Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, April 23, 2009

Sebelius vetoes legislation to further regulate abortion

April 23, 2009, 9:57 a.m. Updated April 23, 2009, 5:50 p.m.

Advertisement

— Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a bill Thursday that would have rewritten Kansas’ restrictions on late-term abortions, perhaps complicating her effort to win confirmation as U.S. health and human services secretary.

Sebelius questioned whether the bill was constitutional and suggested it would cause “intimidation” of doctors.

Anti-abortion groups backed the bill and were watching Sebelius’ action closely as she awaits U.S. Senate confirmation to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Abortion opponents have been the most vocal critics of her appointment by President Barack Obama.

“With her nomination literally hanging out there to be resolved, I’m just shocked that she would be so blatant in the face of Americans and senators who’ve already expressed reservations,” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said in an interview.

Under the bill, physicians would have been required to report additional information to the state about the late-term abortions they perform, and prosecutors in multiple counties could pursue criminal charges over potentially illegal late-term procedures.

Also, doctors could have faced lawsuits if their patients later believed a late-term abortion violated the law. A woman’s husband or a girl’s parent or guardian also could file a lawsuit.

“The governor once again showed leadership in representing the great majority of Kansans who support reasonable restrictions while assuring access to health care,” Peter Brownlie, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said in a statement.

Criminal prosecution

In a veto message to legislators, Sebelius argued that doctors could face criminal prosecutions even if they tried to comply with the law. Physicians, she said, should not face future prosecutions if they are trying to save a woman’s life or health.

“The provisions in this bill that would allow for the criminal prosecution of a physician intending to comply with the law will lead to the intimidation of health care providers and reduce access to comprehensive health care for women, even when it is necessary to preserve their lives and health,” Sebelius wrote in the veto message.

Anti-abortion legislators in Kansas are likely to try to override the veto. The Legislature returns Wednesday from its annual spring break.

Her veto came as anti-abortion and other conservative groups have stepped up pressure in Washington on senators to reject her nomination.

Before the veto, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, issued a statement saying “significant questions” remained about Sebelius’ stance on late-term abortions.

“The Senate should not vote, nor should Gov. Sebelius be confirmed, until these questions are answered fully and completely,” Steele said.

Both the White House and Sebelius spokeswoman Beth Martino declined to respond to Steele’s comments.

Meanwhile, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, an anti-abortion Republican, continued to face strong pressure to back away from a previous endorsement of Sebelius. Spokesman Brian Hart declined to comment on whether the veto would cause Brownback to rethink his position.

But Brownback said in a statement: “I’m disappointed. I’m not surprised. I would have signed that bill.”

Legal analysis

In her veto message, Sebelius said she has worked as governor to reduce unwanted pregnancies and that abortions in Kansas have declined more than 10 percent since she took office in 2003 — a point that nettles abortion opponents, who say she deserves no credit for the drop.

“I am confident that with a more united effort to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, combined with creating conditions that provide support and assistance for mothers and their babies, we will have even greater success reducing abortions in our state,” Sebelius said.

She said the bill would not have reduced abortions and probably would be struck down by the federal courts. She cited a 1997 decision by a federal appeals court in an Ohio case and said the Kansas bill had language similar to what that decision rejected.

The anti-abortion group Kansans for Life disputed her legal analysis, saying a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Nebraska case allows the language in the bill.

Sebelius vetoed a bill with similar provisions last year, but there are key differences with this year’s measure. The 2008 bill would have allowed lawsuits to block late-term abortions beforehand.

Kansas law says late-term abortions can be performed on viable fetuses after the 21st week of pregnancy only if a woman or girl faces death or “substantial and irreversible” harm to a major bodily function, including her mental health. Doctors must file a report on each late-term abortion and must obtain a second opinion from an independent physician before performing the procedure.

Previously, the pursuit of criminal charges over illegal abortions has been limited to the attorney general or prosecutors in counties where abortions are performed. This year’s measure allowed charges from a prosecutor in any county in which an act related to the abortion occurred.

Supporters argued that the bill didn’t change state policies on late-term abortions so much as it strengthened their enforcement. Critics said the real goal was to restrict access to abortions.

