Vagina remarks, silencing of Michigan lawmakers draws firestorm online.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

So, if she had said "the female body" instead of the word "vagina", it would have been appropriate... And here I thought you were arguing that it WASN'T the word vagina that got her booted. Are you saying it was the personalization of it that went over the line?

She was using language to accuse the Michigan House of Representatives of wanting access to her vagina. Again, this bill doesn't have anything to do with what a woman can do with her vagina. I'm not sure how I could simplify this further for you.

It wasn't the word "vagina" it was the context in which it was used. What I am trying to convey to you is that she could have chosen a better choice of words to send her message. Accusing the House of rape is not appropriate and she was right to have been censured.

What's this about? Who accused anyone of rape? Don't change the subject.

“It has nothing to do with her using the word ‘vagina,’” Adler told TPM Friday. “The Speaker Protempore at the time was John Walsh. It was his judgment at the time that when she finished her statement by referencing her vagina, and then saying ‘no means no,’ that was drawing in a rape reference, and he felt that crossed the line.”

This is how the comments were perceived in the House. This is how I perceived them as well. She was obviously drawing a comparison between this legislation and rape. Obviously. No change of the subject, as this is the heart of the controversy. Stop attempting to use childish tricks to skew the discussion.

Again, stick to the facts. No one said anything about touching anything. If someone was legislating penis laws, you'd have every right to ask that people leave your penis alone. And, I would be supporting you ALL the way.

Your entire argument has been about men wanting to control women's bodies. My comparison is more relevant than Rep. Brown's comparison between this bill and rape.

Have you read the freaking bill yet? Why do you allow people to tell you what to think without ACTUALLY REVIEWING THE MATERIAL? I am certain you haven't, because of how you keep going back to the same inaccurate and irrelevant points.

You're either being extremely naive or purposely leaving out some important aspects of the bill. (now I see you weren't aware that they were discussing multiple bills.)

They were not discussing multiple bills. They were discussing, and voting, on the bill I've linked twice in this thread. I'm not your mom, so I'm not going to link it again. The other bills have been put on hold so they can be further analyzed. You could read the transcript of the conversation that day in the MI House, but I doubt you will. Why do the footwork when sites with the word "one" and "progressive" will do it for you? (inaccurately)

This has GOT to stop! I hope women shout from their rooftops, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Vagina"!

By the way, Since Roe V Wade, women have been saying "keep your legislation out of my uterus" and not silenced for it... You're right, it's not the word vagina that caused the problem. It's the fact that a woman said it in opposition. We can't have women standing up and being so.... brave.

Well, you guys are all chasing a phantom issue. You can shout "VAGINA" from the rooftops all you want. If you want to promote filthy, irresponsible clinics that actually encourage abortion because they make money off of it, go ahead. Either you do not understand what this bill is seeking to accomplish, or you just ignore it.

The more you shout "vagina" the dumber you look. This issue wasn't about that word, it was about the context in which it was used. This is the silliest argument ever, considering we can watch and read exactly what happened.

I'm sorry, I'm not approaching this as a Men Women argument, or even a R D argument. I'm approaching this from a basic civility argument, and what is appropriate during a legislative session.

Women keep saying "keep your legislation out of my uterus!" - well that's fine. Keep my tax dollars out of your abortions. You can't have it both way, sister. What I'm saying is, I'm allowed to voice my opinion if my tax money is contributing to funding on ANY issue..

If you want Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics to continue to operate, you are going to have to accept that the people who are paying for them (typically not those who use them, as they tend to be low-income and not pay taxes) should have a say in the process.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
What I'm saying is, I'm allowed to voice my opinion if my tax money is contributing to funding on ANY issue..

You can voice your opinion on ANY issue, whether or not tax dollars are funding it. Too bad Brown doesn't have the same freedom.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Explanation: St*rred!

I read the full pdf twice!

I fully concur with you on this statement you make ...

It seems to me like the feminist groups have blown this WAY out of proportion. This bill very clearly preserves the rights of mothers and raises the standard of care they should receive at an abortion clinic.

