Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Reproductive rights supporters criticize legislator for controversial comments on abortion

2011 session called ‘war on women’

Kari Ann Rinker, state coordinator for the Kansas chapter of the National Organization for Women, on Wednesday held a news conference outside the Capitol, saying that state Rep. Pete DeGraaf, R-Mulvane, should apologize for comments he made while debating an insurance bill that restricts abortion coverage and requires that women purchase additional insurance coverage for abortions. DeGraaf said women must plan ahead, noting that he had a spare tire in his car. DeGraaf told the Lawrence Journal-World that his comments were taken out of context, but he declined to say how.

June 1, 2011

Advertisement

Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas state coordinator for the National Organization for Women, points out the tires she brought to a news conference to protest recent remarks by state Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 outside the Statehouse, in Topeka. DeGraaf supports a new state law requiring women to buy separate health insurance policies if they want most abortions covered and compared buying them to having a spare tire on a car.

Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas state coordinator for the National Organization for Women, points out the tires she brought to a news conference to protest recent remarks by state Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 outside the Statehouse, in Topeka. DeGraaf supports a new state law requiring women to buy separate health insurance policies if they want most abortions covered and compared buying them to having a spare tire on a car.

— Abortion rights supporters Wednesday criticized Kansas legislators for approving controversial abortion restrictions and making controversial comments along the way.

“Far too many Kansas legislators feel women’s health doesn’t matter,” said Sarah Gillooly, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. She said the 2011 legislative session, which concluded Wednesday, was a “war on women.”

The Kansas chapter of the National Organization for Women demanded that Rep. Pete DeGraaf, R-Mulvane, apologize for a comment he made during debate May 13 on a bill requiring women to buy additional insurance to cover abortion; coverage that could only be used to save the life of the mother.

During that debate, Rep. Barbara Bollier, R-Mission Hills, noted that abortions would not be covered for cases of rape and incest.

DeGraaf responded, “We do need to plan ahead, don’t we, in life?”

Bollier then asked, “And so, women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with pregnancy?”

DeGraaf responded, “I have a spare tire in my car. I also have life insurance. I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for.”

NOW State Coordinator Kari Ann Rinker said the remarks trivialized rape and were demeaning to women.

Asked by the Lawrence Journal-World if he wanted to explain further what he meant, DeGraaf said his comments were taken out of context and “grossly misrepresented.” When asked how, he declined to say. He said it was time to “move on.”

Rinker had brought three spare tires with her to the Capitol and wanted to give them to DeGraaf, but she was prevented by police from bringing them into the building.

Several legislators who support abortion rights were at the Kansas NOW news conference including Sen. Marci Francisco and Rep. Barbara Ballard, both Democrats from Lawrence.

Abortion opponents hailed the 2011 session as a success.

“We have established a beachhead of protection for the developing unborn child based on accurate medical knowledge about the human capacity to feel pain and responded to the public's ever-growing revulsion to direct and indirect funding of abortion businesses,” said Kathy Ostrowski, legislative director for Kansans for Life.

In addition to the abortion insurance law, the Legislature passed and Gov. Sam Brownback signed into law bills that will:

  • Require annual, unannounced inspections of abortion clinics, impose new rules for them and prevent the clinics from prescribing over the phone the use of pregnancy terminating drugs.
  • Direct $334,000 in federal family planning funds to local health clinics instead of Planned Parenthood clinics.
  • In the case of a minor, require a doctor to obtain consent from at least one parent or guardian, and both parents if they are still married.
  • Prohibit abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy unless the woman or girl’s life is in danger or unless she faces substantial and permanent harm to her physical health.

Comments

kernal 3 years, 6 months ago

How long will it take "Spare Tire" DeGraaf to apologize?

Come on, Spare Tire, you won't lose face if you admit your statement was inappropriate.

overthemoon 3 years, 6 months ago

especially if they wear skirts that don't reach their knees, shirts with short sleeves, and makeup or high heels. if they don't dress like 'little house on the prairie' girls, they're just askin' for it.

