U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill.
The judge went on to state that it was quite clear that the Idaho legislature had written law in defiance of Roe, giving greater rights to a non-viable fetus than to women themselves.
According to "The Jurist", this decision will only effect Idaho. However, of the 10 other states that have "pain capable" laws that outlaw abortion at 20 weeks (including KS), roughly half have had their laws challenged in Federal court and this decision WILL effect how other Federal judges decide. It will also give those challenging those laws reason to request injunctions barring those laws from being enforced until a decision is handed down.
I REALLY think the Kansas legislature needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Their continuing, brutal onslaught on abortion rights needs to stop. The state has already spent three quarters of a million dollars defending a law that would have done nothing but simply cut Planned Parenthood out of receiving Medicaid funds. When these laws are challenged (and you can bet the house that they will be) that number will soar into the millions. This, in a state that is already looking at a billion dollar deficit in ten years.
Bottom line, the overweening hubris of Brownback and his single party legislature is hitting the end of the line. They are stepping into territory that, no matter how much they may not like it, they can't change because of the supremacy clause. I think what people need to consider is whether or not they want the state to bankrupt itself defending indefensible laws that are doing nothing but tilting at windmills.
A large portion (half or more) of fertilized eggs never implant in a woman's uterus and thus result in no pregnancy. Presumably the state legislature will take some action to change this. For every child born in Kansas, at least one other "child" has "died" because of this basic biological fact, one that should alarm anyone who would give a fertilized egg the same ethical and legal status as a human being.
The govt will need to put filters on all female toilets and perhaps examine all used Tampax with a microscope to look criminals. More work for lawyers. Smaller govern,ent indeed.
Sorry. Fat fingers. "Look for criminals." "Government." Danged autocorrect. Should turn it off. Wish we could do that to the Legislature. FIX THE BUDGET, not women's private parts.
What's an 11 year old girl to do when her brother gets her pregnant?
What's a 12 year old girl to do when Grandpa gets her pregnant?
What's a 13 year old girl to do when her stepdad gets her pregnant?
What's a 14 year old girl do when her 34 year old Pastor gets her pregnant?
Girls, not just women, get pregnant too.
Ladies: Start collecting all your used feminine products (red bag them for safety) and mail them either to your legislator or Attorney General Schmidt. Ask them to examine the "evidence" to see if you need to get an attorney to get ready for your impending involuntary manslaughter charge.
Texas scrambles to re-fund family planning after a $73m in savings turns into a projected $273m loss after a huge spike in unplanned births for low-income families.
Just to let ya know, Larry, Texas isn't the only one facing these "unintended consequences". Almost 17 million children in the US now live in poverty. As many as half of them are what's called "food insecure", i.e., their parents are relying on food banks to stretch food stamp dollars because they don't have enough.
There is very real truth to the idea that, to the Teapublican, if "you're preborn, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're *&^%ed."
The fact that you brought up child poverty numbers is insane in itself. So you're saying that they would be better off dead?
Abortion has been legal for how many years? Yet there are still 17 million children in poverty? Your logic doesn't make sense. Are you actually trying to say that the 17 million number would be more or less......if what?
That's simply not true. Cait is a radical, extremist. Her reference to the 17 million is based on the fact that she thinks that number would be zero if abortions were free at the local walmart. That's what she wants.
The simple fact that you think poverty's solution is to make others 'pony up' for it is very revealing. The communist/socialist plague that has infected the liberals of this country will eventually cause our death. Next step in your evolution is forced sterilization and government mandated child limits. But we will definitely take up arms against that 'China like' policy well in advance....right?
Seems Norway, who was recently declared as the "happiest country in the world," is doing pretty good with their socialist government. Then there's Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, etc....every country in this world is having a hard time with their economy (since the world's economies are interconnected). It is not due to socialism. Communism and socialism are not even close to the same thing. Maybe read up on the subject from actual fact-based sources. You sure drank enough of the ultra-conservative, republican propagandists' cool-aid.
Wow. That's interesting what you read in Cait48's statement. No wonder the folks you voted for here in KS legislate some twisted bills.
The point is that we have children in poverty now and that needs to be addressed. The current legislators that claim "sanctity of life" have no interest in the sanctity or even the quality of life for children that have already been born.
Do you see any bills put forth by these folks that address reducing poverty? Something along the lines of job creation? Having a stable job that pays enough to feed a family is an excellent way to decrease abortion.
WOOT! I GOT CALLED A RADICAL EXTREMIST!! MY DAY IS MADE!
Most of the services Planned Parenthood offers have to do with birth control, not abortions.
Just call us Afkansasstan already and get it over with.
More BIG Government from the less government liars.