Comments

wheatridge 4 years, 12 months ago

LS4 "Of course, I have suspected for a long time that the heart of the issue isn't really about stopping abortions, but rather about having control."

Are you about anything but control?

"it's about the rush of confrontation." Autobiographical?

"screaming from the street corners about needing to change . . . why do they continue to take that approach? " One could ask you the same question about the volume of your posts?

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 12 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

"Premise 1: Human rights are derived from existence, i.e. - the act of living a life Premise 2: One's life does not begin until they exit the womb, i.e.- are born. Conclusion: Therefore, human rights cannot attach until a person is born."

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises since your first premise says two things, neither of which lead to the conclusion. Do rights derive from existence or the act of living a life? If from existence, the fetus in the womb certainly exists. If from the act of living, then what is the act of living? Eating, sleeping, thinking? Fetuses do all these things as well. You can't define rights in a fashion that excludes a fetus.

I'll help you out since you are struggling so badly with this. It was a trick--you can't do it. The Court in Roe v. Wade didn't try to do that either. They recognized that a fetus does have rights, just that they haven't been traditionally recognized by the law, while the mother's right to control of her person has been. They completely ignored the concept of natural rights in favor of state-made rights. In other words, you have no "self-evident" rights, only those that the government, in all its wisdom, deems to grant you.

0

Tex 4 years, 12 months ago

"Consider the argument from this point (while acknowledging that this argument requires that one consider life to begin at some point after conception): Permitting abortion forces no one to undergo one, and thus infringes on no one's rights, while banning it would infringe the rights of those who would seek to procure an abortion."

Thanks, you defend the "safe and legal" part but that still doesn't answer the big question: why should it be rare?

0

rooster 4 years, 12 months ago

chicklet (Anonymous) says…

the state of kansas already uses something like 2 billion dollars to fund abstinence only sex education…leading to a greater need for abortions

Chicklet just won the award for the dumbest kansan ever. 2 Billion Dollars. LMAO.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 12 months ago

Kathy seems to be trying to use up all in ink in her veto pen before she heads to DC.

0

logicsound04 4 years, 12 months ago

"Circular reasoning: you have the right to live because you are born, only those who are born have the right to live. Fail."


Hardly. I did not use my conclusion as a premise in the argument. Here is the full argument:

Premise 1: Human rights are derived from existence, i.e. - the act of living a life Premise 2: One's life does not begin until they exit the womb, i.e.- are born. Conclusion: Therefore, human rights cannot attach until a person is born.

While you may disagree with one of my premises, my argument is not circular.

==============================

"Reasonable or convenient?"


I don't know how trying to determine a specific point at which a person's rights attach is convenient, no matter where you draw that line, so I don't think your question is germane to the issue at hand.

As far as it being reasonable...absolutely. Are you suggesting that defining the beginning of a life at birth is "unreasonable"? Now THAT seems unreasonable.

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 12 months ago

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

"There is no middle ground on this issue."

And it is just that very sentiment deeply lodged in the argument from you and the anti-choice movement that guarantees that you will never even get to first base on this issue. Over half the people in this country disagree with you, yet you see no room to even attempt to negotiate. That approach will always fail.

0

chicklet 4 years, 12 months ago

the state of kansas already uses something like 2 billion dollars to fund abstinence only sex education...leading to a greater need for abortions.

0

Jeanne Cunningham 4 years, 12 months ago

Abortions are like tatoos - if YOU don't want one, don't get one...

0

Tex 4 years, 12 months ago

Merrill said:

"Good for Gov. Sebelius … a bold and smart person.

How to regulate and reduce abortions:

http://www.teenwire.com/

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/heal…"

With all due respect, your suggestions haven't worked yet. How and why would you regulate abortion? If a baby isn't a person until he or she is born, why shouldn't it be open season for enterprising doctors? Lastly, PP just honored Hillary Clinton with its highest honor, the Margaret Sanger award. If you're not familiar with the work of Margaret Sanger, please use The Google and look up "Margaret Sanger" and "eugenics." I'm reading her book "The Pivot of Civilization"; essentially she promoted the idea that it is in the public interest for the government to decide who should and should not be allowed to have children. You may laugh whenever you see a "Stupid People Shouldn't Breed" bumper sticker...until the government decides that you are stupid. Human weeds, unite!!

