Planned Parenthood’s Six Pack – the GOP Senators Who Killed HB1PoliticsVirginia

Take a good look at these turncoats.

Stosch.  Norment.  Watkins.  Blevins.  Wagner.  Ruff.

HB 1 was common sense legislation that passed Oklahoma today.  It’s on the books in Missouri.  Legislation that survived legal challenge at the Supreme Court of the United States.

…but could not survive these six pro-abortion collaborators.

Now, instead of the headlines reading that personhood will be sent to Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for signature, the headlines read very different.

From the DPVA:

I’ve got some great news! This afternoon the Virginia Senate voted to kill the Republican “Personhood” legislation that could have banned abortion, outlawed birth control and continued the Republican assault on a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body.

This is a victory for Virginia women and for any person who just wants a government that puts making people’s lives better ahead of injecting itself into their most personal decisions.

This is also a victory for you, and the thousands of people like you who raised their voices to make sure these Republicans knew that Virginians will not tolerate the divisive, dangerous and distracting agenda they are attempting to force on our families.

From Governor “Abuser Fees” Tim Kaine:

“While the General Assembly may have set personhood legislation aside, it still remains an issue in the Virginia Senate race where one of my opponents sponsored the bill and another has called for similar legislation at the federal level.  A focus on this social agenda at any level of government is unwise and will only act as an obstacle to finding common ground on our more pressing economic challenges. My focus will continue to be on solving our fiscal challenges, putting more Americans back to work, and building a 21st century talent economy that will help us emerge from this recession stronger than before it.”

…and lastly, from the Senate Democrats, in full:

Senate Democrats Defeat Personhood Bill

Embarrassed Republican Senators Split By Infighting

Acknowledging that their divisive social agenda has been resoundingly rejected — not only in Virginia but nationwide — 6 Republicans joined Senate Democrats to defeat HB 1, the “personhood” bill.

In the face of national ridicule, Republicans in Virginia have suffered another defeat. On the heels of the Republican cave on Senate Bill 484, which would have mandated intrusive ultrasounds before abortions, and had been ridiculed by the media around the globe, Republicans suspended the normal Senate rules to ensure that HB 1 was quickly dealt with. Senate Republicans are obviously hoping to avoid more embarrassing national media coverage.

“I hope these guys get the message and stop trying repeal the 20th century. I’m tired of Virginia being compared to Mississippi. This kind of legislation is making our state a national embarrassment,” said Senator Richard L. Saslaw.

Senator A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) said, “We are obviously relieved we have stalled the for now, but we should recognize that the Republicans can always bring the bill back up, so we must remain vigilant — their war against women isn’t going away.”

“I’m disappointed that the Republicans circumvented normal Senate procedure to get rid of this bill. I’m disappointed, but not surprised, because Republican Senators are ashamed of the way they have been treating women, and they should be ashamed,” Senator McEachin added.

House Bill 1 was sent back to the Education and Health committee on a vote of 24 to 14, and passed by for the year.

So… was it worth it, gentlemen?

What was more of a loss — personhood on the books?  Or a gleeful and gloating Democratic minority with the press and momentum working in their favor — and for no other reason than because the liberals believe more in their principles than we conservatives believe in ours.

Take that one line home and let it burn in your mind.

Was this betrayal worth it?

Who can we thank for this in three years?

These six turncoats should be targeted for defeat in three years.  What they did to betray the pro-life movement is unforgivable.  For personhood to pass by such wide margins in the House of Delegates only to be turned back by spineless and weak-kneed Senate Republicans is one of the most blatant betrayals of the conservative movement in decades — probably since the 2004 Chichester tax hike (the architects of which there are familiar names on this list).

So what did pro-lifers gain from a Republican-led Senate again?

Nothing.

…and we’ll remember that from now until 2015.

When did it become such a shame for conservatives to stand up on the floor of the Virginia Senate and defend the basic human right to exist?

  • kelley in virginia

    you must not know Frank Ruff well. he is very pro-life. He must have seen something in this bill that he didn’t think was appropriate or reasonable. I applaud him for his caution, especially in the face of what was probably extreme pressure from his Bible belt constituency.

    Sen. Ruff is neither spineless, a turncoat or weak-kneed.

  • Jerry Zeigler

    What is JR’s opinion regarding Blevins with this?

  • Jerry Zeigler

    Nevermind, I just saw JR’s other post. Just curious because of previous discussions. I am not one of Blevins’ constituents after redistricting, so I haven’t been following him as closely. But yes, disappointing.

  • Gretchen Laskas

    Yeah, I’m really gloating and gleeful over the fact that throughout this entire session, Democrats kept Republicans from enacting two pieces of legislation that I see as tremendously extreme. Woo hoo. I’m so excited.

    (sarcasm)

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com/author/jrhoeft/ JR Hoeft

    I honestly don’t see the extremism.

    I guess it really just is a lump of cells to you people.

    Maybe you should use the aborted product in the president’s bio-energy plan that’s supposed to save our economy?

