I am in a RAGE. And yes, I mean a violent anger.

[jennysmitten]

I really don't want to live in KS if this is what we have to deal with. I am glad, as a woman, I am soley considred a breeding factory. I cannot see straight. I guess we will just be like North Dakota.
www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/apr/01/kansas-senate-advances-sweeping-anti-abortion-meas/

[Muddled]

Rage is appropriate.

[azurely]

Apr 2, 2013 17:08:04 GMT -5 nicbreeful said:

Apr 2, 2013 17:04:30 GMT -5 Muddled said:

Rage is appropriate.

Absolutely this.

Why are people so insistent on trying to drag our country backwards?  It completely baffles me.

Exactly. Why are we suddenly seeing all of this abortion reform? I am a Christian, but I'm firmly pro-choice. The reasons for abortion are many, and who can judge another's choice?

[10outof9]

I saw that this morning, and my head nearly exploded with anger. Fuck this state, man.

[Muddled]

The idea that the rights of a fetus, which although living, cannot survive on its own, are more important than those of an adult woman is unfathomable to me.

[jennysmitten]

Apr 2, 2013 17:02:28 GMT -5 @cse1960 said:

I think it is remarkable that this passed on the day that Dr. Tiller's clinic was set to reopen.

I noticed that. How disgusting. God, I miss Kathy.

[cc]

Why do a bunch of dickhead men get to weigh in on what happens to a woman's body? Grrrrr

[jennysmitten]

I am so tempted to get a lawyer and sue the shit of of the State of Kansas. sue Sue, ya in? lol

[Muddled]

Apr 2, 2013 17:40:26 GMT -5 namasteak said:

Apr 2, 2013 17:28:56 GMT -5 Muddled said:

The idea that the rights of a fetus, which although living, cannot survive on its own, are more important than those of an adult woman is unfathomable to me.

I 100% agree with this.


Do they (the lawmakers), perhaps, think that women have a responsibility to help the fetus by carrying it to term?

If you use the personhood argument, I think it's more of a "thou shalt not kill" thing.

[lime]

Totally rage worthy.

[Deleted]

Apr 2, 2013 17:50:47 GMT -5 Muddled said:

Apr 2, 2013 17:40:26 GMT -5 namasteak said:

I 100% agree with this.


Do they (the lawmakers), perhaps, think that women have a responsibility to help the fetus by carrying it to term?

If you use the personhood argument, I think it's more of a "thou shalt not kill" thing.

Or the "it's generally illegal to kill people" thing.

[Muddled]

Apr 2, 2013 17:56:05 GMT -5 @stellasmom said:

Apr 2, 2013 17:50:47 GMT -5 Muddled said:

If you use the personhood argument, I think it's more of a "thou shalt not kill" thing.

Or the "it's generally illegal to kill people" thing.

Yes. If you buy into the personhood argument.

And that is where I am stopping because everyone here already knows where they stand on this.

[Deleted]

True. Just wanted to point out that the idea isn't necessarily biblical.

[Muddled]

I understand that. And you are right, although there does tend to be a correlation between personhood and religious conservatives.


I just continued this, didn't I?
Shit.

[open24hours]

I read somewhere that anti-choice groups are promoting these super restrictive bans because they want Roe v. Wade to be reexamined by the SC in the hopes of giving more control to states. Pro-choice groups have not pushed legal challenges against bans after 22-24+ weeks because they don't want to risk a SC case. These 6 week bans may force pro-choice hands and may end up forcing the issue to the SC.