0

ArumerZwarteHoop 4 years, 12 months ago

Aggies "government is god" fetish is on tonight.

0

davidsmom 4 years, 12 months ago

Murdering unborn children does not qualify as "healthcare."

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 12 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

"It's easy—human rights are derived from the living of a life. A person derives their rights from their existence. Since unborn fetus never get the opportunity to live they never derive their rights."

Circular reasoning: you have the right to live because you are born, only those who are born have the right to live. Fail.

"I can't think of a more reasonable place to declare that a person's life begins than when they are born."

Reasonable or convenient?

0

witchfindergeneral 4 years, 12 months ago

Since this is the first time I've seen a full copy of a legislative document on this site, it is fairly safe to assume that the Journal World attached Sebelius' statement to support Michael Steele's demands. Dolph and his cronies know abortion is a hot topic, and they are doing everything within their power--namely, motivating a vocal minority of passionate zealots--to tear down Sebelius. A petty, partisan tactic, but not at all surprising--I have come to expect this kind of skewered "journalism" from the JLW. Unfortunately, it looks like their strategy is working...

0

Agnostick 4 years, 12 months ago

Arumer's "guhvmint" fetish is on full tonight.

My birth certificate was issued by the hospital where I was born. I'm sure you have one, your parents each had one, and your grandparents had theirs. These have been going on for decades.

Pick a cemetery, any cemetery. All the markers tell two things:

The day the person was born...

and the day they died.

The day they were born... not the day they were conceived.

I can't deny that something rather neat happens when the sperm and ovum hook up, and cells start dividing. It's a long, long way between a few cells dividing, and a walking, babbling toddler.

--Ag

0

logicsound04 4 years, 12 months ago

"Apparantly I'm not trying as hard as you are trying to avoid my actual argument. Why don't you try reading past the first sentence?"


Funny how you demand that after you respond to one sentence from my post, skipping my actual response to your argument.

==========================

"Face it, defining a fetus as non-human and then as human five minutes later when it exits the birth canal is completely arbitrary."


It's arbitrary to declare that a human life begins at birth? You don't think that sounds absurd?

The fact that there is only a 5 minute passage of time makes no difference. There is a 5 minute difference between a person and a corpse, but you wouldn't say a corpse has rights or try to equate it to an comatose person. Time lapse is completely irrelevant to this topic.

==========================

"I think that you just can't explain how human rights are derived in a way that could exclude a fetus, just like how you couldn't explain how men have a right to life, liberty and property that could exclude women."


It's easy--human rights are derived from the living of a life. A person derives their rights from their existence. Since unborn fetus never get the opportunity to live (whether by an abortion or natural causes which happen with far more frequency than the anti-abortion truthers would like to admit), they never derive their rights.

I can't think of a more reasonable place to declare that a person's life begins than when they are born.

0

ArumerZwarteHoop 4 years, 12 months ago

If life truly begins at conception, then why aren't we handing out “Conception Certificates?”

What a telling stement, you beleive life starts when a government agency says so.

0

dweezil222 4 years, 12 months ago

Consider the argument from this point (while acknowledging that this argument requires that one consider life to begin at some point after conception): Permitting abortion forces no one to undergo one, and thus infringes on no one's rights, while banning it would infringe the rights of those who would seek to procure an abortion.

0

Tex 4 years, 12 months ago

Here's the position I can not understand, and I'd honestly like someone to explain it to me: "abortion should be safe, legal and rare." If there is nothing wrong with abortion, if it is a positive thing, if it is, indeed, one element of "reproductive health," why should it be rare? Gov. Sebelius' position is that she is personally opposed to abortion; why is she personally opposed to it? For the record, I used to be an abortion rights supporter.