  • Darrell — Chesapeake

    Traitors! Turncoats! Betrayal! Was it worth it?

    You tell us.

    When Allen goes down in flames in precision flight with the GOP presidential nominee.

    Because social engineering was so important it was Ok to P!$$ off half of the voters the party needed in this election.

    Throw in use taxes, the non-primary primary and other bungling around, the question becomes… How many more voters can the GOP lose between now and November?

    Houses and jobs. Such a simple message that is apparently too complex for the simple minded party faithful.

  • http://bearingdrift.com J.R. Hoeft

    Nice crocodile tears, Darrell. How many years have you been anti-GOP on this site? Please, spare me.

    The positive, job creating, economic, pro-growth agenda of the GOP both at the federal and state level supersedes one pro-life skirmish lost over a week’s time.

    Did you think NO pro-life bills were going to come up?

    Here’s the difference in previous years – where they also have come up – this year we almost passed one and it sent Dems into a tizzy.

    Do yourself a favor and look at what’s been proposed in past years by both parties.

    This is not new. Conservatives just capitulated.

  • Jumping Jack

    I keep seeing Wagner and Watkins’ names popping up against a lot of conservative legislation. We need to take a page from the left and primary them.

  • JayD

    Yet again … coming in behind Shaun to clean up his slop. Shaun’s got bulls-eyes on 6 legislators that aren’t traitors; they’re following strategy guides put forward by the National Right to Life organization AND Americans United for Life. Both organizations are concerned these personhood amendments are much more likely to screw up efforts to get more pro-life policies adopted nationally. Also of concern: if the high court did agree to hear the case, there is a “very substantial danger” that a majority of the justices would adopt a stronger basis for finding that there is a fundamental right to abortion than the due process rationale Justice Harry Blackmun used in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. (Bopp)

    6 Turncoats? Think again and think carefully before you decide to target friends.

    Shaun’s next line:( #1)“HB 1 was common sense legislation that passed Oklahoma today. (#2) It’s on the books in Missouri.  Legislation that survived legal challenge at the Supreme Court of the United States.” TWO more big fat bald faced lies.

    #1 – A personhood amendment did pass the Oklahoma Senate but it still has to clear the House and be signed into law by the Gov. Not so different than where Virginia’s HB1 was a week ago and today it’s dead.

  • JayD

    #2 – SCOTUS heard the case and called the legislation feel good language, but having NO impact on Roe. Sure, it upheld the language of the law BUT also ruled it had ZERO impact on Roe. So tell us Shaun, how does this help the movement? And how does this help the rest of the republican agenda when fools like you force the narrative (and our republican representatives) towards a fight that, at best, won’t get you any closer to an abortion ban and has a good chance of biting you in the butt and strengthening Roe?

    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/08/personhood-amendment-in-mississippi-likely-wont-ban-abortion/
    The Supreme Court addressed the issue of personhood language in Roe (as Texas had defined human life beginning at conception) and reaffirmed its view as early as 1983, when in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.it ruled again that “a State may not adopt one theory of when life begins to justify its regulation of abortions.”

    – Subsection (3) requires the physician to inform his patient that “the unborn child is a human life from the moment of conception,” a requirement inconsistent with the Court’s holding in Roe v. Wade that a State may not adopt one theory of when life begins to justify its regulation of abortions. See 410 U.S., at 159 -162.

    The high court addressed the issue again in 1989 in the Webster decision. The state of Missouri had approved a statute saying “the life of each human being begins at conception” and “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.” The statute required that all Missouri state laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with rights equal to those enjoyed by other persons.
    The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri struck down that provision and the abortion limits, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed and ruled they violated Roe.
    The Supreme Court then ruled that it did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law’s preamble, defining personhood at conception, as it could not be used to support any abortion laws that conflicted with Roe. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the decision and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined in the opinion. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the personhood language Missouri used decades ago but did not allow it to ban — or even limit — any abortions.
    “This Court need not pass on the constitutionality of the Missouri statute’s preamble,” Rehnquist wrote in his decision for the Supreme Court in Webster. He goes on to say that a”a State could not “justify” any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade on the ground that it embodied the State’s view about when life begins. The preamble does not, by its terms, regulate abortions….”
    In other words, when the state of Missouri adopted similar language as the Mississippi personhood amendment, the Supreme Court ruled both in 1983 and again in 1989 that such language can’t be used to ban abortion. Further, the Supreme Court made it clear that states can’t even use such language, as Missouri attempted, to justify any sort of pro-life laws that limit or reduce abortions.
    Moreover, the Missouri language mandated that state abortion and other laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with “all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this state.”  That makes the Missouri personhood language apply to state laws banning or limiting abortion — giving teeth to the personhood language to justify abortion limits (though the Supreme Court ruled that was not allowable). The Mississippi personhood language contains no such qualification meaning — even if it is upheld in court somehow as allowable despite Roe, Akron and Webster as controlling decisions — it won’t ban abortions or even limit them in any manner.
    In Webster, Rehnquist makes it clear that the personhood amendment is little more than statement of position, a feel good declaration made by a state that sets forth what it believes in terms of the beginning of human life but not something that has any effect on the status of legalized abortion:  “This Court has emphasized that Roe implies no limitation on a State’s authority to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474, and the preamble can be read simply to express that sort of value judgment.”
    “The extent to which the preamble’s language might be used to interpret other state statutes or regulations is something that only the state courts can definitively decide, and, until those courts have applied the preamble to restrict appellees’ activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning,” Rehnquist goes on to say. At this point in jurisprudence related to abortion, until and unless the Supreme Court’s makeup is changed to the point that it would be ready to consider overturning Roe, state courts will continue to interpret personhood language within the confines of Roe — thus continuing legalized abortion.
    With Justice Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia — both of whom are still on the court — siding with Rehnquist in his opinion, there’s no expectation that the Mississippi personhood amendment would be interpreted in any other way different from the Missouri personhood language the high court considered more than two decades ago.
    What then would be the effect of the personhood amendment? Rehnquist lays that out in his Webster decision:  “The preamble does not, by its terms, regulate abortions or any other aspect of appellees’ medical practice, and § 1.205.2 can be interpreted to do no more than offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade, supra, at 161-162.”
    Many states have approved laws giving rights to unborn children outside the context of abortion — for example, to inherit property — and Rehnquist makes it clear that the personhood language provides legal justification for such laws, but not for abortion bans or prohibitions.

