posted
LA GOP State Rep. Who Proposed $1K Reward To Sterilize Poor Women Now Proposes Criminalizing All Abortions
Doing his part to push the number of this year’s anti-choice bills closer to 1,000, state Rep. John Labruzzo (R-LA) introduced a radical bill to ban any and all abortions — ever. LaBruzzo amends the state’s current “feticide” law to criminalize “the killing of an unborn child” by “the mother of an unborn child,” entirely repealing the previous exception for abortion. If passed, the law — enacted to address third-party violence against a pregnant woman — would now target the woman herself and subject her to a felony charge requiring up to 15 years in jail, even if there’s a “grave risk” to the woman’s life.
A blatant attempt to turn a constitutional right into a felony requires at least a well-reasoned argument against the Roe v. Wade ruling. In defense of his bill, LaBruzzo countered the Supreme Court’s ruling with the judgment of his 4-year-old:
“I think the main difference between 1973 and now is that technology that we have. We can peer into the uterus and see an image that even my 4-year-old would say, you know, that’s a baby,” LaBruzzo said.
Incidentally, peering into women’s uteri is not the most disconcerting suggestion he’s made while in office. In 2008, LaBruzzo was so concerned that welfare costs were outpacing the number of taxpayers that he actually suggested to “pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.” Believing that those on food stamps were reproducing faster than more affluent people, he coupled this singular notion with an idea for “tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children.”
While it’s “hard” to “sit down and think of some solutions,” LaBruzzo said in 2008, “it’s easy to say, ‘Oh, he’s a racist.” He may find that, given his latest “solution” to criminalize a constitutional right, “misogynist” also rolls effortlessly off the tongue.
Update LaBruzzo recently said the inclusion of language subjecting women to "feticide" prosecution was a "mis-draft." But as Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones notes, "It's pretty hard to believe this language was changed accidentally."
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at some abortion pictures, you can kinda see where he is coming from. Sure, its a conservative drumbeat that should be a back-burner to the economy. However, it is extremely grotesque and barbaric. You want to talk about torture? Do you even know what the procedures are? It makes water-boarding look like going to Six Flags. Have you ever looked at the domestic genocide number?
Yeah I get it, so many women get some health care there. Nothing wrong with that. I will say this though, this is nothing more than a nationwide abortion chain. Similar to a restaurant chain in analogy. There are plenty of clinics that dont provide abortions that they can go to. Heck, you can even go to the emergency room and get free health care. Right? If we had to compromise I would say legal, but ONLY in first tri-mester. Anything after the first tri mester is really just messed up. Its like you were thinking about it for a while and then decided to. If it were such a terrible event such as rape you dont need more than the first trimester.
So why are they doing abortions in the THIRD trimester? Hmmm? Whats the excuse for 6+months after conception?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tiller had no problem doing them. As to how many EXACT third trimester abortions there are...I dont think the EXACT number can ever be verified. The mere fact that they happen is sick. I guess you have never see what a third trimester aborted baby looks like in a trash bag.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Tiller had no problem doing them. As to how many EXACT third trimester abortions there are...I dont think the EXACT number can ever be verified. The mere fact that they happen is sick. I guess you have never see what a third trimester aborted baby looks like in a trash bag.
i've looked for the numbers for years cash.
late terms are extremely uncommon. as to the fact that one doctor did them? that's prolly the only one who was doing them in th ewhole midwest, and he did them in accordance with Kansas State Law which required two other doctors to determine that conitnuing the pregnacny would most likely cause severe harm tot eh mother.
doyou not understand that if three doctors agree that a pregnancy is likely to cause severe harmt o the mother that you are likely to be harming the mother by not allowing them? who are YOU to question the word of three differnt doctors?
i really don't want to hear about how 'they" game the system either, cuz it's a bunch of malarkey... it is and was always very difficult to get an abortion in KS.
how about the murders adn terrorits that spent decades shooting at and firebommbing the guy?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the life of the mother I am not against that glass. That should be the only exception.
You mean the 5 or 8 who truly tried to get at him? That is not justified by any means. Im not about being offensive on this subject. More protectionist against the unborn. Who is standing up for them? You were in a womb at one time in your life.
that's why my compromise would be nothing after first trimester, and only third trimester in the event the mother would die. Leave it at that and shut up about it. Those who really believe in the moral aspect will understand God would be the judge of someone elses actions. You can only do so much. For me, I just find it barbaric. I find it hypocritical of the left crying about waterboarding and then defending abortion in any case or reason. waterboarding doesnt kill you, and its done with a medic aside.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a right-to-choose person. I understand the oppositional viewpoint and feel sadness for the young lives lost just as I mourn any life taken prematurely, but I do not believe that court justices or legislators have any business "peering into a woman's womb" or having any opinion on how she decides to have it, or the natural contents therein, treated. Call me a small government guy if you will, that's what I believe.
Rather than saying just first trimester how about we say three months from realization of pregnancy ccm? Cuz if you can find that to be acceptable, then we are pretty much there already.
According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, in 2004, more than 86% of abortions took place in the first trimester (13 weeks). If we extend that out to 20 weeks (halfway through the second trimester) 98.7% of all abortions were done within that time frame.
Only 1.3% of abortions performed in the United States in 2004 fell outside the time frame of the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Multiple questionnaires done on the subject of abortions beyond the first 15 weeks of pregnancy have been done (from what I can tell, all are seen as incomplete on their own as there is not a high rate of response due to the societal stigma attached to abortion.)
In general, they show that between 70-80% of respondents who had an abortion outside of the first 15 weeks did so because they did not recognize they were pregnant or misjudged time of gestation. 50% of respondents also said they had difficulty making arrangements for the procedure and that extended the time frame.
Women are not stupid, Cash. They understand your feelings and likely feel them even more intensely than you do. The vast majority of women, even those who choose to terminate a pregnancy, would never want to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to a child.
While I find vocal support for child welfare to be honorable, I think oppositional energies would be better and more fulfillingly directed towards pregnancy prevention, teen counseling, or adoption and family services rather than advocating for legal restrictions to medical services.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