0

Leslie Swearingen 4 years, 12 months ago

I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that life begins at conception and nothing will change my mind about that. I also know that Debby Reynolds was told by her doctor when she was seven months pregnant that the baby was dead. She was forced to carry that dead baby for two months and give birth to a dead child. I can imagine the horror and grief that she felt. It would have been kinder to go ahead and take the baby. It died in the womb, so how was that an abortion? If you take this as an academic exercise to see who can out word who, you fail to see the human stories behind the numbers.

0

Agnostick 4 years, 12 months ago

If life truly begins at conception, then why aren't we handing out "Conception Certificates?"

Why are we still handing out "Birth Certificates?"

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

Centerville 4 years, 12 months ago

Sebelius' new nickname is 'Murder Inc' for a reason.

0

feeble 4 years, 12 months ago

More than six in 10 abortions occur within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and almost three in 10 take place at six weeks or earlier.

These are the findings of Rachel Jones, of the Guttmacher Institute.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/experts/jones.html

0

dweezil222 4 years, 12 months ago

I generally support abortion rights, but I can understand the argument to ban late-term abortions. The process is rather brutal, and there's no reason a woman can't make the decision to do it before the fetus is more thoroughly developed. Obvious exceptions would have to be made in instances where the health of the mother is being harmed.

The problem with this law would have been the tremendous difficulty of adjudicating the lawsuits it would have produced. You would have had rampant in-court quibbling about whether the doctor's opinion that a woman's health was at stake was sincere or not, or whether the specific risk was enough tp justify the abortion. Laws are supposed to tell those they effect, relatively unequivocally, what they can and cannot do. This one would have provided little guidance, and possibly could have been struck as unconstitutionally vague.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 12 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

"That was an exceedingly weak argument—are you even trying?"

Apparantly I'm not trying as hard as you are trying to avoid my actual argument. Why don't you try reading past the first sentence? I think that you just can't explain how human rights are derived in a way that could exclude a fetus, just like how you couldn't explain how men have a right to life, liberty and property that could exclude women. Face it, defining a fetus as non-human and then as human five minutes later when it exits the birth canal is completely arbitrary.

0

Kryptenx 4 years, 12 months ago

STRS- There is a huge difference between a small group of cells that cannot function on its own and a person, which is a complex composition of a myriad of cell systems each carrying out a specific function. For your argument about cells to be taken seriously, you would have to advocate that we grant rights to all cells, which would outlaw the majority of medications on the market. You assume that there is no differentiation between a group of cells and a developed human, which is obviously false.

0

logicsound04 4 years, 12 months ago

"Hmm, like how extending rights to gays to marry devalues marriage huh"


No, not like that at all, although I regretted my wording the second I hit "Submit" because I knew someone would try and throw that back in my face.

That was an exceedingly weak argument--are you even trying?

The difference is that "Marriage" is a concept, not a person or thing that has inherent value. Marriage is the union of two people in a social contract--changing the sex of the two people who enter that contract has absolutely no effect on the value of marriage as a concept.

Expanding the group that is worthy of human rights, by definition, changes the definition of what we consider a human being. How can something that has yet to be born be deserving of rights, especially when some of those rights must come at the expense of someone who is already alive?

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 12 months ago

KansasVoter,

Waiting for some rational explanation of your comment. Or is it just easier to throw around terms like "ignorant" when you have an indefensible position?

0

KansasVoter 4 years, 12 months ago

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says… "Hmm, like how extending rights to gays to marry devalues marriage huh?"

You people never stop with your lies and false equivalencies, do you? Gay marriage does nothing to devalue marriage. Divorce does EVERYTHING to devalue marriage. Until you oppose divorce your opposition to gay marriage is just bigoted homophobia.

===================

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says… "The fact that the pro-abortion crowd views a developing fetus as nothing more than a blob of cells makes me worry about how much they value those humans that survived the womb. After all, aren't you and I also just blobs of cells?"

You are possibly the most ignorant person in the state of Kansas.