  • Darrell — Chesapeake

    Well Jim, I’ve been anti-GOP because of this type of legislation. That’s a big problem with the republicans, they come out with stuff like this and Albo’s abuser fees and then wonder why the party gets sent back down to the minor leagues. No one wants dictators, we have enough of that from the Dems.

  • Brian Kirwin

    JayD, I look forward to your dissertation supporting the Dred Scott decision.

  • Natedogg614

    Its a great victory for those who don’t object to stabbing a baby in the back of the head with a pair of scissors and sucking the brains out with an industrial vaccum.

  • Mormor

    When did it become a shame for conservatives to stand up on the floor of the Virginia Senate and state what they believe?

    God bless them all for not being sheep!

  • http://. Moonhowler

    This bill was very dangerous. I am glad that 6 smart Republicans thought past the emotional side of the issue and looked at unintended consequences.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    Shaun,

    I am in possession of my body, not you, not the government, not anyone but me. If I choose birth control that makes my uterus inhospitable to a fertilized egg, that is my business, not yours. Roe V Wade is legal and until you figure out a way to put us back into the dark ages, or model us after places in the middle east, I will fight to the bitter end to control my body.

    The supidity of this bill is overwhelming. Will I get to drive HOV if I am pregnant? When can I start claiming more dependents on my taxes? Since you are FORCING women to bear children, how do you plan to pony up your tax dollars to pay for these children you are forcing women to bear.

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com Brian Schoeneman

    Elena, you’re just plain wrong.

    You cannot do whatever you want with your body. I’m sorry, but that’s simply true. You can’t smoke crack, you can’t sell sex, you can’t get drunk and drive, you can’t sell your organs. You can’t even kill yourself, or give someone else permission to do that.

    The government is consistently telling everyone what they can and can’t do with their bodies. That argument is ridiculous and I wish women would stop making it.

    It’s odd to me that this issue brings out such passion in people, when fewer than 1% of the population will ever address it.

    If the pro-pot forces could harness all of these women who claim the government shouldn’t be allowed to tell them what to do with their bodies, it would be legal by now, I’m sure.

  • http://craig@craigkilby.com Craig Kilby

    Brian S: you left out so many “shants” I don’t know where to begin but how you shall not masturbate?

    Who the hell is the government to tell me what I shant do?

  • http://www.i-bmw.com James “turbo” Cohen

    Elena, have you been punished with a baby?

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    I have two beautiful children whom I adore, thanks for asking “turbo”.

    I am happily married, have a masters degree in school counseling, and am not interested in having the government dictate when I have children or what mode of birth control I can use.

    I find it interesting that so many conservative republican men become hysterical over their second amendment rights but cannot fathom why women would ever dare to become concerned about their rights to their own bodies. My mother, my mother in law, my step mother, most of the women I know are are pro choice. Some are republican, some progressive. But ALL are moms!

  • http://bearingdrift.com Brian Kirwin

    Next thing you know, government will tell you you can’t own slaves.

  • Steve Vaughan

    I think, from the pro-life perspective, this criticism is much more well-founded than yesterday’s of McDonnell’s reservations about the ultrasound bill.

    As I understand it, “life begins at conception” is pretty much at the heart of the whole “pro-life” agenda, correct?

    I’d agree that this makes those votes a betrayal of that agenda.

    And, Bob Marshall..who is always honest about his intentions even if supporters are not …has said this gave the state a legal groundwork to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.

    So, unlike ultrasound, the personhood bill did have some potential to actually end abortions.

    You guys are right to be mad this time.

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com Brian Schoeneman

    Craig, I don’t see any laws on the books make masturbation a crime.