This might be a good time to remind a few people that stopping abortion is like preventing people from owning AR15s with big magazines or preventing fred felps from telling us who his god hates.
The bear. Sometimes you get it. Sometime it is you that is got. When your right to abortion is gone, you should keep in mind that you haven't lost anything that you haven't tried to take from someone else.
Makes no sense.
Republicans showing us how to get big government even bigger. Big government is ok as long as it is theirs. Can hardly wait for the public lynching of all these tyrants .
Don't get TOO cocky there, girlfriend. The Supreme Court will have something to say about this. They have a rather large ban hammer. It's not quite time to pop the champagne corks. You don't want to look like George W. Bush on the deck of the "Abraham Lincoln", now, do you?
Look up Pyrrhic victory, arti. You are right on, cait.
Given the cost to the state to defend all of this BS once it hits the Federal courts, not only will they lose, they will further bankrupt the state doing it. It's not even a "Pyrrhic" victory because there is no victory involved.
I stand corrected, cait. :-)
Don't take your eyes off the money trail associated with House Bill 2253.
This bill is extremely provocative in that it attempts to utterly control the reproductive future of women and the fatherhood future of men. But the provocation is nothing more than a frightened effort to distract public attention from the 2012 tax law.
Who introduced this bill? Republican conservatives. Which representatives in the legislature approved it, and will continue pressing for its passage? Republican conservatives. And who, more than anyone else, has been hand-picking and supporting Republican conservatives with huge, and legally secret, campaign contributions? It's the Koch brothers, and assorted wealthy Kansans who are suddenly free of paying personal state income tax on their annual earnings, thanks to the 2012 Kansas tax law passed by -- you guessed it -- Koch-supported conservative Republicans.
This "abortion bill" is just another cynical, weak-minded effort by Republican conservatives to shield and extend the state tax-exempt status of their business owner daddies.
This bill isn't about "abortion". It's about money; about protecting a massive tax exemption for the rich.
I get really tired of all the liberal "pro murder' people claiming this is a religious issue. I say B.S. to that. I an anything but religious. I have not been close to a church for 45 years. But abortion is murder, period. If it takes a beating heart, it is murder! You can not sugar-coat the bloody, grotesque, sickening operation that yanks a child out from its mother before it's birth date.. If abortion is ok, then it should also be ok for a woman to decide she does not want to raise a two day old baby, that is is inconvenient, and expensive, so she takes a butcher knife and slices the kid's head off. I agree we need to do something about unwanted children, but aborting them is simply WRONG!
rvjayhawk, The last word in your rant describes what I feel about said rant..
Whatever, drama queen. Abortions in this state are performed at the pre-viability stage, unless there's something wrong with the fetus or the mom. Pre-viability means it's not a 'baby', it's a semi-developed embryo. Comparing it to killing a fully formed baby that can survive outside the womb is just dumb.
If, at that pre-viability point, a woman makes the (incredibly difficult) decision that she is just unwilling or unable to care for a child and does not wish to have a baby, then by god I absolutely give her life and her decisions more weight than the undeveloped embryo that can't live or function on it's own. It's unfortunate, it's tragic, but it's ultimately the best decision. I have worked with CINC cases with parents who absolutely did not want to be parents and should never have been parents, and there are worse things than death.
Life is fragile, and life is hard, and not everyone or every potential one makes it to the end. The last thing we need are more unfit, unwilling, apathetic, terrible parents. People make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, and accidents happen even to those who are responsible and careful. Short of committing a crime, nobody should have to live with their mistakes for 18+ years, women and children included.
You are entitled to your opinion. Remember, though, it is simply YOUR opinion. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on other people. If you don't like abortions, then hope you are never put in the difficult situation where you may need to choose one....don't like it, don't do it.
If you think a beating heart equals "life" then you in all likelihood failed high school biology. In every state in the union, death is legally defined as brain death. Since the heart is controlled by the brain stem and not the brain, this means someone can be declared dead and still have a beating heart. Isn't it a bit of cognitive dissonance to have someone laying there alive and dead at the same time?
So...for all of you pro-abortion "humans": You believe a woman has the right to an abortion for any reason...right?
You'll surely agree then that the male in the equation has the right to walk away as well for any reason without consequence? I'm not talking about the deadbeats that abandon their partner and children. You're ready to vacate all new born child support litigation right?
I have an acquaintance that was ordered by a court to take a paternity test to determine if he was the father of a one night stand. Do you believe he should be ordered to pay for the child if the woman had the right to abort?
BTW: Do you insult everyone who does not speak English to your standards? What exactly didn't you understand? If you were actually intellectually superior as you falsely assume....you would not need to resort to petty insults.