0

Ray Parker 4 years, 12 months ago

The U.S. Senate will be extremely interested next week in hearing about the covered-up bribes for which Bilious Sebelius vetoed this bill intended to close the "I can't miss music concerts" loopholes in the post-viable abortion ban. And we all know about the terrible crimes Tiller is committing against the young girls and women in his abortion mill. It's been testified to before a legislative committee in Topeka and before the Board of Healing Arts.

0

RonBurgandy 4 years, 12 months ago

Wow people keep up the war of semantics. Pro-abortion? Please, no one is pro-abortion. You devalue any argument you have when you obviously can't handle the fact that people have opposing views without calling the other side something they are not.

She vetoed the bill.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 12 months ago

The fact that the pro-abortion crowd views a developing fetus as nothing more than a blob of cells makes me worry about how much they value those humans that survived the womb. After all, aren't you and I also just blobs of cells?

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 12 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

"We can't go assigning rights to something that MAY become a living being, because it devalues the lives of those that are already living."

Hmm, like how extending rights to gays to marry devalues marriage huh?

Regardless, you didn't answer my question. Where are our rights derived from, and why don't they attach to a fetus? It's rather important that the origination of rights is included. For example, if you give the reasons why men have the right to life liberty and property, you'll notice it has nothing to do with them being men. Hence you couldn't deny women the same rights without contradicting yourself. Your argument would basically come down to: women aren't men, so they don't get the same rights as men. Saying that the unborn aren't born, and so they don't get the same rights as the born is completely arbitrary.

0

logicsound04 4 years, 12 months ago

"Unfortunately, the ONLY people studying the effects of abortion are the pro-life crowd"


Weren't you lecturing about not being "ignorant" earlier?

You should take your own advice if you actually believe this garbage.

You don't have to call people murderers and demand that abortion be outlawed with no exceptions to believe that they are a bad thing that should be minimized as much as possible.

You are a shining example of everything that is wrong with the anti-abortion movement. Congrats.

0

logicsound04 4 years, 12 months ago

"So is having government funded health care about having control as well? Is public education about having control? Public transportation? etc. etc. etc. Guessing at sinster motives ends up leading to silly conversation."


The comment that you quoted was meant as an aside, and I specified that it was no more than a hunch on my part.

At any rate, while my hunch might be wrong, there must be SOME explanation for why the anti-abortion crowd often takes actions that don't seem to fit their goals. Like I said earlier, if stopping abortions is the primary goal, then it should be painfully obvious by now that screaming from the street corners about needing to change the laws isn't getting it done. The fact that they continue to use that as the primary tactic, in spite of it's ineffectiveness begs the question--why do they continue to take that approach?

==========================

"I'll tell you what would convince me: a reasoned argument that describes where our rights to life, liberty and property are derived from and why they don't also attach to a fetus."


The rights of a living human being don't attach to a fetus for a very simple reason--potentiality and actuality are entirely different things. A fetus is a potential human being, whereas you and I are actual human beings.

In other words, no matter how inevitable we believe it is that a pre-born organism will actually be born, it is not a certainty until it happens. We can't go assigning rights to something that MAY become a living being, because it devalues the lives of those that are already living.

We can value a fetus in it's own right as a potential human being without having to take a machete to reason and declare that fetus = living human being. In other words, we can believe that abortion is a last resort and that alternative options should be avaliable and even perhaps a first choice without having to implement this false notion of what a fetus really is.

0

rooster 4 years, 12 months ago

Hipocrisy, lmao,

Thats the problem with the anti-abortion taliban. You say you have compassion for life but only when it is unborn. Once a child is born you deny them schip and other services in life.

You say one thing then do another. What a joke. Do you give to any charitable causes for children? Have you gone to childrens mercy to offer a kidney to a dying kid.

But I thought you cared about the children. Your compassion for life.

No, you have not! Cause its all B.S. coming out of your mouth.

My original question as to how many kids you have adopted is just to point out your hipocrisy.

You and your ilk always talk the talk but never walk the walk. Big hat, no cattle. I can keep going but you get the picture.

0

absolutelyridiculous 4 years, 12 months ago

rooster...I believe you asked the question how many did I offer to adopt. I told you. I guess you are the one who's setting the standard. Nice try though. You're in hypocrisy is not surprising coming from the save the trees but kill the children crowd.