    The government is the elected representatives of the people. You know that, you were one of them. We delegate our authority to them to craft laws in the public interest. That’s the point of government.

    We, as a society, have determined, through our government, that people shouldn’t be allowed to smoke crack, prostitute themselves, drink and drink, sell their organs, etc. These are the rules we’ve all agreed to live by.

    As for the second amendment, it protects our natural right to defend ourselves and others. That’s why it’s important.

    Conservatives can make a strong case that passing legislation that deters abortion and protecting the second amendment are two sides to the same coin: defending life.

  • http://craig@craigkilby.com Craig Kilby

    Brian, seriously. Since you are wont to quote the bible as a guide (as do so many others claiming moral superiority), it is Leviticus–the original “rules and regulations” to the Ten Commandments–that light the way.

    It has not been very long ago that “duly elected representatives” in Virginia outlawed interracial marriage, homosexual behavior (and still bans same sex marriage), etc. So don’t throw this heap of cow pies at me.

  • http://www.tooconservative.com Loudoun Insider

    Yes these six must be defeated to produce a completely monolithic single issue party. Dissent is not allowed.

  • JayD

    Kirwin: nice of you to help out buddy Shaun, who always disappears when the facts are posted. This time short and sweet so you can actually get it. FACTS:
    #1 Not my dissertation. I didn’t write it – Steven Erteilt, Founder of Life News wrote those words. You have the link in my post. And according to this leading pro-life advocate …
    #2 SCOTUS affirmed the Mississippi language was constitutional BUT also ineffectual. Mississippi’s personhood bill canNOT be used to limit women’s rights under Roe and it’s nothing more than feel good language.
    #3 Top leadership within the pro-life movement, knowing these bills are NOT the legislative vehicle to end Roe are concerned that (a) pushing ‘feel good’ legislation will make getting more effectual pro-life bills passed and (b) current restrictions on abortion (like Hyde) will be ‘swept away’ and the court will rule even stronger on affirming a woman’s fundamental rights than Blackmun used in Roe.

  • EM Barner

    There are relevant dissimilarities between the Mississippi personhood measure and this one, JayD. Take a look at them side-by-side and you’ll notice.

  • Manny

    Liberals <3 dismembered babies

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com Brian Schoeneman

    When have I ever quoted the Bible, Craig?

    Seriously – I think you have decided that every human being on the planet named Brian is me and you’re attributing all of their behaviors to me. If I had a dime for every time you accused me of something I’ve never done, I could balance the budget myself.

    Yes, I’m aware that during the Jim Crow era, the Democrats in Virginia made things like interracial marriage illegal. Fortunately, that’s not the case any more, thanks to a Supreme Court led by a Republican appointee.

    Regardless, your point is invalid, as was Elena’s. We have laws that restrict things you can and can’t do with your body. Why the abortion issue trumps everything else in the minds of some people makes no sense to me.

  • JayD

    The references some of you guys are making to slavery and the Dred Scott case are just plain silly.

    @Brian Schoenerman. You’re stretching. Under Virginia law neither user, doctor, or pharmacy can be prosecuted for using/dispensing pot for medical reasons plus the 251 provisions allow case dismissal if the offender agrees to treatment. No so different from current abortion law – limited intrusion recognizing the state’s limited powers.

    I can kill myself (or attempt suicide) and the state can’t prosecute. And I believe what is actually codified in drug laws is possession, distribution and manufacture and NOT usage. Once again, the state recognizing limited powers and my right to put any substance I damn well please in my own body. Stupid –yes. Illegal–no.

    While I can’t drive or perform surgery or engage in a great number of activities while intoxicated, if I’m 21 I can legally drink to oblivion. I can nip, tuck, pierce, tattoo or amputate (all against biblical teachings but not against the law). I can give away my organs for free. What I cannot do is sell them. Same for sex. Can have it w/ another consenting adult; just can’t sell it or engage in a public place. Same for smoking. Legal to light up, but not in public spaces.

    In the examples you cite, the state regulates commerce, it does not limit what I choose to do with and to my own body.

    @ EM. Curious. Tell me more please?

  • JayD

    PS to the stupid drug analogy. Legal arguments aside, just how well has the War Against Drugs worked? Trillions (not billions) spent on enforcement and “drug-intervention” military & foreign aid yet insignificant impact on addiction rates. Drug prohibition (like it’s 1920 cousin) drives the commerce underground, fills our courtrooms and jails w/ drug law offenders, and pretty much guarantees addiction leads to criminal acts and drives up violent and property crime rates. Wonder where we might be today if we had spent a trillion $ on treatment and addiction research?

    Question: if you could overturn Roe, what do you boys have planned? Will Virginia taxpayers be coughing up more dollars to incarcerate physicians and woman who abort illegally? NONE of you have hiccupped the first indication of what happens should your efforts succeed.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    Let me shed some light on the legaility of abortion as a starting point.

    It is legal.

    Second, to the men arguing this point about abortion and birth control.

    When the state and federal government can start messing with your junk then we can talk.