Lindsey Buscher 3 years, 6 months ago

Technically, no...at least not until it pops out.

It is a parasite until it is born. Learned that in science class at a catholic school.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

Really that is not correct. Science teaches us that the unborn child is a genetically separate individual person. God and the Bible teach us that the word parasite should never be applied to one of these little ones.

Lindsey Buscher 3 years, 6 months ago

Technically, no...at least not until it pops out.

It is a parasite until it is born. Learned that in science class at a catholic school.

Terry Jacobsen 3 years, 6 months ago

That's s lie and you know it. Shame on you

Grundoon Luna 3 years, 6 months ago

No. That is just YOUR opinion. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact? I think likely not. I suppose you read the bible, eh? Here's a reference you may understand: Therein it is stated that life begins at the quickening. Do you know what the quickening is? However, for those that are neither Chrisian nor Jewish (Its in the OT), again, that is only an opinion.

Late term abortion at-will is not condoned by those who support choice and the procedure is only done when something goes horribly, horribley wrong and is no longer performed via the partial birth method. But you all want those babies born as well and perhaps to a short life of nothing but pain and suffering for the child and the same for the parents as well as financial ruin. Or perhpas cause the death of a mother, who may already have other chilren at home who need her. How about directing that energy toward children who are abused and ultimately maimed or killed by their parents. That is a cause that could surely use your energy rather than sticking your self rightwous, pompus @$$ nose in to something that belong between a woman and her doctor.

Kontum1972 3 years, 6 months ago

and what if it was his daughter or wife who was raped and made with child when he was out of town on a political junket....hmmmmmmmmmmm?

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 6 months ago

Or what if it was the Congressional aide or intern he was schtupping while he was out of town on his political junket that got pregnant and having the baby would cause his political ruin? Hmm?

denak 3 years, 6 months ago

Tanzer and over the moon,

And you know this how??? Did you ever ask him his opinon? Did you ever ask him what he considers modest or indecent dress? Did you ever ask him if he thinks women should have to keep the children that result from rape?

I doubt it. More than likely you are just projecting your bigotry onto him.

Fixed_Asset 3 years, 6 months ago

Denak - bigotry comes in many forms doesn't it? Yours just happens to be toward a woman's choice.

denak 3 years, 6 months ago

No, once again, have I ever said that a woman should not be able to get an abortion. Read back. States have a right to put restrictions on abortion. The basic principles argued in Roe V Wade is one based on the 9th and 14th amendment.

This legislation does nothing to prohibit a woman from getting an abortion nor does it present an undue burden. A woman can still go to her primary doctor, can still go to a Planned Parenthood, can still go to the ER if she is raped.

The only thing this legislation prevents is employers being mandated to carry abortion coverage. If they want to, then they can. If they don't want to, then they don't have to.

Those are the facts. You can either accept them or not but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to presume to no what other people think simply and solely based on an opinion I don't agree with. You, Tanzer and over the moon, apparently KNOW what DeGraff and I think when, in fact, you have never met me. It is irrational which is the basis of bigotry. If you, tanzer and overthemoon, want to debate the actual legislation, that is fine but when you et al put words in another person's mouth, when you have never met that individual, and those words are based on your own preconceived notions, that, my darling, is bigotry.

jafs 3 years, 6 months ago

Your version of the bill differs from what's been written in the paper - somebody's wrong.

This article says the bill will require women to buy a separate policy for abortion coverage, clearly implying that insurance companies will no longer be allowed to offer it as part of their general insurance packages.

And that's the version I've seen reported in other stories as well.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

It is really hard to believe that you are using name-calling to address this issue. The bottom line for those of us who are pro-life is this: we do not want to pay for abortion with our tax dollars and we do not want to see our insurance premiums placed into pools and then used to pay for abortion services. Remember abortion is the cruel destruction and dismemberment of a living human person.

deec 3 years, 6 months ago

And I don't want tax dollars or insurance funds to pay for old man happy drugs to impregnate young women. What's your point? Why should your opinions decide what legal medical procedures other people can have?