And in the light of that ... what I now see Representative A was talking about, in the context of that legislation, was either off topic OR was arguing for carte blanche abortion rights up until the moment of full birth!

Personal Disclosure: Please ... anybody ... correct me if I am wrong on that!

reply to post by OmegaLogos


See this post.

They weren't just discussing ONE of Michigan's abortion bills. They were discussing the whole package, including 3 bills. (HB 5711, HB 5712, HB 5713) You'd have to read them all to get the full picture.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
What I'm saying is, I'm allowed to voice my opinion if my tax money is contributing to funding on ANY issue..

You can voice your opinion on ANY issue, whether or not tax dollars are funding it. Too bad Brown doesn't have the same freedom.

Just like I can't blow my lid on ATS and start cussing and accusing you of trying to rape me. That would be totally uncalled for, and I would deserve the ban I would almost definitely receive.

Rep. Brown abused her position, and SHE is the reason her constituents are not properly represented.. Not the Michigan State House.

And BH - They were discussing this bill, the one I linked. The others are not going to be voted on for some time. =(

Even so, they are small in comparison to the bill I linked. Let me explain them to you:

HB 5712 would amend 1927 PA 175, or the Michigan Penal Code, to change the definition of HOMICIDE by adding the restrictions outlined in HB 5711.

You can read this bill here

HB 5713 would amend 1931 PA 328, or the Michigan Penal Code, to offer protections to women from people who attempt to COERCE INTO ABORTION FOR PROFIT!

Once again, this bill would solidify a mother's rights, whether or not she chose abortion.

You can read this bill in it's entirety here

The media keeps trying to ignore this fact, and lump them all together, but that's not what happened. The fact that Brown is going to perform The Vagina Monologues on the steps of the capital building just goes to show the lack of respect she has for her position. I am all for protest, but this is horribly inappropriate.

These bills are not the monsters we're being told they are, they just do a better job regulating how abortions are carried out and protect women from predatory abortionists.

So, while we're talking about a woman's right to choose, we should very seriously address the bulk of this bill, which punishes those that would attempt to coerce and force a woman into abortion.

In particular, this package offers protection to minors who may be forced into abortion by their mates, or by their parents, by establishing stiff penalties on those that would force them to abort the pregnancy.

That's not bad, that's %$^&ing noble.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

I guess these lawmaker's Mommies and Daddies, against all expert advice, used words like "pee pee" when referring to body parts.

Teach children proper names for all body parts. Use words such as genitals, penis, vagina, vulva, anus, and private parts. Most children associate the uses for these body parts as related to bathroom functions. Explanations related to the sexual functions of these body parts need not be provided until the child is older or when the parents feel it is appropriate.

Michigan parent guide source

And again, l2DenyIgnorance. The ban on speaking WAS NOT due to the world "vagina" as they are trying to make you believe. It was because the comment was inappropriate. She wasn't talking in a medical context, she was accusing the floor of being interested in her lady parts.

Apparently you have the same problem those guys do. What she said is not inappropriate. It is you that are a prude and can't handle to hear the word.

People understand just fine what the issue is here, you don't need to explain it. People just disagree with YOUR opinion.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Explanation: I have now read all 3 bills and ...

And in the light of that ... what I now see Representative A was talking about, in the context of that legislation, was either off topic OR was arguing for carte blanche abortion rights up until the moment of full birth!

Personal Disclosure: 5 luna months is way long enough time to get an abortion! After that period of time, unless it is a medical emergency concerning the life of the mother, I think the act of abortion is

And here is WHY ...

What is your very first memory? (thread by Chukkles posted on 20-4-2007 @ 04:58 PM , reply by OmegaLogos posted on 13-3-2012 @ 07:50 AM) [ATS]

My 1st memory was in-utero [in the womb] and it was my mothers heartbeat and it is the MOST relaxing and beautiful sound to me and is also why I draw the line at 3rd trimester abortions!

reply to post by TinkerHaus


How do you know they were only discussing that one bill?
Have YOU read all the bills?

