Iowa Legislators Consider Hideous Shariaesque Law

I cannot believe that in 2017, in the United States of America, a country where we at least like to pretend we believe in liberty, where men and women have fought, died, been inprisoned and suffered all manners of indignity — bled and sacrificed — for their rights and ours, that we still face the threat of the stone age ideas of religious fanatics creeping into our laws!

What's next? Legal honor killings? Stoning gays?

The legislation in question, SF 471, has already made it through the Iowa Senate and now it's advancing in the Iowa House with a three-person panel voting to advanc e it to full committee.

Buried in the text of the bill, like a deadly scorpion, who having scurried into a cozy slipper by Liberty's bed, waits hidden for Liberty to slide in her bare, unsuspecting toe so that it may plunge its pointy stinger into her undefended flesh and inject its terrible venom, are a string of words that should disgust, horrify and shock every red-blooded American to the core!

When do they start selling Burkas at the Wal-marts in Iowa?

The law expands the legal rights of a woman's parents — an adult woman's parents — to petition the court for an injunction only in the case that the daughter is under the age of eighteen or unmarried. Don't believe it? Here's the text (page 11 at link above):



Ugh! Where do they even find these regressive assholes and how do they get elected? Oh, that's right — it's Iowa and this is the GOP we're talking about.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Hey ante, I think you're being a bit melodramatic.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Melodrama for emphasis!

a reply to: theantediluvian

I read this twice and I still don't understand what you are saying. What is the law they are trying to pass?

Did I miss the link to the story?

Edit - I see it I guess I was blind for a moment.

a reply to: theantediluvian

There's got to be a case behind this.

Wonder what it is.

Sneaky, sneaky.

"Less than eighteen years of age or unmarried"

Wow, you can't make this # up. Hopefully my anti-regressive brethren on the right are just as disgusted as I am.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Women should be able to do what they want with their bodies, I don't care either way.
With that being said.....if Hillary would have won, Burkas would already be selling at Walmart.

a reply to: theantediluvian

With the amount of guns Americans own, I can't see this ending well for those pushing that rubbish.

a reply to: RazorV66

Yep, and if Obama had been elected (either time), all Christians would be in FEMA camps, waiting for the guillotine.

/eyerollemote

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RazorV66

Yep, and if Obama had been elected (either time), all Christians would be in FEMA camps, waiting for the guillotine.

/eyerollemote

Yep and if Trump had been elected, all Muslims will be deported.
Well at least according to all the deranged Leftists.

I actually went to the bill and tried to read it....
it just didn't make sense to me.. it seems to ban abortion both after the heartbeat is detected as well as after the 20 th week...... whichever comes first?? what, the people that came up with this law just couldn't go on the internet and look up at what stage the fetal heartbeat can be detected?? I'll give them a hint, if there is no heartbeat found by the 20th week of pregnancy, who might as well abort...
because the fetus is dead!
but, it's late and I'm tired, maybe some one else can read the law and let me know if I am reading it right... or I'll try again in the morning...

but the part about the spouse or the parent if the women is unmarried, I think, might be just regarding who can bring charges against a doctor who illegally performs an abortion...
which, would probably be because the law is confusing him also???

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: theantediluvian

Hey ante, I think you're being a bit melodramatic.

You're a guy?

Christians voted for jobs and small government. Maybe they see jobs in controlling vaginas. Like pumps.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Buried in the text of the bill, like a deadly scorpion, who having scurried into a cozy slipper by Liberty's bed, waits hidden for Liberty to slide in her bare, unsuspecting toe so that it may plunge its pointy stinger into her undefended flesh and inject its terrible venom, are a string of words that should disgust, horrify and shock every red-blooded American to the core!

I think you missed your true calling.
Old timey movie poster writer.
But I think that is what you are shooting for.

It was a dark and stormy night sounds like poetry after reading this.

Iowa is suprisingly liberal.

a reply to: theantediluvian
The proposed law is about ABORTION.

I think "under the age of 18 and unmarried" should have made more sense, but a simple oops, in transcribing, can change the whole meaning of a bill. How many of these "careless mistakes", are in other bills around the country.

My conspiracy mind says that it was an intentional mistake, while debating the bill, they are saying "and" but the write in "or", the congressmen voting, usually don't read the bills that carefully. It would be easy to miss.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: theantediluvian

Hey ante, I think you're being a bit melodramatic.

You're a guy?

Is that a real question?

originally posted by: MOMof3
Christians voted for jobs and small government. Maybe they see jobs in controlling vaginas. Like pumps.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Ugh! Where do they even find these regressive assholes and how do they get elected? Oh, that's right — it's Iowa and this is the GOP we're talking about.

Congrats on making a thread worth responding to . Its not a GOP thing but a Gulen thing . Its time to sharpen the focus of who or what to look for and consider a covert Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating the halls of power to take USA down and create a world wide Caliphate ...There are too many dots that can be connected to that fact to ignore it .

originally posted by: MinangATS
I think "under the age of 18 and unmarried" should have made more sense, but a simple oops, in transcribing, can change the whole meaning of a bill. How many of these "careless mistakes", are in other bills around the country.

It is in two places so I do not think it was a transcription error.

I read the link as a ban on abortion after 20 weeks.