Dan Eyler 3 years, 6 months ago

Although the congressman could have used better words I agree with the language of the legislation/law. My insurance doesn't always cover the types of care I want and I decide on spending money for the add on's. I have to decide if I need better cancer coverage, dental coverage, eye coverage. I guess I am paying to travel with a spare tire. Rape is a serious crime. But I don't think insurance should pay for a rape until it is declared by the courts that a rape was committed. So only after a trial and conviction should insurance pay regardless if it is provided in your coverage or not. That isn't what NOW wants to hear but rape is a crime and a conviction is needed to validate the act. I suggest that you decide whether or not want that extra coverage. Another way to get it paid for might be your flex spending account. Stop behaving like you don't have options and stop demanding that the tax payer should foot the bill.

GardenMomma 3 years, 6 months ago

How is the taxpayer paying for someone else's private insurance?

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 6 months ago

No...a conviction is NOT needed to validate the commission of a crime. I mean, if your home gets burglarized and they don't catch the thieves, surely you're not saying that you believe your homeowner's insurance policy should NOT kick in because the crime hasn't been validated by a conviction?

You also do realize, don't you, that you're either claiming that rape even by a total stranger isn't rape unless they catch and convict the rapist OR that there needs to be new laws and new judicial processes whose sole purpose is to proclaim officially for insurance purposes that, "yes, while no one has been arrested, this court has determined that a crime has actually been committed."

Lindsey Buscher 3 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

beatrice 3 years, 6 months ago

And how long exactly might it take for a court to declare something a rape? That leaves absolutely no chance for allowing a woman to have an abortion, unless you are actually in favor of very late term abortions, of course.

What if a court doesn't have enough evidence to find someone guilty? Does that mean that a rape didn't happen? O.J. was found not guilty, does this mean that his wife wasn't killed?

ferrislives 3 years, 6 months ago

"Rape is a serious crime. But I don't think insurance should pay for a rape until it is declared by the courts that a rape was committed. So only after a trial and conviction should insurance pay regardless if it is provided in your coverage or not."

That has got to be one of the most idiotic and ludicrous comments I've seen on any forum in a long time. Wow!

Having faith is a good thing; being blinded by it is not a good thing KF.

Lindsey Buscher 3 years, 6 months ago

Yeah, totally, right? Because you were there, right?

MarcoPogo 3 years, 6 months ago

Thank goodness for the classy right like Fred Phelps. They at least show decorum.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 6 months ago

Frankly, I don't think government should be telling private insurance companies AND private business what they CANNOT include in their coverage. This is not any of the government's business. Amazing that Republican elected officials can't see that. Or don't care.

jafs 3 years, 6 months ago

I don't like having to pay more because others in the group engage in unhealthful living, while I strive to make better choices, thus saving the insurance company money.

I'd prefer if smokers in the group paid more, for example.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 6 months ago

And people who eat sausage, eggs, hamburger, steak, ham or any other meat that isn't fish or white poultry. Let's exclude anybody more than 15 pounds overweight or pinch more than an inch. How about people with diabetes or MS? Yanno those pre-existing conditions really suck my premiums dry.

jafs 3 years, 6 months ago

There's a clear distinction between things outside of a person's control, and things that people choose to do.

You must be a smoker.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 6 months ago

Actually, no. I'm not. So what's your excuse for the rest of what I said? Are you fat?

jafs 3 years, 6 months ago

Nope.

As I said, I take great care to eat and live healthfully - I'm pretty certain that I've paid much more in premiums than I've used in health care costs over the years.

Why shouldn't people have to pay commensurately with their choices that impact their health care costs?