    Brian, once again, allow to help you understand this issue. Abortion is legal along with numerous forms of birth control. I hope this clarification helps.

  • Moonhowler

    As usual, unless you all have taken on some mighty butch names, we have a bunch of men sitting around determining women’s reproductive rights. It just gets tiresome and in the end, you will not win.

  • Brian Kirwin

    JayD, I think when we are debating who is and is not a person, it is worthwhile to look at when we last had that debate, and how much fun it was getting to a conclusion.

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com Brian Schoeneman

    JayD, your argument is semantics, not substance. Barring possession is equivalent to barring use because no one possesses a substance without the intent to use it, unless they’re selling it. And even then, it’s sale for use.

    Regulating commerce that involves using parts of your body is fundamentally the state telling you what you can and can’t do with it.

    Elena, I’m well aware that abortion is legal. It is also heavily regulated. You are trying to make the argument that it should never become illegal because no one has the right to tell you what you can and can’t do with your body. I am simply saying that that kind of an argument is a bad one to make.

    You folks on the pro-choice side have a lot better arguments than the “its my body!” nonsense. Use them instead.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    Actually, right to privacy is THE argument Brian so I beg to differ which bears directly on the “nonsense” you accuse of me arguing.

    The right to be forced to bear an unwanted child is the most “private” matter that I can think of.

    The right to birth control is another “right to privacy” that is also critical.

    I love how not one of you antichoice men can argue with the premise of the governement regulating your penis or tesitcles.

  • JayD

    @ Brian S.
    Wrong. Drug charges don’t go away if I can pass a drug test. The laws prohibit possession, not usage. Perhaps I’m one of those crazy hoarders or simply like to grow plants? Even if I’m not using, have never used, and never intend to use, I still get busted. For what? POSSESSION. And if I grow enough pot, the law ASSUMES (by quantity) intent to distribute; it doesn’t have to actually prove I sold or intended to sell.

    The state gets around personal liberties with prohibition laws by making possession and commerce the crime – not usage. The statues read: “It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance …”

    And you conveniently choose to ignore perfectly legal organ donations – especially those made from a living human. There is no law that prevents me from DONATING a liver … I just can’t sell it and you can’t forcibly take it from me.

    You guys on the pro-life side need to come up w/ something better than “the state already regulates your body” nonsense. :)?

    @Kirwin, now that I understand your personal adoptive history, I get it. Were I to walk in your shoes I’d almost assuredly feel the same way. Perhaps you can try to extend the same courtesy to women regarding women’s health issues?

  • Scout

    I haven’t been checking in here very much in the past year or so, and it’s my loss. What’s with this JayD guy? He seems to actually form well articulated opinions from a strong knowledge base. Very suspicious and disturbing, that. I’m really afraid he’ll raise the level of discourse around blogdom and spoil all the fun. Can’t someone put a stop to this?

  • http://Www.bearingdrift.com Brian W. Schoeneman

    Elena, the right to privacy is the legal construct that was developed to protect some kinds of decisions from government intrusion. It is not some kind of over-arching “I win” button that invalidates any law that might interfere with private decision making,

    The government regulates my penis and where I put it all the time and had for hundreds of years. Laws banning adultery, sodomy, sex outside of marriage, etc. and others have been on the books for a long, long time. Do you see angry near riots of men demanding the right to commit adultery and claiming it violates our right to privacy? No.

    JayD, I am not ignoring anything. My points still stand – there are things the state says you can’t do to your body. And there are plenty of areas where that could be extended, even if it hasn’t been. At some point, I am sure smoking will be prohibited. I hope that all of the pro-choice activists will be out in force against that, seeing as its telling a woman what she can and can’t do with her body.

    And for the record, nobody on the pro-life side leads with the argument that the state already can tell you what you can’t do with your body. Our argument isn’t about women’s choice. Our concern is for the kid, who doesn’t have a voice or a choice.

  • http://www.gretchenlaskas.com Gretchen Laskas

    Well, “freedom of conscience” of the “freedom of thought” is a legal fiction in the same way that the “right to privacy” is. It’s a good one, I’ll grant you, but it doesn’t actually appear within the Constitution as an actual phrase. And the First Amendement wasn’t, I don’t think, affirmatively interpreted that way until the 20th century. (I could be wrong — I’m married to an attorney, but not actually one myself! — so if it appears in legal documents before that, please let me know!)

  • Catherine Crabill

    Elena, you and those women in the pro-death movement do NOT speak for me, my mother, my sisters, or my daughter. Your default argument about doing what you want with your own body is specious at best, as addressed by other comments. The scientific fact of the matter is that an unborn child is NOT your body, but it is your responsibility to nourish it, protect it, and deliver it. The only “choice” a woman has BEYOND that point is to keep the child or not.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    Brian,
    Cheating may be “illegal” Brian but it is a misdemeanor and fines possible up to 250.00 bucks.

    Abortion requires a physician so unless when you cheat on your wife, you need a doctors note, pretty sure the government doesn’t care, ergo, RARELY is this law ever prosecuted.

