Skip to main content

View Diary: Kansas Moves to make Miscarriages an Investigation Event and Defund Planned Parenthood (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  From the linked ThinkProgress article: (45+ / 0-)
    But Pilcher-Cook frequently wades into these issues. The lawmaker has also attempted to outlaw surrogacy, weaken the state’s sex ed requirements, levy a sales tax on abortion procedures, and prevent the state’s abortion restrictions from including exceptions for rape and incest. She once pushed for a mandatory ultrasound bill on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by performing live sonograms on the Senate floor. It’s perhaps unsurprising that she’s turning her attention to a first-of-its-kind state law to regulate women’s miscarriages.
    Sounds like this Senator is on a one woman crusade to control the bodies of the women of Kansas.

    We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

    by Vita Brevis on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 11:00:55 AM PDT

    •  She sounds mentally unsound, (27+ / 0-)

      but if her constituents vote for her, what does it say about them?

      "The 'Middle' is a crowded place - that is where the effective power is - the extreme right and left might annoy governments, but the middle terrifies them." Johnny Linehan

      by northsylvania on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 11:15:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She sounds like a one track zealot (21+ / 0-)

        Let's just hope she doesn't have designs on national office. Bad enough that she is an elected official at all.  

        We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

        by Vita Brevis on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 11:18:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Logically consistent: if abortion were murder, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rogneid, Arkenstark, Vixter

          It's a wonder that those who believe in fetal personhood don't claim such positions more often. If abortion were murder, then CERTAIN miscarriages would be criminally negligent homicide.

          I'm not the one making the insinuation. I have a cousin who missed my grandmother's funeral because of previous miscarriages and her doctor ordered her not to fly. I'm sure that if, say Mississippi had such a law 21 years ago, if she had violated the Dr.s orders, and the plane had to make an emergency landing in Jackson, no prosecutor would have gone after her.

          But there are miscarriages that arouse suspicion. Most antiabortionists don't want to go after those because they're afraid to grasp the conclusion--when Missouri wrote the law that led to the Webster decision, legislators went out of their way to reassure that no miscarriages would be treated as CNH.

          What this really shows is that the abortion issue is a vast gray area--few are so certain that personhood begins at conception that they'd argue that terminating a rape-induced pregnancy was the execution without trial of the ultimate underage defendant. Similarly extremely few are so comfortable with the belief that personhood begins at birth that they'd say the fetus is a glorified organ of the mother.

          So how are we to govern? I say the decision belongs to the woman involved.

          Freedom's just another word for not enough to eat. --Paul Krugman's characterization of conservative attitudes.

          by Judge Moonbox on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 07:59:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The bottom line is that their belief is based... (0+ / 0-)

            on an opinion, and not a fact.  To my knowledge, NO ONE can prove that ensoulment takes place at conception.

            There is even another opinion out there that says that ensoulment doesn't take place until birth, or shortly thereafter.  Of course, that opinion cannot be proved either.

            The problems begin when these people ASSUME their opinion is a fact, and they begin to treat it as such.  As soon as that happens, any opinion that differs from their opinion is seen as worthless, as are the people who hold these different opinions.

            What they want to do is make their opinions legal, and therefore, more important than anyone else's opinions.  What that tells me is that their self-images are so damaged, that they can't handle having someone else's opinion be more important than their opinion.  And this is why they want to control ALL opinions, especially those that differ from their opinions.

            Many people would think these people have the "courage of their convictions."  Actually, it doesn't take much courage to have the courage of one's convictions.  All these people are really doing is closing their minds to any information that might threaten their convictions, most of which are simply opinions, and not facts.

            The real courage comes when a person is emotionally capable of examining their convictions, who can then allow other people to examine them as well.  Of course, when that happens, they run the risk of having to say "I might be wrong."  A person with a damaged self-image would find that very threatening.  

            It takes a lot more courage to admit one might be wrong, and change their conviction, than it does to hold onto it for dear life.  Or, in this case, hold onto it for the life of their ego, which is the part that is really being threatened.  That is why change is so threatening to a "conservative."  

            And for myself, I don't really want to be governed by someone else's unprovable opinion, as I'm sure they don't want to be governed by mine..

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site