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

You don't have a problem with it--I do--we disagree on this issue and that is what the politcal process is all about. Your opinion lost the debate!

smvequist 3 years, 6 months ago

so...lets have these women keep their babies....stay on welfare, section eight, and food stamps to support the baby. also free daycare while the woman works a job making $7 an hr for maybe 20hrs a week...to show she has a job to get the daycare funding. All tax payer money people!!!! come on!!!

jafs 3 years, 6 months ago

Really?

So you fully support all of those programs? In my experience, the large majority of "pro-life" folks don't, which gives their concern for life a rather thin veneer.

Barry Watts 3 years, 6 months ago

I do. With stipulations.

I heard an analogy one time:

There is a drowning person, who cannot swim, in a lake 100 feet off of shore. The Republican throws a rope 50 feet out and tells the person to swim to it. The Democrat throws a 200 foot pile of rope out to the person and leaves it to them to figure it out. Interesting. There has to be a better way.

sr80 3 years, 6 months ago

Senator Kerry threw him/her off his yacht !!!!

kthxbi 3 years, 6 months ago

no, no, no. The republicans take the rope and give it to the corporations so they can make jobs with it. Fantastically lucrative rope jobs.

Kim Murphree 3 years, 6 months ago

Why is it that "save a life" only means while the "life" is inside the woman? You don't "save a life" unless you continue to give what's needed to the child and adult that you are "saving." What you are really doing is forcing women to have babies, that's all, and it leads to terrible futures for those children so many times...where is your righteous "save a life" passion then? Are you personally going to raise that child in a loving, abuse free home?

Terry Jacobsen 3 years, 6 months ago

Yeah snd there's no such thing as prochice those people are abortion advocates. People with a total disregard for the life of the infant woman that is being carried in the womb. What hypocrisy.

verity 3 years, 6 months ago

smvequist, you're asking for rational thought. Not going to have it from the anti-abortion, faux prolife people.

Besides, by the time Brownback is through, all of those programs you mentioned will be cut or gone. Just let'em starve.

2002 3 years, 6 months ago

At least you're honest, too often the primary reason for supporting abortion is hidden but you bring it out in the open "welfare, Section 8 and food stamps" all programs for the poor and often minorities. The purpose behind the largest organization in support of abortions is best expressed by one of its founders Margaret Sanger, when she said:

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

"The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression."

"It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit."

I could go on. I am not your typical pro-lifer, I can see no reasonable way to make abortion illegal in our country and think that there must be a reasonable compromise as to what point it can be allowed (health, no later term, etc.). But there is an underlying, ugly basis for justification that concerns me. Margaret Sanger was a racist, she supported the idea of a master race and that the lowly were worthless. The major supporters today are not as far from her as we are all made to think. That is why wealthy, mostly white, women provide so much funding for clinics in poor areas where there is a concentration of minorities. Today the upper class support for abortion is veiled as an act of compassion which is exactly the veil that Sanger used.

verity 3 years, 6 months ago

I think you don't recognize sarcasm or are being disingenuous.

And this leads you to making a number of unsubstantiated statements.

seriouscat 3 years, 6 months ago

Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2009:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4&sq=ruth%20bader%20ginsburg&st=cse&scp=2

Kim Murphree 3 years, 6 months ago

I second what Vertigo says...you completely took this out of context, and that reveals YOUR dishonesty.

2002 3 years, 6 months ago

Whatever, but the quotes are from Margaret Sanger, she is the history of Planned Parenthood and while many may support abortion for different reasons there is a clear pattern as to where clinics with that sign on the door are located. If you want to take the issue worldwide, isn't it interesting how many abortions are performed on the African continent funded mainly by Western, mostly white organizations?

This is NOT an disingenuous point.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

If we would return to traditional values and the Bible the structure of the family would be reinforced and that would eliminate these costs! It is the destruction of family that has brought us so many problems dismemberment of unborn children would be greatly limited if we all would turn back to God!

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 6 months ago

An important point -- Il Marrone and his GOP partisans are pro-insurance mandates barring coverage for abortion.

