It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP Controlled Virginia Legislature Passes Two Of The Most Restrictive Anti-Abortion Bills In The Na

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   


On Tuesday, the Virginia House of Representatives passed two of the most restrictive abortion bills in the country. By a vote of 66-32, the Republican majority passed House Bill 1, which defines personhood as beginning at conception and effectively bans any woman from having an abortion, even if she is raped. The bill also would restrict contraceptives and an amendment to the bill would allow civil lawsuits against any doctor that performs an abortion. The bill is by far the most restrictive bill passed by any Republican controlled legislature in many years. Republican Rep. Bob Marshall wrote the legislation.


Wow.

As if we don't have enough homeless children and children living in foster homes already. This bill will FORCE women who don't want to have a child (even rape victims) to keep that child. It's absolutely ridiculous!

The woman should be able to decide whether or not she wants to keep her child, not some idiot in a monkey suit behind an "elected" office. How is Virginia actually regressing on this issue, when will they move into the 21st century.

Edit:

I don't mean to offend anyone who believes that life begins at one stage or another. But you shouldn't be able to force your belief through a law, that can seriously not only destroy the life that you're protecting, but the life of the woman who carries it.

Source
edit on 15-2-2012 by goldcoin because: forgot the link

edit on 15-2-2012 by goldcoin because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by goldcoin
 
I don't personally square with abortion, but I don't see this law passing much muster or lasting long.

Abortion is an issue that you simply can't address in any valid way from a legal standpoint, and prohibition of something that people *will* simply find a way to do as demand likely won't go away just won't work. End of story. If these people really want to address this issue, they'll have to do so through education and other preventative methods to change hearts and minds - not impose legal restrictions.

This will meet swift challenge and very likely be overturned soon, even if the senate and governor DO pass it.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Those who are pro life will applaud this legislation. Those who are pro choice will criticize it. Obviously, this is a very polarizing issue and the legislation will no doubt be challenged in the courts.

For the record, I am a firm believer that life begins at conception and that all, above all else, have the right to life.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by goldcoin
 


this is messed up.



" The bill also would restrict contraceptives?"


so they aren't even allowed to use a condom?

WOW...?
edit on 15-2-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by goldcoin
 


...prohibition of something that people *will* simply find a way to do as demand likely won't go away just won't work. End of story.



By that logic, every law from homicide to theft is pointless then?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
This issue is not as simple as "women's rights to choose."

It all depends upon your definition of human life. For many, abortion is the murder of an unborn baby. To them, it's the same thing as killing a newborn baby would be...it's killing a person. We would never allow someone to kill a newborn, no matter what the circumstances. To many, there is no difference between a newborn and the unborn.

You may not agree with that definition of life, but for those that feel that life exists at conception, it is a real issue.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
GOP big government was always a fact of life, I don't why they bothered lying that they were all about small government. Hypocrites, all of them.

The GOP and Republicans have no sense of freedom from, their ideology is based around the freedom to, which is more dangerous than you think. We as Americans enjoy and should be allowed or freedom from government regulation of our bodies and we should also retain our freedom from government infringement of our bodily rights to privacy.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska
reply to post by goldcoin
 


so they aren't even allowed to use a condom?


I think they refer to "some forms" of contraception. Since condoms when used correctly prevent the fertilization of the egg, I really doubt they would be contemplated by this legislation.

Other contraception methods, such as the morning after pill, or week after pill, might be.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska
reply to post by goldcoin
 


this is messed up.



" The bill also would restrict contraceptives?"


so they aren't even allowed to use a condom?

WOW...?
edit on 15-2-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)


lis.virginia.gov...

I just read the bill in question on the websited linked from the article, and it said nothing about contraceptives...


HOUSE BILL NO. 1
A BILL to construe the word "person" under Virginia law, including but not limited to § 8.01-50 of the Code of Virginia, to include unborn children.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. § 1. The life of each human being begins at conception.

§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.

§ 3. The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.

§ 4. The laws of this Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this Commonwealth, 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 Commonwealth.

§ 5. As used in this section, the term "unborn children" or "unborn child" shall include any unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.

