Bush just signed "abortion bill"....

[berner59]

The bill to protect fetuses killed along with the Mom... Had some fancy WH ceremony signing but CNN's headline under it was: "Kerry voted against it"!!!! WTF??? CNN - figures...

[SeattleDem]

1. but Kerry voted FOR

the failed Democratic amendment that offered stricter penalties for harming a pregnant woman while committing a crime, but why should they mention that??

[tom_paine]

2. CNN is odious Corporate Pravda

Worse than Faux because more people believe it actually IS Fair Und Balanced News.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

CNN s almost as pro-Bush as Faux---they are just more stelthy about it (though not to people with eyes open)

[outinforce]

17. Why?

What did CNN do?

[tom_paine]

27. Not what they do. What they ARE.

Day after day after day. 1000s of examples scattered all throughout the archives.

Where to begin?

Judy Whordruff? Bill "AEI/PNAC" Schneider, that Fair Und Balanzed observer of politics? Wolf "I'm a Whore" Blitzer? Candy "I'm Even More of a Whore Than Wolf" Crowley?

My God, if you don't know what I'm talking about, you haven;t been paying attention.

[outinforce]

30. OK, But

what was it that CNN did in connection with its coverage of * signing this particular bill that was so odious?

I ask because I did not see CNN's coverage of the bill signing.

[salin]

32. Perhaps posts 1 and 2 combined

explain the reaction. Misleading - or incomplete (given one's perception) caption/scroll during the coverage.

[tom_paine]

33. I didn't see it either. I was making a point seperate from the specific

thread topic.

[quispquake]

3. Was Bush surrounded by white males again???

Like the 'late term' signing?

[buff2]

13. Of course

The sleazy creep was surrounded by Tom Delay,Rick Santorum amongst the rest of the usual thugs. I turned the tv on just in time to see them.....immediately turned it back off.

[olacan]

4. perhaps

I missed something here but how is this an abortion bill, as I understand the bill covers if you kill a women and baby while committing a crime.

[rinsd]

6. Well...

...some feel this is an attempt to establish fetuses as holders of rights equal to born children. While it is now a Federal law, I think over 20 states have something similar.

I wanted to add that Scott Petersen(the impetus for this recent action) is being charged under existing CA law.

[berner59]

9. this is another step....

in the government getting involved in a fetus's rights... Thought there was something in this that caused Dems not to vote for it... Plus this bill was pushed by the pro-life gang which always insn't good... Little by little...they're sneaking in bills which mask the overall push to overturn Roe v Wade...

[outinforce]

11. I Think I Am Correct When I Say

that 17 Senate Democrats (including at least one member of the Democratic Senate Leadership, Sen. Reid from Nevada) found nothin in the bill that would cause them to vote against it.

And I think the bill had a number of Democratss in the House who also voted for it.

[rinsd]

18. The House passed it several times...

CBS News article on latest passage;

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/25/politics/main608647.shtml

Here's the roll call though I found it ona right to life site via Google.

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/UVVArollcallvote.html

[SemperEadem]

16. next, the fetus will have the right to vote from inside the womb

but will only be allowed to vote republican..

I wonder do they care about immigrant fetuses too, or is it ok to beat on undocumented pregnant women and kill their fetuses because they're here illegally...

[outinforce]

20. My Guess is This

My guess is that before there would be any serious discussion of enfranchising fetuses, there would almost have to be serious (or as serious as it could be) discussion of enfranchasing 1-year-old babies.

Concerning your comment about whether or not it is OK to beeat on undocumented prengant women --

I think I am corredt when I say that the laws of most states make it a crime to beat on a woman, regardless of whether or not she is pregnant, and regardless of whether or not she is in the country legally.

What this bill does it to say that in the commission of a federal crime, if a woman is attacked and her unborn hcild is killed, there are two victims -- and that applies to any woman and her unborn child.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. Wow I haven't seen you since you advocated FOR tort reform on my threads

way back when. I never forget a handle.

[ewagner]

5. Had CNN on mute

and saw the graphic........

They're getting an email on this one!

This is over the top campaigning for Bushco!!!!!!

[outinforce]

7. Abortion Bill??!!

What has this bill to do with abortion?

It specifically excludes abortion from any of its provisions.

[xxqqqzme]

10. Bcuz now a woman

aborting a pregnancy can B charged w/ MURDER because it gives rights to an unborn FETUS! In one more step a woman seeking an abortion will have to have a guardian ad litem appointed 2 'protect' the fetus' rights. One more step 2 making women second class citizens.