They are anti-insurance mandates to cover pregnancy.

Because, you know, government shouldn't be telling private insurance companies they have to cover pregnancy. Government's only role is to tell private insurance companies what they cannot cover.

The brilliance of Il Marrone.

Barry Watts 3 years, 6 months ago

Is it just me, or do these comments (DeGraff & Gillooly) sound like 2 preschoolers arguing on the playground? Grow up. Apologize. Talk about the issues.

Kontum1972 3 years, 6 months ago

another meat head politician....he and "feral hog boy" should hook up and conceive a child

i have been in Mulvane....they could of use this place as a secondary back-up for shooting Deliverance..............................."Squeal like a Pig"......

Kontum1972 3 years, 6 months ago

so is he having sex with this "spare tire"...?

itwasthedukes 3 years, 6 months ago

Is pregnancy a choice (in most cases) or do you catch it like a cold? I'm confused...

Shane Garrett 3 years, 6 months ago

So, I am wondering why Kari Ann Rinker took her glasses off to do the on camera interview. She looked a little less like Tina Fey and more like a hot chick. Agree with Kontum1972 on her looks. On abortion, I support all life. Keeping in mind that people eat tasty animals. And what sort of analogy would work best when comparing abortion insurance to....? A safety net? Or would nets show up on the steps of the statehouse?

MyName 3 years, 6 months ago

Or maybe she needed reading glasses to read the speech she had on the podium in front of her, and then took them off for the interview because she doesn't need them for that.

Also, the idea of needing a different type of health insurance that only covers one aspect of women's health is absurd on its face. That is why any analogy the lawmaker can come up with ends up making him look like an idiot. I mean are you suggesting we start coming out with prostate insurance now, or a special Viagra plan you can buy into in your 20s so you don't have to pay for those little blue pills when you're middle aged?

pinballqueen 3 years, 6 months ago

Does anyone know if the morning after pill is allowed in Kansas, because it could provide women with an alternative to an abortion, but still prevent her further trauma. I am concerned with the implications of women/men who raise the children who are products of rape or incest? What man is going to love a woman and her baby who is her father/brother/uncle's child? If the rape was by a nonfamily member, if she is experiencing PTSD and carries her baby to full term, what if she is experiencing one of many feelings of shame/guilt, trauma, depression? What long term risk factors does the child face? Does anyone want to know, growing up, that they are a product of familial/nonfamilial rape?

I don't see abortion stopping by limiting services, but rather through education and prosocial/mental health services. Making abortion illegal won't stop abortion any more than all the other things we've made illegal. If there is a demand, someone will meet that need. My great aunt had a 'back alley' abortion in 1932, she almost bled to death later that day.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 6 months ago

I had an aunt that had an illegal abortion about the same time. It did kill her.

denak 3 years, 6 months ago

Not to minimize your aunt's death, but she was the rare exception. In 1972, the year before Roe V Wade, there were only 24 deaths from legal abortions and 39 from illegal abortions( Center for Disease Control). Contrary to what proponents would like you to believe, women were not wholesale dying from abortion illegal or otherwise. In 1968, the latest stats I could find prior to legalization, there were only 859 pregnancy related deaths in ALL of the U.S. that year. Of those, only 133 of those were attributed to abortion(both legal and illegal). (Vital Statistics yealy Summary) In 2007, only 6 women died from medically induced abortions (Center for Disease Control). However, this number is inaccurate. Each year the CDC asks states for information regarding abortion, just as they ask about other health issues. California, which has the largest number of abortions performed each year, routinely denies access to this information. Other states also do so. As such, one could reasonably assume that 6 is on the low end. Regardless, the number of deaths attributed to abortion, legal or otherwise, does not come even close to the "glood and doom" scenarios proponents want to paint. If Kari Ann Rinker and NOW want us to support their organization, they should stop treating women as if they are mindless idiots at the whims of men and who are unable to control their own lives. Women are not stupid. We can look up facts and figures. And if they want to be supported, come at us with legitimate legal analysis and actual facts. Not hysterical "the sky is falling" rhetoric that abortion is going to become illegal if it loses its federal protection (not), incest survivors are being forced to raise their children (not), and that womenwere, dying en masse from illegal abortions prior to 1972.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