"It happens already. And most of those deadbeats are Republicans, conservatives, and the like."
Source please. Where did you get the numbers to say 'most'?
Or are you just a liar?
HA! You're the source genius. From your previous post: "Those poverty numbers could be greatly reduced, if Mr. and Mrs. Moneybags would be willing to pony up a bit."
Liberal/communist/socialist.....I agree. Thanks.
Its called pro-choice. And in my opinion,the answer to your question is apples and oranges. you can't equate a woman's right to her own body to a man's potential responsibility to a child. But you won't agree with me which is why many people will not bother to respond
...while enjoying a nice Chianti and fave beans right?
Interesting juxtaposition with this story:
I guess that death of their way of life and livelihood is the price rural Kansas farmers must pay to stop abortion.
The belief that a fetus is a human in all the rights given is a very new, modern concept. Even if it were determined beyond doubt by scientific evidence that a fetus is fully human in every way, it still does not mean that fetus has more rights than the mother. It is a slippery-slope when you take rights away from a woman simply because she can become pregnant. Whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong does not matter in the grand scope of things. An individual (already born) rights are more important than a mass of cells with the potential to someday be human.
Hope that makes you sleep better at night.
I never made a claim if I am for or against abortion. I believe it should be left up to the individual, since no one should be able to force anyone into pregnancy (or out of for that matter). It is a personal rights violation if you try.
Our state is in real trouble here....really big trouble
So my big question that the lefties are avoiding and I can't seem to get any opinions on:
Should a man be made, by court ordered wage garnishment, to pay child support for a new born baby given the mother had the choice of an abortion?
Yes, since it takes two to tango. Each party is just as responsible as the other, whether or not the decision is made to keep the pregnancy. This issue is about personal rights, rights of your own body. If men could get pregnant, this wouldn't be an issue. Men are the ones in control of our state's government; they're the ones trying to take rights away from women.
39 women out of 165 Lawmakers in Kansas(was as many as 55 women in 1988) Yes the women are outnumbered 3 to 1. Are those 39 women Lawmakers completely OK with letting the "Men" Run this Show? Where are Women Lawmakers on Women's Rights? You Might be surprised to find that some of these Women support the Brownback agenda. So, it is Not entirely fair to say "The Men" are trying to take rights away from women when they are supported by Women Lawmakers here in Kansas. The Question SHOULD be Why are these Women Lawmakers OK with Less rights for women?
You have a point there .... the Senate/House should mandate a bill that all gentlemen must wear condoms whenever engaging in initmate relations....and make it against the law if not abided....so when he does not follow the law........his partner can call the police for assault with a deadly weapon!!
Why is Pork_Ribs equating financial responsibility with physical responsibility?
Is he saying that the life of the fetus has a monetary amount? That seems to defeat the purpose of claiming this bill is to protect the sanctity of life.
It is amazing those who blame women for getting pregnant , not the man, are also the ones who force women to consider abortion. Your disdain and shame you place on the female, not the other half provider for the child. Yet in many cases it is the new dad who wants the abortion. Does he pay any penalties under this new concept.
There are a few reasons to consider it, health, rape, the daddy wants the abortion or fear of shame. Thankfully, this one is waning.
100% of women I know who thought about it, the reason was fear, but then decided to have the child. They are hardworking income providing women. I know,, not all, but despite so many beliefs that, " it's a quick decision for some vain reason". Vanity is in cases of unusual women.
Condemnation comes from those who support making abortion illegal, but they are the first to cause women to consider abortion. Never ending circle and the only thing accomplished is more room for you to condemn.
Do I support Radom sex for teenagers, no. . I believe in Christ and his preachings of forgiveness. Many who condem claim to be Chistian, but look to the old testament to find reason not to follow Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness.
For those who do not want religion in this discussion, man has a natural drive for sex and it takes two to create a child. Somewhere three things must happen to stop abortion, lose condemnation, daddy's who don't want to be, and acceptance that health issues do count. Rape children is question that needs to have reasonable considerations and discussions to find an acceptable practice. Condemnation has to go first. Acceptance that women are not the only one responsible and they are entitled fundamental rights by the Constitution.
This act triggers the Constitution and therefore, the state has over step their state rights.
"Should a man be made, by court ordered wage garnishment, to pay child support for a new born baby given the mother had the choice of an abortion?"
Sure, but we'll give them a pass until the fetus is viable, if you insist. With exception in case of rape or the life of the father.
How does that sound?
That is, of course, female on male rape. No need to give the aggressor a pass in any circumstance.
I guess I only hope that every congress-person that votes for this knows that they are leading with love, and not being judgmental or hypocritical.