[outinforce]

14. This is just not correct

Your assertion that this bill now criminalizes what a woman might choose to do to the fetus within her is just not accurate.

A woman who has an abortion cannot be charged with murder.

Your statement is not true.

[rinsd]

21. Another step?

CA has had this law on the books since the 70's.

Good info:

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/feticide.htm

[Heyo]

23. Not true...

The women herself is excluded...

As is an abortion provider..

The only person who can be charged is a third party aggressor...

It's not an "abortion bill" or anything like that, as much as the rabid 'abortion-at-all-costs-even-until-age-5' lobby would have you believe.

(BTW I am pretty much pro-choice)

Heyo

[rinsd]

24. Chuckle....

You just reminded me of a South Park episode.

[Heyo]

29. Hehe yeah I remember that...

That was funny....

[jmowreader]

34. These bills are so easy to amend, though

Find some unrelated bill, stick "strike the word 'not' from line 17 of paragraph 6 of 17USC44.13" (or whatever the US Code paragraph will be) into said bill, and abortion instantly becomes illegal everywhere in the United States.

I do not think the pro-fetus crowd will stop with overturning Roe; there were several states (Washington State being one) where abortion was perfectly legal prior to Roe. They need to outlaw abortion nationally, at least for the women who can't afford a discreet physician who's been taking care of their family for six generations to perform a "menstrual extraction" procedure on them.

[outinforce]

37. If You Truly Think

If you truly think that amending this particular bill in that particular manner would be "easy", then I think I may have a bridge in New York that I may want to talk to you about purchasing.

[rinsd]

39. "These bills are so easy to amend, though" ?????????

"Find some unrelated bill, stick "strike the word 'not' from line 17 of paragraph 6 of 17USC44.13" (or whatever the US Code paragraph will be) into said bill, and abortion instantly becomes illegal everywhere in the United States."

It took years just for this bill to get through Congress and to Bush's desk. The chances of the above happening are as likely as Bush announcing his isn't running for a 2nd term. There is nothing "easy" about legislation especially when it deals with abortion.

[jmowreader]

40. Wait till a possible Bush second term...

If the village idiot gets a majority in both houses of Congress again--especially if he can BBV up a supermajority in the Senate--he'll either amend this or launch a bill that specifically outlaws abortion.

No matter what it is, if it's bad Bush will figure out a way to accomplish it.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. "Hey uncka Dick, I thought I paid that YEARS ago..."

[Vickers]

28. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

Took me a minute, but DAMN that's funny!

:toast:

[ewagner]

12. My e-mail to CNN

This is too much!

You are supposed to be the "Most Trusted Name in News" and you have violated that trust.

During the signing ceremony for the Protection of Unborn Bill, you found it necessary to put a graphic under the picture of the President stating "Sen. John Kerry Voted Against the Bill".

Why was that necessary? Why did YOU choose to politicize the issue? Why did you give President Bush a 3-minute campaign commercial?

I have been only mildly upset about the apparent bias of Wolf Blitzer and Darren Kagen over the past few days but this really boils my blood! CNN is no longer on my "favorites" option on my remote. As far as I am concerned you have just joined FOX News in the fraternity of Right wing shills.


signed.

[outinforce]

15. I'm Curious Here

If you think that this bill is so truly out of the mainstream of American politics, then why would you not think it a good thing for CNN to inform its veiwers that John Kerry had the good sense not to vote for this bill?

Can it be that you truly think that Kerry's vote against this bill will hurt his election chances?

I would think that you would welcome any opportunity to tout that Kerry voted against a bill that you regard as so dangerous and outside America's mainstream.

What I am missing here???

[ewagner]

19. My anger

is that they are pandering to the right wing base and fueling the resentment toward Kerry.

[outinforce]

22. How So?

How is simply stating the fact that Kerry voted against the bill "pandering" to anyone?

You could just as much make the argument that showing * signing the bill is "pandering" to the pro-choice forces within the country and fueling resentment against him, couldn't you?

[polazarus]

25. Look at it this way (for a couple of seconds)

A woman has a right to choose to keep her baby or not. If a woman chooses to keep the baby and some killer infringes on her decision by harming her unborn baby then he/she should be punished. This actually is protecting the womans right to choose.

Personally,

If me and my wife decide to have a child and someone attacks my wife causing my child to die, I would want them charged for murder. It was our conscience decision to have a child and our child deserves a right to live.