We're not going to agree on the appropriateness of her words. You think she accused someone of rape. And in the current political atmosphere, where women are being strategically maligned as regards their bodies and their reproductive rights, I think just about any shocking verbiage is "appropriate". It's ridiculous that we're still talking about this in 2012!

Makes me wonder why people are not outraged when Bill Maher chooses to use a variation of that same body part?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

How do you know they were only discussing that one bill?
Have YOU read all the bills?

We're not going to agree on the appropriateness of her words. You think she accused someone of rape.

And in the current political atmosphere, where women are being strategically maligned as regards their bodies and their reproductive rights, I think just any about of shocking verbiage is "appropriate". It's ridiculous that we're still talking about this in 2012!

lol, yes I have read all the bills. Before this thread was even started, I read all the bills.
I've posted them all here, for you to read too.

You can look up the Michigan State House of Representatives agenda.. And often times transcripts for a session. Yay transparency in government!

What about the rights of the father? Women are more often than not not even required to get permission from the father to have an abortion? Stop whining about your rights.. If you want the RIGHT to NOT BE PREGNANT..

Do I really have to say it?

DONT GET PREGNANT!

But once you've gotten pregnant and are relying on taxpayer dollars to fix your mistake, you are subject to their whims. Remember when you lived with your parents and Dad would say "So long as you live under MY roof..."

Same concept.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
What about the rights of the father?

You change the subject too much! I happen to support the "male abortion", but that is not even CLOSE to the topic of the thread. It's been nice discussing this with you. Thanks.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
What about the rights of the father?

You change the subject too much!

I happen to support the "male abortion", but that is not even CLOSE to the topic of the thread. It's been nice discussing this with you. Thanks.

It's not a change of subject.. It's a very valid point of interest in the conversation. All this time you're screaming "WOMENS RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED"

But you don't even consider that the law is more unfair to men than women. Both in the realm of abortion and (yes this one is off topic) the realm of parental rights.

You don't want men involved in the decision making at all? Is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
But you don't even consider that the law is more unfair to men than women.

I absolutely DO consider it. This further proves that you're not even hearing what I'm saying. Instead, you assume that I am some feminazi because I support individual rights for women AS WELL AS men.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You don't want men involved in the decision making at all? Is that what you're saying?

I don't know where you get this stuff, but it's your own fantasy, not based in reality. I don't even know how to answer that, as I have not once adopted that position. This is just silly. You're making things up to suit your opinion of me.

Buh-bye.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

What about the rights of the father? Women are more often than not not even required to get permission from the father to have an abortion? Stop whining about your rights.. If you want the RIGHT to NOT BE PREGNANT..

Just because a man makes a deposit, it doesn't make that woman's body that man's property, subject to his demands to give birth or to have an abortion. And, I can tell you there are plenty of men, boys and father's of boys who's first request is for the woman to seek and abortion.

I notice that this bill criminalizes coercion. Slippery slope, my friend. This law especially puts males, not wanting to be fathers or grandfathers of their minor son's child, at risk of criminal behavior, for something as petty as an emotional outburst.

Also, the pregnant teen's parent's might threaten to rescind and offer to pay for college, say, if the woman refuses an abortion. That would be considered a criminal act under this law.
I also noticed, upon reading this bill that you linked, it comes dangerously close to declaring personhood rights of the fetus over the sovereignty of the mother.

23 (C) "UNBORN CHILD" MEANS A LIVE HUMAN BEING IN UTERO
24 REGARDLESS OF HIS OR HER GESTATIONAL STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.
2

15 (vi) LAWS RECOGNIZING THE INHERITANCE RIGHTS OF UNBORN CHILDREN
16 AND SECURING THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY A GUARDIAN AD LITEM
17 PRIOR TO THEIR BIRTH.
1

I am not in favor of this bill! To many loop holes and slippery slopes to suppress reproductive rights and to suppress the debate of these rights.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It's comments like this that lead me to believe you are one of the more militant, man hating, pro-choice people.

If the boys can't handle it, they should stay out of it and mind their own business.