I'm hoping they come home and love their multiracial, teenage, adopted child born with a drug addictions, and still living with multiple challenges. I'm sure this is true in some cases, and I applaud them. If some are not, I hope they look in the mirror, and ask if there really is a shortage of couples willing to adopt white, healthy, "normal," infants? Without abortion as an option, I would expect political leaders legislating as Morality enforcers, might recognize that the ultimate judge might wonder if they are not at the front of the line for taking on the most challenging foster children and/or long-adoption-seeking kids.
This isn't even touching on diagnoses made in utero of fetuses doomed to shortened, and excurciatingly painful congenital disorders that were impossible to detect until past the first trimester. While I would hope to have the "moral compass" to do the "right thing," how as a wannabe Christian could I judge a woman and/or couple who felt that they were led that the more godly decision was a late-term abortion?
If we have godly hearts, maybe we will find the way toward more love and compassion than legislative "enforcing."
So all these comments and no one noticed that this happened on International Women's Day?
Katara, did anyone else notice that also on International Women's Day, the legislature defeated a bill that would put regulations on strip clubs?
The hypocrisy. It burns.
The Kansas legislature's obsession with my daughter's uterus just boggles. Kansas is still bleeding. Is it coincidental that so many woman haters are elected by the people of this great state, or are the ideas of Kansans reflected in the men whom they elect? I hope it is the former. How mean this place has become!
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization.....all about government control. Take out a life insurance on your zygote...if you don't make it to term, for natural causes......does that allow you to collect from the life insurance for a death in the family?? And, please don't forget about the tax deduction and social security card............obtain that at fertilization, and if you have twins or triplets take out multiple policies.....
and you unwed mothers, don't forget to start your CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS IMMEDIATELY at fertilization.......through the court system, (this guarantees your payment.).......so you can attached those father's wages!!
Every child should be a wanted child. 18% of children in Kansas live in poverty. I'm sure that number will increase at a staggering rate if this bill goes into effect.
No method of birth control is 100%, except celibacy. Which isn't realistic for the majority of the human race. It really doesn't matter HOW a woman gets pregnant. Stupidity, recklessness, rape, incest. It's all the same if it's an unwanted child.
Where the hell is the TRUST in a woman to decide for herself what is right for her? If someone doesn't want a child - for whatever reason - why should she be FORCED to? Some people just shouldn't be parents, and sometimes having an abortion IS the most responsible choice a woman can make.
The chances of an child to thrive in love, health, and emotional stability that is born to a situation in which they are unwanted faces insurmountable odds. And the state of Kansas isn't going to be there to help, either.
Being forced to have a child that you do not want is punishment - not just for the woman, but the innocent child, and society.
By the way, this whole "cupcake" controversy is an enormous red flag that these people aren't nearly as interested in actually "protecting the unborn" as they are in punishing the "soiled doves" that go to these clinics and punishing the people that take care of them. Why don't you just demand they pass out scarlet "A"s?
As read this on the morning of my eldest child's birthday, a child who was conceived in a time of great flux and difficulty in my life, I am unbelievably grateful that I did not give into the immediate impulse to run, not walk, to the local abortion clinic when I realized I was pregnant.
My child has given me untold gifts due to the simple fact that she exists- and if I had chosen to give her up for adoption, she would have shared those gifts with someone else - who would also undoubtedly be grateful for my choice to proceed with my pregnancy - a small matter of nine months of what will, God willing, be a long life.
I will be forever grateful that I thought of her and not just myself at that time.
I am very happy for you Ms. Hipgrrrrl. I was caught in much the same situation and made the same decision. My daughter has given me a tremendous amount of pleasure, pride and love. BUT I don't feel that I have the right to force that same decision on other women. I don't walk in their shoes. And I feel they have EVERY right to be given the same choices and chances I was given to make that decision for myself and not have that chance taken away by someone determined to force THEIR decision on them. No matter what, it's not your body nor my body nor our decision to make. The Supreme Court feels the same way and has determined that a woman's personal rights are greater than anyone else's, not even a non-viable fetus.
My position on abortion is clear. It is a woman's right to abort any fetus inside her body any time for any reason. No limitations other than for younger girls (and then only as needed for their protection). I am pro-abortion.
I am also pro-gun.
As hard as you on the left might fight laws restricting abortion, the right is going to fight laws restricting gun ownership. I suggest those of you on both sides take this opportunity to empathize with your enemy and learn to respect the rights they hold dear, even the rights you have no use for.
I suggest it. I don't expect it. I expect you to abandon your own rights so they can be taken from someone else. The lot of you will cut off your noses to spite your faces.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·