The four anti-choice bills put forth by senators Todd Lamb and Brian Bingman will be heard in Committee tomorrow. Here's a quick run down of what we're up against:
SB1890: This bill prohibits sex-selective abortions. The provider is not to perform an abortion with the "knowledge" that the pregnant woman is terminating because of the fetus' sex. How one would obtain this knowlege is beyond me, as by right a woman shouldn't have to tell the doctor a damn thing about her reasoning behind the abortion. And as we know, sex selective abortions are such a rampant problem in the state of Oklahoma...
SB1891: Freedom of Conscience Act. A medical employee can bow out of any procedure that goes against their religious and moral beliefs without penalty. With the exception of the assisted suicide/euthanasia(which is illegal anyway) thing tacked onto the end of it, the majority of procedures they're exempt from have something to do with abortion or stem cell research.
SB1902: Regulation of RU-486. Standard medical practice in some places, until you get to section F. This one plainly states that "the father of the unborn child" or its "maternal grandparent" can file a suit against the abortion provider if they aren't keen on the decision that the woman in question has made about her own body.
SB2216 The Statistical Abortion Reporting Act. We talked about this one when it was called HB1595.
It's important to note that all of these bills contain language that humanize the fetus, and dehumanize the woman seeking termination. They want words on the books that give fetuses personhood. Woman's personhood is immaterial. They make abortion providers sound like psychopaths doing violence to others.
1 comment:
Translation (from abortionist doublespeak to plain English):
The four unborn human rights bills put forth by senators.....
This bill prohibits sex-selective abortion crimes. The criminal abortionist is not to commit an abortion crime with the knowledge that the pregnant woman is killing her unborn child because she (the child) is a woman in the earliest part of her life.
"The father of the unborn child" (good proper English) or his/her (sex determined at conception) "maternal grandparent" can file a suit against the criminal abortionist if they aren't keen on the fact that the mother has decided to destroy the life and body of her child. (Way to go dadda/grandma/grandpa. Someone has to care about the life of this child if momma lacks a well-developed conscience.)
All of these bills contain language that recognizes the humanity of human beings living through the first nine months of our lives (say it ain't so!), and also respect the humanity of the mother who is trying to kill her child while, of course, holding her responsible for the crime which she is about to commit, obviously prenatal homicide.
They want words on the books which recognize the personhood of ALL human beings at EVERY stage of our human existence. Both women's and men's personhood is vitally important and should be respected at every stage of our lives.
They make criminal abortionists sound like criminals who are doing violence to helpless innocent children who are doing nothing more than we did when we were their age, namely just living their lives. This is because criminal abortionists earn a living by doing violence to helpless innocent children. Duh!
By the way, if you want to be a "voice of reason", you might want to abandon the highly irrational and completely intellectually dishonest abortionist mentality.
There is no way that you can logically derive the abortionist mentality (that all human beings can be destroyed in the unborn stage and all human beings can be deprived of our entire human lifespans) from natural law. It cannot be done.
Post a Comment