§ 6. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

§ 7. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful assisted conception.

edit on 15-2-2012 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by goldcoin
 


This makes me wonder if pharmaceutical companies and the GM companies have a hand in this. More people to come crawling in with health issues wanting medication and needing GM foods.. But this also conflicts with the whole "kill off a billion or two of the human population" and "lets try to end world hunger thats caused by the exponential growth in population".

Let's leave decisions like this to the individual. Next thing the government will arrest women who had a natural miscarriage. Which most women have at least one in their life...knowingly or unknowingly in the first stages of pregnancy.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


Big government isn't a bad thing, read The Case for Big Government by Jeff Madrick. He makes some really good points as to why we need a big government to prosper. American government, however small or big, is a failure.

I agree, republicans are very hypocritical, but that is because most of them are now neo-cons. They preach small government, but are hellbent on restricting all of our rights to what they approve of.

Democrats are no better.

We really need a third party. Actually, we need a completely new system of government.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
oops, Georgiagirl beat me to that questions, nm.
edit on 2/15/2012 by DelMar because: redundant



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


The only recourse women in this state have is the federal government and Roe v Wade. Ron Paul would use his power to take that away and give women NO recourse but to move to another state. Plus he would invite every state to make their own rules about abortion.

THIS is the problem with Ron Paul. As it is now, women in Virginia can go to the federal government to protect their right. Thankfully.

Don't talk to me about the low probabilities of abortion being outlawed.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 

By that logic, every law from homicide to theft is pointless then?

No, as those are clear and incontrovertible offenses against another indisputable person, their property, or their liberty, and don't involve the internal workings of the body of the person committing the crime.

The waters with abortion are much muddier, more debated, and infinitely more personal. I don't think an issue can get much more complicated - and I feel the more complicated an issue is, the closer to home it should be handled.

But I would like to point out that what I originally said is true even with your examples - homicide and theft have pretty much always been illegal, and they still happen (and always will, until hearts & minds are changed on the whole). The laws are in good part also to help assign punishment (call it what you want - justice, fine) - unless there is some clear malice involved, we're going to punish criminally mothers who won't carry their children to term? Will we now subject every miscarriage to criminal investigation to determine if there's any legal transgression?

This is one of those things I'll continue to talk to people about and try to provide very good alternatives to, but beyond that have to leave it between them & god.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Those who are pro life will applaud this legislation. Those who are pro choice will criticize it. Obviously, this is a very polarizing issue and the legislation will no doubt be challenged in the courts.

For the record, I am a firm believer that life begins at conception and that all, above all else, have the right to life.


I fully agree.....

What I don't understand is......how is that a belief? To me it's fact. Can someone explain how life doesn't begin at conception??.....I can't see the other side of this coin at all



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

The only recourse women in this state have is the federal government and Roe v Wade. Ron Paul would use his power to take that away and give women NO recourse but to move to another state. Plus he would invite every state to make their own rules about abortion.

How many abortions are each woman planning to have, or how long are these abortions expected to last? There are things I can't legally or get here at home in Oklahoma, but I haven't had any problem taking a trip to get or do them legally elsewhere - and in the case of the abortion debate, there are other alternatives anyway such as safe haven laws, adoption, release of the child to the state, etc.

Even if something like these laws DID somehow stand up to challenge for any length of time, there would always be options - much better to the monolithic mode of thinking when a sea change takes place at the federal level at some point and outlaws the option for everyone in all states, leaving no other recourse until it might be reversed (and a constitutional amendment, even if pushed and passed by idiots, can take a bit more time and doing to reverse).


THIS is the problem with Ron Paul. As it is now, women in Virginia can go to the federal government to protect their right. Thankfully.

Don't talk to me about the low probabilities of abortion being outlawed.

I'm sorry, I still can't get behind this as the law likely won't last long, leaves other options several ways regardless, and such a single-issue focus completely disregards so many more clear and present abuses to life and liberty both home and abroad - keeping the gates to abortion open for all does the same for the gates to indefinite detention, aggressive war, imprisoning everyone else in the country who wants to do DIFFERENT things to their own bodies, possible assassination of americans, and so many other things.