I won't reconsider. I will keep on you until you reconsider. You arguments are shallow with no substance. But then again, I expect that from your crowd.

0

rooster 4 years, 12 months ago

"Rooster…I'm not letting you off the hook. How many have you offered to adopt? If you are going to hold me to that standard, you'd better be right there beside me."

Hilarious, I am not the one trying to increase the amount of unwanted kids, so don't try to hold me to your standard. I am pro-choice. The day I try to force someone to have an unwanted pregnancy you are welcome to hold me to "YOUR" standard.

If your standard is compassion for all human life then walk the walk. If you can't then maybe you should re-evaluate your postion on choice.

0

logicsound04 4 years, 12 months ago

Whatever extremist.

You obviously are not worth my time. If you really cared about stopping abortion, you would take every step that would assist in acheiving that goal rather than hooting and hollering falsehoods like "abortion = murder".

The fact that you obviously revel in such bushleague behaviors proves that this isn't about stopping abortion for you--it's about the rush of confrontation.

0

absolutelyridiculous 4 years, 12 months ago

Rooster...I'm not letting you off the hook. How many have you offered to adopt? If you are going to hold me to that standard, you'd better be right there beside me.

My life experience has lead my position more than my religious affiliation. Sit with someone you love who had an abortion years ago and you will see suffering more than you can imagine. There are 3 other experiences that shaped my view and got me diving into a lot more. Unfortunately, the ONLY people studying the effects of abortion are the pro-life crowd.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 12 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

"Of course, I have suspected for a long time that the heart of the issue isn't really about stopping abortions, but rather about having control."

So is having government funded health care about having control as well? Is public education about having control? Public transportation? etc. etc. etc. Guessing at sinster motives ends up leading to silly conversation.

I'll tell you what would convince me: a reasoned argument that describes where our rights to life, liberty and property are derived from and why they don't also attach to a fetus.

0

Agnostick 4 years, 12 months ago

I'm not offended, ab-rid. I've become used to the stupidity of people like you, STRS, and others.

I say "stupid" because you're delusional about things.

Abortion can't be eliminated entirely--only reduced. That's a fact.

"Safe, legal, and rare" is the only logical conclusion to work for. It offers the best hope for greatly reducing the number of abortions.

If abortions become too scarce, there won't be enough "customers" to support people like TIller. They won't be able to afford to stay open, due to lack of business--some of them will have to shut down.

Laws and protests are the feeble attempts to close the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

rooster 4 years, 12 months ago

Great so your anti-abortion position is based on tax revenue. Your answer does not suprise me.

So you offered to prevent an abortion. I commend you for that. So how bout all those kids in the system, alive right now without a caring parent.

As for myself, My wife and I will adopt a child someday but not to prevent abortions but to provide care and compassion for a "living child".

"I'd adopt a thousand kids before I'd let one die."

If your statement is true you are failing miserably. Time for a new gameplan.

0

absolutelyridiculous 4 years, 12 months ago

There a 1 million abortions performed per year on fetuses that would have become working, tax-paying adults. That averages out to 4,000 per day.

I have offered to adopt one unwanted child that I was aware of in the past two years. It was a jerk boyfriend that pressured the girl to abort.

I'd adopt a thousand kids before I'd let one die. Don't try to blow that dust in my eyes you idiot. How about you?

Stop before you make a bigger ass of yourself.

0

rooster 4 years, 12 months ago

"I fail to see the relevance of this."

It's just you folks trying to push your non-scientific/religious agenda on a secular country.

"The pro-life crowd isn't out shooting the pro-choice crowd."

lmao

No, you only shoot the people at the "legal clinics"

0

rooster 4 years, 12 months ago

You guys are like the American Taliban.

Let's distort the truth.

Are these 4000 late term abortions every day??

How about you try to keep the conversation in perspective.

So in all reality there are 3990 not humans aborted every day and possibly 10 late term abortions, all of which are only done within the law, usually because the health of the baby or mother is in danger.