    Ask Newt, he sure has never been prosecuted, in fact, he’s running for President!

    Also, I would add that VA laws are incredibly archaic, not something I would use as a means to make my point.

    Virginia’s rape law, 18.2-61 states that “no person shall be found guilty under this subsection unless, at the time of the alleged offense, (i) the spouses were living separate and apart, or (ii) the defendant caused serious physical injury to the spouse by the use of force or violence.” Identical language exists for Virginia’s Forcible sodomy law, 18.2-67.1.

    So what this really says is that my abusive husband can rape me as long as he doesn’t cause “serious injury”.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    Catherine,
    When did I claim to speak for you? I spoke for myself and the women in my life that I know, all of whom are mothers like myself.

    I am not pro abortion or pro death. I love my children, I am pro life. What I am not is a zealot who would push my belief system on to you. I do not believe a zygote or a an embryo has the same “standing” as my children or my husband, or my mother, or any other family member.

    I have someone very close to me who suffered a stroke as a young women, she should never become pregnant. She has an IUD, a birth control method that many on the anti abortion side would say is a murderous method of birth control. She cannot use any hormonal pill to prevent pregancy(also a method many on the anti choice side call an abortifacient).

    It isn’t your business what type of BC she uses or if she were to obtain an abortion under these circumstances. Until you can grow a fetus in a capsule, you cannot force women to bear unwanted pregancies.

    No one chooses abortion easily or goes giggling or happy. It is probably the toughest choice a woman will ever face.

  • Catherine Crabill

    Wow, Elena, that was truly patronizing. When I was young and dumb I used to buy that act, but that was a long time ago.

  • OMG

    Just watching the posts without a need to comment until Elena’s last comment. “I am pro-life.”

    No Elena, you are pro-death, and you are just as much of a zealot as the hard core “pro-lifers”.

    Stop your silly semantics. The reason it is as you put it “It is probably the toughest choice a woman will ever face.” is because that woman is choosing to end a life inside her womb.

    BTW, I am pro-choice and am not ashamed to also say I am pro-abortion.

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com Brian W. Schoeneman

    Elena, regardles of whether the laws are archaic, they are still on the books and haven’t been repealed over overturned. I wish you would quit changing the goalposts on the discussion.

    And, again, I think it’s interesting that we see angry hordes of women rushing at police in Richmond as the protest these bills, yet no one is demanding a change to the rape law as vociferously as they are protesting regulation of abortion. I don’t get it.

    I don’t have any problems with birth control and never have. That’s not part of the argument here so I don’t know why you brought it up.

    And I don’t think it’s the toughest choice to make – the toughest choice would be to have the kid and give it away.

    As for standing, your husband has exactly the same standing as the “zygote” – none. It took two to make the zygote, but neither it nor it’s father have any say.

  • JayD

    @JR, I rest. Tell me, how does one even begin to have productive dialogue w/ the Catherine Crabills out there? And unfortunately, her response is fairly typical of the ‘reception’ pro-choice republicans get when we rise up from the back rows of our ‘big tent’ party to voice our views.

    @Brian S. The state can regulate product packaging (warning labels,) over-tax tobacco (as it does now), and one day may even prohibit possession, sale, distribution and commerce (although not likely; too much tax income to give up) … but outlawing “use” of tobacco products would never hold up to court challenge.

    And outside of civil divorce cases (in select states, not all), the morality laws you cite are dinosaur common-law bans rarely prosecuted or already removed from state codes (like Blue Laws). Although 25% of men in this country admit to engaging in extramarital sex, prosecution for that crime is almost unheard of. And I’m completely unaware of any focused party-funded or Christian-based movement pushing lawmakers to enforce Virginia’s standing adultery law. [Or did I miss that BD report?]

    The ONLY time your junk is ever prosecuted is if allowed to assault (rape) or engage w/ a minor (child abuse). And admit it; even though highly likely to prevent a large number of abortions, you fellows WILL surely riot – and claim protection under the privacy clause – when the government mandates deadbeat dads undergo forced micro-chipping.

    Words have meaning and I don’t need to remind you … in the law, words have specific meaning. State & Federal law can regulate “possession” but it can’t regulate “use”. It can regulate sale, distribution, and transport. It can enact ‘not near schools’ legislation. If the state could do MORE, it would have already done so. Why has it not? Because the government cannot make law that overrides our constitutionally protected individual liberty. If I’m wrong, please post a statute that outlaws “use”?

    And, ALSO for the record and almost without exception, we republicans that believe Roe should stand are 100% with you on protecting kids. We just differ when it comes to elevating zygote, blastocyst, and embryo rights above that of human rights.
    And Thumbs Up to Elana.

  • Catherine Crabill

    JayD, you don’t believe you can have a “productive dialogue” with someone like me because I know b#!!$#!t when I smell it?

    Life begins at one point, and one point only, conception. And for anyone to ‘choose’ to consciously and deliberately end that life at any point past that is murder, period. What else is there to discuss? Your ‘beliefs’? Your beliefs, my beliefs, anyone’s beliefs are irrelevant in light of the facts of the matter.