How did it come out for the baby...abortion is still not "safe" for either the mother or the child. You need to do some research on the mothers who died at George Tillers abortion mill.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 6 months ago

The whole two. And one was due to not following post surgery instructions.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

This issue is not about making abortion illegal.

sr80 3 years, 6 months ago

I think Weiner and Degraaf need to get together,they are such fine examples of our politicians !!

ksjayhawk74 3 years, 6 months ago

The new regulations about being able to inspect abortion clinics is specifically designed to be able to shut down abortion clinics, no matter how they do in the "inspection".

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

Really?--have you actually read to the language of the bill--I have and it does no such thing. Any shutting down of clinics would be entirely based upon a failure to maintain minumum standards of medical care so that these abortions are indeed "safe" for at least the women involved! The purpose of the law is not to shut down clinics!

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 6 months ago

"Prohibit abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy unless the woman or girl’s life is in danger or unless she faces substantial and permanent harm to her physical health." Thus outlawing any abortion where the fetus has no chance to live or will be born with such congenital defects that it will live only a short time and suffer every minute for it.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

So let me get this clear--physical disabilities make a life less valueable to you--so just snuff it out, kill it, dismember it, crush the skull and evacuate the brain matter! Then you think you have defended womens rights.

beatrice 3 years, 6 months ago

Amazingly, this is coming from the same group of people all up in arms about wanting to limit the government's role in healthcare.

Barry Watts 3 years, 6 months ago

Although I am probably on the opposite side of the this issue, that is a great point, I will concede. We need to be consistent.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

However, when it comes to defending the defenseless unborn child government has always been asked to help. Prior to Roe the vast majority of the states either prohibited or severely restricted abortion.

beatrice 3 years, 6 months ago

You appear to be conflating the courts that made the decision on Roe v. Wade with the legislative arms of government. States restricted or prohibited abortions, and the courts ruled they couldn't. Your issue appears to be with the courts.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

The courts transformed themselves into policy making bodies which makes it very clear that Roe and all of the cases stemming from Roe are built on a very weak foundation indeed.

kthxbi 3 years, 6 months ago

And yet: "The unemployment figures for April have been released, and the number of people working in the state of Kansas is not holding pace with the national average. Linda Nickisch of the U-S Department of Labor Statistics office in Kansas City says while the employment rate grew nationwide, Kansas saw a decline." from: http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=29149

ferrislives 3 years, 6 months ago

Any true conservative that thinks it's ok for our government to tell a private company what they can and cannot cover is an absolute hypocrite, as well as a fool.

Let's see what's next:

Birth Control Plan B Viagra... Oh wait, I'm wrong; they'll make sure to cover that. Staying alert (so to speak) for 4 hours is much more important than protecting a woman from being forced to carry a child that's the result of rape or incest, isn't it?

Barry Watts 3 years, 6 months ago

A horrible situation for the woman, but what say does the child get?

beatrice 3 years, 6 months ago

When you say child, are you talking about the underage incest victim who can't get an abortion of her abomination because her abusive father who got her pregnant won't sign the consent form, or are you talking about a fetus, which isn't actually a child?

Imagine the state telling an underage girl she must bring her father's spawn into the world. Horrifying thought.

ferrislives 3 years, 6 months ago

So you are saying that you believe victims of rape and incest should be forced to carry and deliver the spawn of that rape? That's a dangerous precident that you and the state have set for women. It doesn't sound far off from the beliefs of the Taliban. What's next? No birth control? They can't drive without a man? It's a slipppery slope.

