Yesterday a House committee passed a near-total ban on abortion in Louisiana. The only exceptions will be to protect women’s health against “severe� problems or “permanent impairment.�
What I found really interesting though, was the reported exchange between two (male) lawmakers on what’s best for women:
The amendment was added by Rep. Charlie DeWitt, D-Lecompte, who at first offered a more loosely written amendment to allow an abortion to protect the health of the woman. "That would mean abortion on demand," [Sen. Ben] Nevers told DeWitt."I resent that right there," DeWitt shot back. "That ought to be a choice made between that family and the woman's doctor" on when to end a pregnancy for the mother's health.
He then refined the amendment to address chronic health problems that could cause permanent impairment or a "substantial risk of death."
Wow, how generous of them. They want to make sure they won’t die (so we can have more babies) and that our uterus won’t be permanently impaired (so we can have more babies).
Note: The bill wouldn’t take effect until Roe is overturned. It’s like they’re pissing their pants in anticipation.
I also loved this:
Nevers said the bill would ensure that a woman who thinks she has become pregnant as a result of rape or incest has access to contraceptive help before the sperm fertilizes the egg. "I am trying to protect every woman in this state and give them a real choice," he said.
His paternalistic rhetoric aside, can someone please explain to me how Nevers plans to ensure that rape and incest victims are given EC in a timely way? So if you’re raped by your dad, you’re supposed to prove the abuse and get permission for EC all before the holy sperm meets the egg? EC works by either preventing fertilization or implantation on the uterus--there’s no way to tell which. So this “real choice� Nevers is offering doesn’t exist. Shocking, I know.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Louisiana abortion ban goes to House floor.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3315
The only reason they added the Roe trigger is because people down here were getting pissed because of the lawsuits the bill would spark otherwise. The state is on the edge of bankcruptcy and any legislatutor that pushed it over the edge for something that wouldn't stand a court test could count on not being re-elected.
And don't for a moment think these people are going to get behind EC. They can't even get their act together and pass a real sex education package. We're abstinence only, dontcha know. Let's not forget how much they're pouring into health care (oh wait -- that's right, healthcare and education are the only two things our law allows to be cut when the budget needs to be tightened. And boy does our budget need to be tightened.) Let's forget that the hurricanes basically wiped out our charity hospital system in the southern end of the state, so a great many people who depended on them for oh, I don't know, pre-natal care, can no longer get it. These people make me want to scream.
I'll believe they want us to have access to EC when they pass a frigging law forbidding pharmacists from denying a woman her 'scripts. But that ain't ever gonna happen. In fact, it's gonna be the exact opposite.
I love this:
"'I resent that right there,' DeWitt shot back. 'That ought to be a choice made between that family and the woman's doctor" on when to end a pregnancy for the mother's health.'"
It's for her family to decide. Not her, because it's not like she could have more interest in her own health than other people do, or anything like that.
Why do I keep getting the idea that all they want to do with these parental-consent and involve-the-family and husband-notification insanities is simply remove the pregnant woman's concerns from the equation completely? You know, just hand the decision over to cooler heads who won't be swayed by silly little pointless concerns like what the woman has to have happen to her.
Zan, here in Idaho the legislature has to pay $380,000 in legal fees to Planned Parenthood for their challenge to the unconstitutional parental consent law that they managed to pass. Morons.
Kyra, I was just about to write the same thing! :-)How nice that once a woman is married, she is still considered to be the absolute property of her family: i.e., her husband. I mean, what humanity? Clearly, once women are married, our borrowed autonomy (slight and tenuous as it is) must be rescinded and we assume our rightful biological post, which is, of course, baby-makin'. How delightful. The other thing I found interesting about this is that this legislation was worked through the Committee on the Administration of criminal justice. Wow. So personal control over medical decisions is a criminal justice issue. Oh, but no worries, ladies- just like with the actual decision itself, all responsibility has been handed over to the male/cool-headed professional in your life- as it's the doctor who faces criminal repercussions for abortions under this bill. Because, god forbid, ANYONE mess with the contents of the vessel's holy womb. You know we have a serious problem when abortion receives a stiffer penalty than the majority of perpetrators receive for sexual assaults on a REAL, living person.
Oh, and Kyra and Lindsy, I think that attitude is perfectly encapsulated in the phrase that really riles these guys up: "abortion on demand." When should a person have an abortion, if not when they demand it? If people can have abortions, but they aren't in a position to be the ones demanding it, who does get to make the decision? Ridiculous.
You know, one of the only things that bothers me about this blog is how too many of its writers are disturbingly ignorant about the manner in which EC works, and often strangely ambivalent about even ordinary hormonal BC. Please drop the entirely inaccurate "debate" about whether plan B prevents implantation. Progesterone acts to thicken the uterine lining, making implantation of a fertilised egg more likely to be successful - it is sometimes given to women undergoing fertility treatment for that very reason! It prevents conception and conception only. Please, educate yourselves:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/why_the_wingnuts_hate_plan_b.php
"Wow, how generous of them. They want to make sure they won’t die (so we can have more babies) and that our uterus won’t be permanently impaired (so we can have more babies)."
Gosh, feministing.org *does* parody your site correctly!
What's next? Are you going to call all men bastards now?
I mean, I'd actually counter your assertions - and the assertions of those who respond here - except for the fact that most of you would ignore or disregard my points while painting me as a self-loathing woman who wishes to subjugate other women under the patriarchy.
Yeah, like I give a f*ck whether you conceive babies or not.
I only care when you start killing your offspring..you presumptuous asses!
Hell, you don't even know what the word 'reproduction' means.
So, have as many children as you want! I don't care!
Just don't kill the ones you *choose* to participate in creating (i.e. embryos, fetuses, neonates, toddlers, on up through the developmental continuum).
You see, it *is* possible to be both prochoice and prolife. :)
From:
A woman who is working for change, functionally smarter than you all, and not afraid to speak her mind.