    P.S.-I have don’t have much respect for those who make pot shot comments without their NAME on it.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    @JayD

    Thumbs up back to you :)

    OMG, the antithesis of calling oneself pro life suggests that people like me are pro death, and this is simply untrue. I have never met a pro choice person that EVER refered to themselves as pro abortion or pro death, never.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    Brian,
    Until you are personally faced with thatdecision, I guess you will never know, and since you are not a woman, I am pretty sure that is an impossible position for you to face.

    Of the women I knew in my younger years that chose abortion, all continued on to have their own families as adult women. But not one, not one, made their decision without serious contemplation.

    If you really don’t understand why I brought up contraception than why are you arguing in defense of this “personhood” legislation? You clearly have no understanding of its ramifications.

  • Catherine Crabill

    Elena, I know many women who have had abortions too, and I have never met ONE who doesn’t regret it with all of her heart!
    Most, if not all, of them were lied to about the development of their baby, it’s ability to feel pain, etc. They were not told about the ramifications to their future health, (mentally, physically, and emotionally). They were not told about the dramatic increase in risk of breast cancer and infertility.
    The deliberate censorship of all of that damning information by Planned Parenthood, and others of their ilk, expose them for what they are, merchants of misery profiting off of death and destruction.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    Catherine,
    I simply cannot ignore you anymore. You are spreading lies about future health risks. There are no credible health organization that support what you are putting forth. Not one, at least not one with any shred of credibility.

    Woman are at no more risk for future health complications from an abortion than they are from a spontaneous miscarriage.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

  • JayD

    @ Catherine: “Uh huh. Yes dear. You’re right. I’m sorry dear.”
    _________
    OK. Uncle! You guys win, but thanks for the enlightening dialogue.

    This ‘die hard’ republican that cast her first legal vote for Gerald Ford and who has worked consistently since to elect republicans knows when to fold ‘em.

    For the last 20 years I’ve fooled myself into thinking those unpleasant and “divisive social issues” took back seat to “more important” fiscal and defense concerns. Convinced myself abortion zealots were a party minority; republicans would never seriously push to overturn Roe; and that as the old guard died off, so would hateful opposition to granting equal rights to all of Gods children. Ha! Talk about self delusion! :)

    Like most BD bloggers and readers, I worked hard on the last election(s) to grow the red team that promised to fight for fiscal restraint and responsible spending. Funny, but I don’t recall ONE candidate campaigning on state mandated medical procedures or personhood amendments????

    My eyes are now open – thank you all very much. I get it. I see the light.
    Being “pro-life” IS the same as being pro-overturn Roe v. Wade.
    “FOR defining marriage as …” IS republican code for being completely OK w/ denying equal access to those US citizens programmed differently than I.
    And voting for republican candidates DOES have individual and civil right consequences.

    Our differences will play out, as they should and always do, at the ballot box. It will be an interesting year.

    Thanks again to JR and BD for the space ~ Good luck and may God bless.

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com Brian W. Schoeneman

    JD, if the state does it, I’m certain that prohibiting tobacco use will stand up. It’s well within the a state government’s police powers.

    You’re getting hung up on words and ignoring the implications of those words. The reason why the laws are written to bar possession, distribution and sale is to bar the ultimate use of the product. Under your argument, we could pass sufficient regulations to make it next to impossible for a woman to ever have an abortion and those would be valid so long as we don’t actually ban abortion. That’s been tried time and time again and those laws are struck down. Yes, in the law words have specific meaning, but you should never ignore the underlying premise upon which the law is based. Laws designed to prosecute for the possession and distribution of drugs are intended to ban their use, even if that’s not what the legally operative words use.

    Elena, no, I’ll never have to make that decision, unless my wife gets pregnant again and she allows me a say in the process. That’s unlikely, since we use birth control. Shocking, I know.

    I didn’t come into this thread to defend the personhood bill. As I’ve noted before, I have problems with both of the abortion bills and I’m not comfortable with either. I came here specifically to refute your use of that tired old “it’s my body” argument.

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com Brian W. Schoeneman

    JayD, save us all the pity party.

    I’m in the same boat as you. I’m pro-life and I don’t feel the need to overturn Roe. We aren’t going to end abortion by passing a law. It’s going to require a societal change and I’m glad that that change is slowly making progress. And I agree with you on the marriage issue too.

    I’m just sick of seeing the same old nonsense put forth by the left as if they are irrefutable. They aren’t. That’s why I said what I said.

    I wish the pro-choice people would spend more time pointing out that overturning Roe or passing more onerous regulations aren’t going to end abortion. They would make a stronger case by challenging the pro-life people on their belief that banning abortion will end it, rather than wasting time with those tired old arguments that have been refuted dozens of times.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Moonhowler

    Catherine, I agree with Elena. You are spreading misinformation that has no scientific backing. Stop with the lies.

    Most people I know who have had abortions have moved on and do not regret it.