Barry Watts 3 years, 6 months ago

I think pro-life supporters need to be consistent. If an unborn baby is a life, then it should not be killed no matter what the situation. It's either a life or not, and there lies the differences in opinion and the root of the controversy.

jafs 3 years, 6 months ago

Yes, that's the root of the problem.

It's an ambiguous situation that can be interpreted in different ways - it is a developing fetus, and changes over time, from conception to birth.

Interestingly, many "pro-lifers" also seem to be pro-war and support the death penalty, both of which would be massive contradictions, don't you think?

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

Abortion the killing and dismemberment of an unborn child has never made one rape go away and has never made one woman suffer less anguish from the rape. An abortion, however, can make the mental anguish so much worse.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

Liberal rubbish again. What evidence do you have for such dribble. Lets face the reality of the crushing of the skull of the unborn. Lets face the reality of the dismemberment of the little bodies, crushed bones, arms, legs, blood...it is the reality of abortion and "pro-choice"

Armored_One 3 years, 6 months ago

The funniest thing out of all of this is nobody like carrying insurance in the first place. Pay for something every month, like clockwork, and how often does it truly ever get used?

I suppose that is probably beyond the point, but still, it's worth a chuckle, if only to me.

And whoever it was that commented that rape victims should be forced to wait until after there is a trial, at the very least, needs to be put into a 72 hour examination. Involuntarily. Did your brain hiccup or something to spew something that completely stupid?

Next time you have a thought, do the rest of us a favor and just let it go.

It's not rape until court is adjourned. What a bunch of buffalo bagels.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

Pro-life Christian people are supportive of the victims of rape! In fact, religious organization provide support and caring for women in these situations. We want healing from the violence and that healing cannot come if we advocate and endorse another act of violence: the act of dismembering and destroying a small nascent human child in the womb. This violence is a stain and blot upon modern American society and it destroys us from within.

Kathy Getto 3 years, 6 months ago

nascent means emerging KJ, you might want to rethink your choice of words if you are trying to be convincing re: a zygote or fetus=child.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 6 months ago

Meet todays Republican Party: The neocon christian fundamentalists are not necessarily a friend to women or families for that matter. They want to rule the world and women's bodies.

Anti-Abortion Groups Push To Outlaw Contraceptives By Redefining Personhood

Saturday 4 June 2011 by: Marie Diamond, ThinkProgress

A fringe anti-abortion group, Personhood USA, has been startlingly successful at pushing forward legislation across the country that would redefine life as beginning at the moment of fertilization, effectively outlawing contraceptives like birth control pills.

Although the medical community has long been in agreement that fertilization does not mark the beginning of a pregnancy — fertilized eggs must first be implanted, and only about half of fertilized eggs actually result in a pregnancy — a growing number of lawmakers are supporting Personhood USA’s efforts to buck medical expertise and legally define life as the moment a sperm meets an egg.

If they succeed in passing such a law — and if such a law survives judicial scrutiny — it could turn common forms of birth control into the legal equivalent of a homicide.

While “personhood” laws have always been a transparent attempt to outlaw abortion, the legislation supported by groups like Personhood USA goes much further in trying to assert government control over women’s bodies.

These laws would recognize every fertilized egg as an individual and complete human being with full rights, and place millions of women in legal jeopardy. According to 2008 numbers, around 11 million American women use birth control pills and another 2 million use intrauterine devices (IUDs).

Contraceptives like the pill and IUDs not only act to prevent fertilization, but, if fertilization does occur, may prevent that fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Personhood USA considers this tantamount to abortion, and wants to make it a punishable offense for women to control their own fertility.

More to this story: http://truthout.org/anti-abortion-groups-push-outlaw-contraceptives-redefining-personhood/1307204357

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

Well I guess you don't want us to look to science on these issues? I thought we were always supposed to look to science. Once the sperm and the egg meet we have a fully genetic new human being growing within the mothers womb. You need to wake up and face the science these children need to be protected from the abortionist knife.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.