And as I said before, you scream and scream about a perceived loss of women's rights, but at no point have you made any consideration for fathers, or society as a whole.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

What about the rights of the father? Women are more often than not not even required to get permission from the father to have an abortion? Stop whining about your rights.. If you want the RIGHT to NOT BE PREGNANT..

Just because a man makes a deposit, it doesn't make that woman's body that man's property, subject to his demands to give birth or to have an abortion. And, I can tell you there are plenty of men, boys and father's of boys who's first request is for the woman to seek and abortion.

I notice that this bill criminalizes coercion. Slippery slope, my friend. This law especially puts males, not wanting to be fathers or grandfathers of their minor son's child, at risk of criminal behavior, for something as petty as an emotional outburst.

Also, the pregnant teen's parent's might threaten to rescind and offer to pay for college, say, if the woman refuses an abortion. That would be considered a criminal act under this law.
I also noticed, upon reading this bill that you linked, it comes dangerously close to declaring personhood rights of the fetus over the sovereignty of the mother.

23 (C) "UNBORN CHILD" MEANS A LIVE HUMAN BEING IN UTERO
24 REGARDLESS OF HIS OR HER GESTATIONAL STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.
2

15 (vi) LAWS RECOGNIZING THE INHERITANCE RIGHTS OF UNBORN CHILDREN
16 AND SECURING THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY A GUARDIAN AD LITEM
17 PRIOR TO THEIR BIRTH.
1

I am not in favor of this bill! To many loop holes and slippery slopes to suppress reproductive rights and to suppress the debate of these rights.

edit on 19-6-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

I'm not claiming it's a perfect bill - only that it's been horribly mis-represented by the pro-choice people, the media, and now ATS (through ATS' contributors, not directly.)

Let me present you with a hypothetical situation:

If you had a 16 year old daughter, who had consensual sex with a boy of her age, and got pregnant, would you force her to have an abortion?

Do you think it's right that anyone should be able to force her to have an abortion?

What about the doctor that will collect public moneys if he is able to convince this girl that her best option is abortion?


Are any of these people TRULY thinking of the wishes, desires, and impact of the girl?

Again we've strayed from the topic.. But I am sincerely enjoying this debate. I am learning new things, new perspectives.. I may seem a little hostile at times, but I don't mean to be. I write the way I would talk, and when written I lose the advantage of inflection or tone - some of my remarks as I read back over this thread seem pretty harsh but were not meant to be that way.

So for that I apologize.

And in all honestly, I have more questions about the mentality of those that believe in carte blanche abortion rights... I could show you some pretty horrific examples of the types of outfits that are allowed to operate, wholly unregulated, under their current state laws. Some of these clinics are very ghastly places and SHOULD be forced to adhere to some regulation.. or at least that is my opinion.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Let me present you with a hypothetical situation:

If you had a 16 year old daughter, who had consensual sex with a boy of her age, and got pregnant, would you force her to have an abortion?

Do you think it's right that anyone should be able to force her to have an abortion?

Nobody should be forced one way or another. However the parents of a 16 year old daughter understand better than she the burden of parenthood. I would imagine that 99.9% of the time the parents who would want their daughter to abort, have the child's best interest at heart. That offspring, now legally becomes their responsibility until the teenager turns 18, if she attends college, even longer.

The parents of the teenage boy are also legally and emotionally bound. They may request an abortion of the girl, in defense of their son's future and their legal bindings. In this scenario we are talking about the lives of 6 people.

A couple of idealistic teenagers need to be sat down and told the consequences of their decisions, after the fact, and it shouldn't be considered coercion. What a can of worms that opens up!

Let's say the teen, being convinced by both sets of parents to abort, then has feelings of remorse. Can she now press charges against these parents?

What about the doctor that will collect public moneys if he is able to convince this girl that her best option is abortion?

I find it ridiculous to think that abortion doctors solicit or coerce woman into abortions! They have plenty of work without advertising tactics. Their imagined zeal comes from a desire to make abortions accessible and affordable to those wanting them, not to increase their business.