While we are on the topic of compassion for human life please tell us haw many unwanted children you have adopted? crickets

0

absolutelyridiculous 4 years, 12 months ago

rooster...sharia law? Isn't that what we have now with the Democrats in power? Hmmm? I fail to see the relevance of this. The pro-life crowd isn't out shooting the pro-choice crowd.

I don't expect an inch from you. I expect you will come to your senses one day and look at the other side like some of us have. Then you will find there is no middle ground. Murder is murder...no matter what the law books say.

0

absolutelyridiculous 4 years, 12 months ago

We had over 4,000 Jews killed per day from 1933-1945, we call that the Holocaust.

2,973 people died on 9/11 and we were stunned to silence and grief as an entire nation.

If we were killing 4,000 Muslims, Israelis or Palestinians per day, we'd have a holy war.

4,000 abortions are performed every day and we don't blink and eye because it's done in the secret death chambers of the likes of George Tiller.

If I offend you...good. Maybe it will shake you out of your narcissistic stupor.

0

rooster 4 years, 12 months ago

"There is no middle ground on this issue"

Comments like this are exactly why we pro-choice supporters can't give you an inch..

Like the taliban in pakistan... Give them sharia law they try to take over the country.

To quote yourself ab/ri "eerie similarities"

0

duplenty 4 years, 12 months ago

"Don't be ignorant."

Oh, the irony.

0

absolutelyridiculous 4 years, 12 months ago

logicsound...You are rationalizing and thinking there is some middle ground. There is no middle ground on this issue.

I don't care what tactic it takes. Be offended. Call me names. Spit in my face. Get over the tactics. The truth is...late term abortion is murder. Plain and simple. The baby is done in the 2nd and 3rd trimester...delivered then is killed by inserting an instrument into the base of the brain killing the baby.

Don't be ignorant.

0

logicsound04 4 years, 12 months ago

absolutelyridiculous,

Your comments are exactly that.

No one said anything about restricting your right to free speech, so you can take your righteous indignation about the 1st Amendment and stow it.

All the fact that you touched a nerve proves is that some find your comments offensive. Your "new term" isn't even that clever, considering the fact that this article and the abortion issue in general can hardly be tied directly to Obama, and that the "eerie similarities" you see between abortion and the holocaust rely on a blatant mistruth--that abortion and homicide are the same thing.

But you are right about one thing--you have the right to say whatever absolutely ridiculous trash you want.

0

logicsound04 4 years, 12 months ago

Liberty,

I'll go out on a limb and speak on behalf of KV--no tactic is likely to change someone's mind on whether abortion should be illegal or an individual choice.

HOWEVER, if the true goal of the anti-abortion movement is to stop abortions, then there are certainly tactics that would help find some middle ground and achieve their goal: for example, finding ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Without unwanted pregnancy, there is no abortion.

Of course, I have suspected for a long time that the heart of the issue isn't really about stopping abortions, but rather about having control.

0

absolutelyridiculous 4 years, 12 months ago

Kansas...I'm a voice of one in this context. I am not calling any names, just using a new term to apply what I see happening...there are eerie similarities. I do have that right...I believe you would call it the first amendment and it applies to me too. Guess it touched a nerve because you are so defensive...that alone confirms that I must be on the right track dude.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 12 months ago

KansasVoter, what would it take to change your mind?

0

KansasVoter 4 years, 12 months ago

You anti-choice zealots are too much. "Obamacaust"? You people really need to reevaluate your tactics, because you're not changing any minds with your juvenile name-calling and lies.

0

absolutelyridiculous 4 years, 12 months ago

rooster...the federal gov't may say it's legal, but they are asking for a bigger battle right now with FOCA in the wings...the Obamacaust has begun.

0

rooster 4 years, 12 months ago

Well ab/ri, Since the federal gov't says it's legal, It should be a battle for another time.

0

absolutelyridiculous 4 years, 12 months ago

Abort your future tax payers and we get budget gaps. Yeah...we can focus on this...lives are way more important than money don't you think?

0

rooster 4 years, 12 months ago

Wow, $300+ million dollar budget gap and this is all we can focus on.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.