We will have to continue to agree to disagree on the weights and measures involved here.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
How many abortions are each woman planning to have, or how long are these abortions expected to last? There are things I can't legally or get here at home in Oklahoma, but I haven't had any problem taking a trip to get or do them legally elsewhere -


That's really not anyone's business, nor is it relevant. The next state could make it illegal, too. And the next and the next.



and in the case of the abortion debate, there are other alternatives anyway such as safe haven laws, adoption, release of the child to the state, etc.


And the woman would still be forced to risk her life against her will to carry and bear a child she doesn't want.



Even if something like these laws DID somehow stand up to challenge for any length of time, there would always be options


Yes. It's called back alley and botched abortion.



I'm sorry, I still can't get behind this as the law likely won't last long,


I'm not inclined to feel comforted - you said the likelihood of this happening was slim to none.



We will have to continue to agree to disagree on the weights and measures involved here.


What we apparently disagree on is the autonomy of a woman.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 

By that logic, every law from homicide to theft is pointless then?

No, as those are clear and incontrovertible offenses against another indisputable person, their property, or their liberty, and don't involve the internal workings of the body of the person committing the crime.

The waters with abortion are much muddier, more debated, and infinitely more personal. I don't think an issue can get much more complicated - and I feel the more complicated an issue is, the closer to home it should be handled.

But I would like to point out that what I originally said is true even with your examples - homicide and theft have pretty much always been illegal, and they still happen (and always will, until hearts & minds are changed on the whole). The laws are in good part also to help assign punishment (call it what you want - justice, fine) - unless there is some clear malice involved, we're going to punish criminally mothers who won't carry their children to term? Will we now subject every miscarriage to criminal investigation to determine if there's any legal transgression?

This is one of those things I'll continue to talk to people about and try to provide very good alternatives to, but beyond that have to leave it between them & god.


That's your opinion and I respect your right to believe it. I disagree, however, and see abortion as no different than any other act of murder.

I guess that's what makes this issue and this legislation so contentious.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thingol

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Those who are pro life will applaud this legislation. Those who are pro choice will criticize it. Obviously, this is a very polarizing issue and the legislation will no doubt be challenged in the courts.

For the record, I am a firm believer that life begins at conception and that all, above all else, have the right to life.


I fully agree.....

What I don't understand is......how is that a belief? To me it's fact. Can someone explain how life doesn't begin at conception??.....I can't see the other side of this coin at all


Not that I agree with the other arguments, but one is that the unborn baby could not exist on its own outside the mother.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

That's really not anyone's business, nor is it relevant. The next state could make it illegal, too. And the next and the next.

Possibilities versus definite ongoing offenses and a possible national reversal of the policy you favor, as compared to an answer that leaves options open...

As well, the kind of thinking of those in control of these things who agree with you on this matter disagrees with you on so many others that we've discussed previously, and that I mentioned above. Sure, they'll give you protection on the abortion issue (for the time being) - but will continue doing so many other reprehensible and harmful things on many other issues.


And the woman would still be forced to risk her life against her will to carry and bear a child she doesn't want.

No - she can just travel out of state. However, the politicians who support national solutions to this problem will, foreseeably, force you to continue to accept drug wars, constant spying, killing foreign civilians, and many other things that there are NO workarounds for.


Yes. It's called back alley and botched abortion.

If you want to disregard the others I mentioned and possible others I may not have thought to, sure.


I'm not inclined to feel comforted - you said the likelihood of this happening was slim to none.

Slim I will still agree with as applies to any widespread application of such affecting many to result in removal of the options I mentioned previously, and I have no real doubt that this one will be promptly challenged and overturned quickly anyway, as I said before. While I would like to see no abortions taking place, that result will not come through this action.


What we apparently disagree on is the autonomy of a woman.

As we apparently do on that of foreign civilians and nations, those here who choose to use various substances, and those who would choose not to be spied on constantly, stolen from by those in power to fund atrocious things, or be at risk of being locked away forever - if not outright killed - if deemed necessary by the government...among so many other matters of autonomy and self-security.

I mean no offense by any of this, but I see the scale as very imbalanced regarding this issue and the demanded solutions as compared to many others and their existing impacts. Take care, friend.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join