[Vickers]

26. Does Georgie realize he is pro-choice?

" Bush has said he doesn't believe the country is ready to completely ban abortions; he opposes them except in cases of rape or incest or when pregnancy endangers a woman's life. "

Story here

[outinforce]

31. Probably Not.....But, then,

I would bet that there are more than a few "pro-choice" folks who would be surprized to learn that they are pro-life.

[Malva Zebrina]

35. one day, Americans, and even American women will wake up

and realize that they no longer have control over their lives, or their bodies.

Once the philosophy of abortion extends to deeming that a fetus or, I think even in this bill, an embryo, has rights, the end of women's rights is not far behind.

Once more, women are ruthlessly quashed by men and even some rich bitch women whose career depends upon them quasing thier own and they don't care as long as they got theirs--are second class--with rights that are less than that of a four celled possible , but obvious not, human being. It truly is a "Handmaid's Tale"

Someone said they saw a sign at a protest that said "menstruation is murder"

[outinforce]

36. Please Explain How This Bill

"ruthlessly quashes" women and makes women into citizens "with rights that are less than that of a four-celled possible, but obvious not, human being."

It specifically excludes from its coverage the act of abortion.

[Skittles]

41. if you cannot understand

what the real reason is for these "fetus" laws - if you really think it's to "protect the babies and their mothers", I have some bridges you seriously need to consider buying.

[Malva Zebrina]

42. Think--that is all that is necessary

women are not "vessels" without rights as human beings to orchestrate their lives as they see fit. And that orchestration may at some point include aborting an unwanted pregnancy. And, according to the law, so far, that has been the law and any woman wanting to control her own body and her family and her life by exercisting that right, was not to be condemned as a "murderer"

With this bill, given a little time, because now the door has been opened--ie that is that a fetus is human being with rights while it is still unborn into the world will logically and eventually cause the laws to go against women who seek abortions. It validates the Christian notion that a human being with something ethereal and never proven called a "soul", is present from the moment of conception--that is a blob is or will be, considered a full human being with rights that supercede a woman's right to control her own life and her own body. That is where this is headed, philosophically.

Think seriously about what this means. Declaring a blastocyst a human being with rights. Think about it. This bill covers the entire pregnancy from conception onward. It in effect states that killing a blastocyst is manslaughter.



The bill covers this blastocyst blob and considers that anyone who kills that is guilty of murder or manslaughter.

These supercilious male pricks who are so afraid of women and their power over them, and their fawning bitches who only seek to please their "man", know that they have now broken down the Roe vs Wade barrier without having to face the accusation that they abolished it, and are in total control over women and their reproductive lives since now, even a small collection of cells can be called "human beings "with rights.

That is unconscionable.

May they suffer forever from impotency no matter how much viagra they may overdose on. May their equally as compliant, prudish wives suffer forever in their seeking a male to satisy them. May these ghouls be forever doomed to total sexual impotence and frustration.

[outinforce]

43. There Were Plenty Of Women

I did not see CNN's live coverage of the signing of this bill, but I did see some pictures in this morning's newspaper.

And I have to say that there were several women applauding * as he signed the bill.

THe newsreports also said that 80% of the American people support this bill -- and the notion that when a pregnant woman is killed, there are two vicitims, and not just one.

And the newspaper also said that over 20 states already have laws on the books similiar to this one.

So I really do fail to see how the passage of this one bill --which leave abortion completely legal -- means that a small group of men "have now broken down the Roe vs Wade barrier without having to face the accusation that they abolished it, and are in total control over women and their reproductive lives since now, even a small collection of cells can be called "human beings "with rights."

It would appear, to me at least, that even a large group of people who would ordinarilt call thenmselves "pro-choice" support this bill, and that opposition to it is limited to people on the far extreme of this issue.

[Malva Zebrina]

45. You are not thinking

Something that is not born, but is unborn, is not yet a born human being with rights that supercede a woman's rights. Think. Something not born cannot have rights over that of someone who is fully born and participating in society as a fully grown human being.

The logical fallacy of ad populum http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html is a major flaw in your argument. That 80% approve does not mean this is a good thing for women and for women's rights.

If you cannot see the danger here, especially knowing how this administration is eager to do away with abortion rights and thereby keep women second class citizend whose rights are less than something that is "unborn" is ridiculous.

[xchrom]

38. slipping farther into the

dark ages.
barbarians running the show.