Are any of these people TRULY thinking of the wishes, desires, and impact of the girl?

Yes!

Again we've strayed from the topic.. But I am sincerely enjoying this debate. I am learning new things, new perspectives.. I may seem a little hostile at times, but I don't mean to be. I write the way I would talk, and when written I lose the advantage of inflection or tone - some of my remarks as I read back over this thread seem pretty harsh but were not meant to be that way.

So for that I apologize.

And in all honestly, I have more questions about the mentality of those that believe in carte blanche abortion rights... I could show you some pretty horrific examples of the types of outfits that are allowed to operate, wholly unregulated, under their current state laws. Some of these clinics are very ghastly places and SHOULD be forced to adhere to some regulation.. or at least that is my opinion.

So then, if you get heated just discussing this topic on ATS, can't you see how emotionally charged this issue is to the family members of those who are experiencing the decision process? Government needs to step back, not interfere more!

BTW, I have no problem with regulating the industry to comply with basic medical practice standards, but I do have a problem imposing unnecessary procedures and monitors that only serve as roadblocks and added complications.

reply to post by windword


Explanation: Uhmmm?

[Note all quotes from the pdf are from HOUSE BILL No. 5713 ]

I notice that this bill criminalizes coercion. Slippery slope, my friend. This law especially puts males, not wanting to be fathers or grandfathers of their minor son's child, at risk of criminal behavior, for something as petty as an emotional outburst.

16 (B) "MALICIOUSLY THREATEN" MEANS TO MAKE 2 OR MORE STATEMENTS
17 OR TO ENGAGE IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT WOULD CAUSE A REASONABLE
18 PERSON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS LIKELY TO ACT IN
19 ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATEMENTS OR THE COURSE OF CONDUCT.
20 MALICIOUSLY THREATEN DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
21 SPEECH OR ANY GENERALIZED STATEMENT REGARDING A LAWFUL PREGNANCY
22 OPTION.

They would have to make a habit of it ...

And Uhmmmm?

Also, the pregnant teen's parent's might threaten to rescind and offer to pay for college, say, if the woman refuses an abortion. That would be considered a criminal act under this law.

(B) AFTER BEING INFORMED BY A PREGNANT FEMALE THAT SHE DOES
3 NOT WANT TO OBTAIN AN ABORTION, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
4 (i) DISCONTINUE, ATTEMPT TO DISCONTINUE, OR MALICIOUSLY
5 THREATEN TO DISCONTINUE SUPPORT THAT THE PERSON HAS A LEGAL
6 RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE OR REDUCE THAT SUPPORT TO A LEVEL BELOW
7 HIS OR HER LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY.
8 (ii) WITHDRAW, ATTEMPT TO WITHDRAW, OR MALICIOUSLY THREATEN TO
9 WITHDRAW FROM A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE THE
10 TERMS OF THAT CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT HAVING PREVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO
11 A CONTRACT OR OTHER LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT TO WHICH THE PREGNANT
12 FEMALE IS A PARTY OR BENEFICIARY.

Colledge is NOT a right! It is a PRIVILEDGE!

Personal Disclosure: I hope that clears things up!

reply to post by windword


windword - many of these clinics operate like the pill dispensaries in Florida.

www.gynpages.com...

Just look at the way they advertise. They operate out of little strip malls - you can come in and be done with it in an hour or so. Often times the fetus' remains are thrown out as biological waste - there are documented incidents where they were thrown out in a dumpster.

Some of these clinics will show you a video online, and this currently counts toward your 24 hour consent period. This bill would fix this.


Obviously not all clinics operate like this - and that's what this bill would accomplish. It would create standards for abortion clinics in the state of Michigan. Some of these places are like drive-thru liquor stores, and that really has to stop.


I really think we're seeing the back end of a lobbying effort, financed by the very providers that would be forced to adhere to a more sensible code of conduct. I've been searching since yesterday for evidence of this, but am hitting a brick wall when trying to find detailed financial information for Rep Brown and Rep Byrum. This is where my suspicion leads me, however.