"Paul Ryan & Women"

[ECB]

Have you all seen the FB thing going around? with 5 facts about Paul Ryan and things he's supposedly against?

I'm curious to his #5 - that he wants to outlaw IVF. Is this true?

[heyjude]

See below.

[caden]

No it's not true. He's never said that. He co-signed a personhood bill -- one of those template bills that get voted on every year, with the same few paragraphs of text, and sent to committee where it never sees the light of day again. A total token vote so pro-life Rs can keep their Right to Life rating, but not actually meant to accomplish anything. Some people think bills of this type might cause a problem with some aspects of IVF, but the bill Ryan signed was not a full bill and could very well have exempted IVF that if it was ever pursued, which is unlikely in the extreme. The idea that Ryan is some kind of anti-IVF crusader is ridiculous.

[madisen]

He might not be against ivf, but I still think this gif is kinda spot on.

[basilosaurus]

The reality is no one knows if it would outlaw IVF or not. These types of bills are proposed but don't pass. They've been put up for statewide vote 3 times (twice in CO, once in MS) and didn't come close to passing. There were so many unanswered questions that likely would take years of legal work to figure out since the bills are so vague.

So, no, I don't think it's a valid defense of Ryan to say it was unfinished because the finished product would probably look similar to the amendments proposed in other states. They say things like "this is a bill that would legally establishment the beginning of life at conception. Anywhere the state constitution refers to 'person' it means 'person beginning at fertilization."

And then there are all those questions. Thousands. Person is referred to in law a lot. So does a person beginning at fertilization have the right to inheritance? Does it count as a dependent? Does it have the right to bear arms? These may sound ridiculous because they are, but they very possibly could be the legal implication until every single thing is pored over in a court.

I don't care what cynical motive for reelection Ryan may have, a sane person does not put their name to such an awful concept. And I'm pessimistic enough to think that the more these things end up being voted on the more they become acceptable to people, so just proposing the legislation is dangerous enough.

[caden]

There IS no finished product here so I don't care how it compares to other amendments proposed in different states. He attached his name to an idea, not a bill that arguably was ever intended to become a law. When he attaches his name to a quote in which he promotes banning IVF, then we'll have an answer to that question. Otherwise, it's pure conjecture of what MIGHT happen IF a personhood bill was actually pursued, and IF ivf was not specifically spared and IF ryan voted for that final bill.

[basilosaurus]

I just don't know how you can ignore similar legislation elsewhere that's proposed by the same right to life people and think that somehow this one time it would be different. Obviously I'm not going to change your mind, and I don't really care to, but my argument is that his legislation didn't happen in a vacuum, so we have examples to help us figure out what to expect.

[caden]

I'm not ignoring it in general. I just don't think it's relevant to Paul Ryan specifically.

[heyjude]

I've never heard this argument ever before, until two days ago.

"well it's not a real piece of legislation."

I'm sorry but that is just laughable on its face. And further that's not how your average joe shmoe voter looks at legislative bodies or their work product.

[heyjude]

And the thing is, you elect the right people into office and this thing WILL become law.

[caden]

I didn't say it wasn't "real". And if you've seriously never heard of people examining the legislative process for politicking and nuance, I just don't even know what to say to that.

[caden]

Aug 14, 2012 20:54:59 GMT -5 heyjude said:

And the thing is, you elect the right people into office and this thing WILL become law.

Yes we're really in danger of electing a congress who will outlaw IVF. 8-D

[heyjude]

I'm confounded by your defense of this. Not that you are defending it but the arguments you are making to defend it.

[GailGoldie]

I'm really not worried about him making it illegal... it's simply not something that is gonna happen unless all the stars aligned in a magical way... so that part of him, be it true or not that he is against IVF and wants it illegal, doesn't bother me.

[caden]

I don't know why. It's not hard to see why someone could look at this bill popping up year after year and never being pursued by anyone, and then assume members of congress aren't serious about trying to make it law. Congress produces a lot of votes that are meant to make news but not law. Look at all those resolutions, and votes to repeal Obamacare. They're pointless in and of themselves but they play well to certain people. I don't think votes or non-votes are always black and white. Another scenario of nuance could be when someone votes in favor of a bill because they think if they don't pass X bill, something worse might be passed instead. Or they vote in favor of a bill because they really want 1 part of it to pass, even if they don't care for the rest. Not that this is relevant to that particular personhood bill, I'm just throwing out other examples of the legislative process that aren't as cut and dry as they seem.

[heyjude]

Aug 14, 2012 21:07:15 GMT -5 GailGoldie said:

I'm really not worried about him making it illegal... it's simply not something that is gonna happen unless all the stars aligned in a magical way... so that part of him, be it true or not that he is against IVF and wants it illegal, doesn't bother me.

I can respect this defense.

[mominatrix]

Aug 14, 2012 20:13:18 GMT -5 caden said:

He attached his name to an idea...

Yes, he did.

He attached his name to the idea that fertilized embryos are people.

...you don't think that has consequences?

You don't want us to hold it against him, when he clearly did it either because he believes it, or to court votes, or both.

So...
If he believes it, I think we have every right to have it part of a voting calculus.

...and, even of he doesn't, it's still part of the calculus. He gains some votes for doing it, and he loses some. That's part of the game.

It's pretty incredible that you think it's something to just blow off.

...via mobile.

[caden]

I'm not saying it's something to blow off. I don't know why you think I have blown it off since I obviously spent time looking the bill up. That smacks of "if you were informed you'd agree with me." No, I happen to care a lot about IVF-related legislation, for obvious reasons. ITA stuff like this gains and costs votes. I'm just judging this bill in its context. I really don't see why it's so difficult to understand that, even if you disagree.

[sweettooth]

A few years ago I would never have thought that the forced transvaginal sonograms bills would be taken seriously either. I also would never have thought that police and fire fighters would be portrayed as people partially responsible for bring the economy down with their pensions, when there are so many factors involving manipulation of big money.

[marathon55]

I agree that even if the bill (or whatever stage it was in) had no chance of passing, he still signed his name to it. With all the crazy anti-women legislation that has been proposed in the past year I don't think it's a stretch to say he would support an extreme view on IVF.

He had the choice to brand himself with fiscal policies and leave the social/women issues alone. However, he didn't and now he must stand up and explain his actions and the other side have ever right to make these positions the basis for not voting for him.

[miesl]

That type of law would clearly outlaw IVF with PGD. We tested for a single gene disorder and impacted and untestable embryos were destroyed. Under a personhood bill, that's not going to work.