    Brian, overturning Roe will not end abortion. You are correct. What it will do is make it a great deal harder to access and it will take the fight to a few states rather than 50 states. Therefore the anti abortion people can concentrate their efforts and resources.

    Now that we have cleared the air on that one. is this when I ask, do we just look stupid? I bet I was involved in pro choice acitivism when you were still in diapers.

  • Catherine Crabill

    Like I said, people who make comments calling themselves such names as “moonhowl…beam..” whatever and any other pseudonym have ZERO credibility.

    I could post all the research I am referencing, but for the merchants of death, truth is always ‘discredited’ by the sources you choose to believe to prop up your lies. No one is going to change anyone’s mind here. But I amuse myself by not allowing your BS to go unchallenged, until I’m bored.

  • http://Www.bearingdrift.com Brian Schoeneman

    Moonhowler, you probably were. And in that time, public opinion on the abortion issue has been steadily shifting to the right. That’s a good thing. I hope at some point that you pro-choice activists will join with those of us on the right to try and make the process obsolete without having to infringe on whatever sacred right you all think you are defending.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    Brian,
    You said “whatever sacred right you all think you are defending.”

    Allow me illuminate what sacred right you mock. The state has no legal right to your testicles, it can’t force you to do anything with them, no matter how many women you impregnate. How about this, for every woman seeking an abortion, the man responsible has to undergo a forced vasectomy or some other intrusive procedure.

    The government has no control over testicles and never will. When you force a woman to give birth, where do you think that baby comes out of? It isn’t some obscure reality about birth. A zygote is NOT the same as my husband and it is ridiculous to suggest as much. Every month when a woman has a period, I don’t mourn the potential loss of life. Maybe the Hasidic Jews do, but not the rest of Jews.

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com Brian W. Schoeneman

    Elena, again, you’re wrong. Do a little research on the history of forced sterilization in the United States. As recently as 1981 men were being sterilized by the state. It’s happened. It was a penalty for crimes like rape and the Supreme Court found in valid in a Virginia case in 1927 – Buck v. Bell, and that case is still good law for sterilization of non-criminals.

    And I never said a zygote is the same as your husband. I said, under the law, both the zygote and your husband have exactly the same say in your decision to abort – none.

    You guys seem to think that’s fair. I don’t.

  • http://www.moonhowlings.net Elena

    Brian,
    Are you suggesting that a woman wanting an abortion is the same as a convicted sex offender?

    This is a circular discussion going nowhere. For all the “obamacare” hysteria, you all have shown you have no credibility. On one hand you say the government cannot force you to buy a product, and yet, you wholeheartedly embrace women being forced to pay for a very expensive ultrasound at a bare minumum, but to make matters worse, you also force them to bear a child that will ultimately cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise.

    You want to force women to bear a child, I suggest you get ready to pony up YOUR tax dollars to support them.

  • http://www.i-bmw.com James “turbo” Cohen

    Hey Elena, I want no responsibility for your sex organs.. If you want to be irresponsible, its your body, your risk, not ours. How about we call the whole thing off and you pay for your own doctor to reach into your own birth canal and remove the human within your womb and not ask us to pay for something we see as murder..

  • http://Www.bearingdrift.com Brian W. Schoeneman

    No, I am not. I am simply pointing out to you that, yet again, your claims are wrong. You have got to get it out of your head that there is something sacrosanct about women’s reproductive organs.

    And why would I have to pony up my tax dollars to support these children when the law already holds the father accountable for child support until they turn 18?

    That’s another of the great hypocrisies behind your choice – you all demand the right to determine if a man’s child is brought into this world, but if you make that choice, you hold him accountable for it. Isn’t that a little like having your cake and eating it, too?

    But, unlike you all, I would never advocate removing that responsibility from a father, because I know it would result in a significant increase in the number of abortions, and the goal is to lessen that number.

    Sure, we say no one can be forced to buy a product, and the utrasound bill doesn’t force anyone to buy a product either. It simply makes the ultrasound part of the abortion procedure – which it already is in almost all instances anyway. The most significant difference is the mother must be shown the imagery. If you don’t want to pay for the ultrasound, you don’t have to have the abortion. There’s your choice, and that’s a choice you don’t have under Obamacare. No one is going to fine you if you don’t have an abortion.

    I don’t get why those on the left can’t or won’t see the difference.

    I guess it’s time for you to trot our rape or incest. It’s about time we heard that argument. Not much left that hasn’t been covered.

  • http://www.fineartforyou.com Kathy Mateer

    Abortion has touched every woman (and man) in this country, personally or with other family members. I believe in life at conception, others do not. It’s up to us that believe in life at conception to pray and make a difference. I will not respond to anger from other women or men from this website. Period. Catherine, I hope you can find a way to express your views in a more loving and caring way.

  • Catherine Crabill

    Kathy, “I will not respond to anger from other women or men from this website. Period.” but you will call me out for not being “more loving and caring.”? Seriously?

    I realize having a loving and caring concern for the unborn and a disdain for those who fight for the right to destroy them offends you. Got it.