Republicans Support Birth Control

[Plaid Adder]

So, many of you have already heard about a law being proposed in the Indiana State Legislature that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to conceive a child through 'assisted reproduction' (artificial insemination, IVF, etc.) without first obtaining a "certificate of parenting." Oh, and that certificate of parenting? You could only get one if you were legally married.

I swear to God it's all true:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051005/NEWS02/510050438/1006/NEWS01

This law would make it illegal for any unmarried woman to have a child through any means other than unprotected sexual intercourse with a man. And one gets the sense, reading these stories, that they would make that a misdemeanor too if they could figure out how to enforce it.

Do I really need to point out that this is fascism?

It's not enough they need to control pregnancy from the moment of conception onward. The party of 'small government' also needs to control the process of conception itself. Apparently State Senator Patricia Miller thinks this is justified because it's in the best interests of children to grow up with heterosexual married parents. So does that mean that if the parents get divorced after the child is born, the state will arrest both of them for a Class B misdemeanor? Or maybe the state would just take the child away from them. Why not. They could also go around confiscating the children of parents who stopped going to church (the evaluation process asks about your churchgoing habits). Then they could give those children away to nice churchgoing married heterosexual couples who really deserve them.

Why stop there? After all, it's in the child's best interest to grow up with a lot of money. So why should we allow poor families to have children? Why not pass laws forbidding anyone to reproduce who doesn't make $50,000 a year? Then we could arrest all of them and distribute their children to the deserving rich church-going heterosexual married couples.

And hey, isn't it in the child's best interest to grow up healthy? So why should we allow people who are disabled to pass on their genetic material? It's only going to hurt the children. Let's criminalize that, and then at least once we've locked the parents up, we can distribute the poor genetically tainted children to deserving rich church-going heterosexual ablebodied married couples.

It is one thing to try to do the best thing for children who already exist. It is a completely different form of government interference to dictate which children shall and shall not be conceived. When it comes to fetuses, this party never accepts the argument that the child would be better off not existing if it's going to be born to an unwed mother. Yet somehow, that argument now magically becomes powerful enough to justify the criminalization of conception itself.

I don't know what they're calling this bill down in Indianapolis, but I'll tell you what I'm going to call it: Pre-Emptive Abortion. Their slogan should be "Terminate Pregnancies Before They Start!" Or how about, "Republicans: Suddenly, We're The Party of Birth Control!" Or no, wait, maybe "Pro-Life...but not THAT Life!"

Faugh,

The Plaid Adder

[atommom]

1. Someone needs to make posters of those slogans, pronto!

And you're right ... they've turned into parodies of their own bad selves, and they don't even realize it. :shrug:

[LisaM]

2. It's pretty unreal, isn't it? And all the burden is on women

I think it's pretty unlikely to go through, but the very thought of it is so offensive. It would also open up an unregulated market for sperm, if you ask me - with no health controls attached.

[ClintonTyree]

19. "A Handmaid's Tale", coming to a fascist state near you......

with the exception of a few twists here and there this could have been taken from the pages of "A Handmaid's Tale". This is some scary shit and you KNOW this is the direction they're heading. If we don't stop it now we'll be there before you know it.

[prolesunited]

20. Margaret Atwood once said

that the book wasn't intended to be a blueprint.

[StopRoy]

3. Everything you said satirically...

...is probably not far from their minds. The rabbit hole goes pretty deep with this bunch. It's definitely a process of disenfranchising the undesirables. Preventing them from reproducing is just a logical step.

[rpannier]

4. Very wise

Excellent post Plaid Adder

[cynatnite]

5. Here's another frightening story backing your source...

Oct 5 - A legislative commission in Indiana may recommend the state adopt strict new rules governing medically-assisted reproduction. The proposed legislation would bar unmarried people from having babies except through sexual intercourse and makes doing so – or even attempting to do so – a misdemeanor.

The Indiana Health Finance Commission, a 22-meember interim body composed of lawmakers from both state houses, is set to vote later this month on the measure prohibiting unmarried couples from using "assisted reproduction," a category that includes sperm or egg donation, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization and sperm infection. The bill would require married couples to obtain state sanction entering into any "gestational agreement." If the commission passes the measure, it would likely go before the entire assembly in the next legislative session.

Indiana Planned Parenthood President and CEO Betty Cockrum told the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette that the idea is "chilling," and warned of "governmental intrusion into a very private part of our lives."

Same-sex and unmarried couples, as well as singles, would be legally prevented from using methods other than sexual intercourse to have a family under the legislation. In most cases, Indiana adoption law already prevents singles and homosexuals from adopting children, the Journal Gazette noted.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2445

on edit: If this passes it will be challenged up to the SC. Looking at how it's being stacked what makes anyone think they would strike it down?

[B3Nut]

10. So much for smaller government....

...next thing you know, they'll be going after the deliberately childless (like myself and Mrs. Nut). :scared: Bugger off, you worthless assemblage of meddlesome fools! Mind your own damn hypocritical business, you feckless gaggle of repressed perverts! :grr:

Hmmm....my heated-rhetoric generator's a little rusty this morning...I need more :donut: :D

Todd in Beerbratistan :beer:

[Inland]

6. IN men insist on trying again and again the old fasioned way

Think of it as a government works project, where one looks at the most labor intensive way of making a park so as to provide the most employment.

This is a Indiana man get laid project, where men have to keep plugging away at women proven infertile, rather than use high tech but no-lay forms of impregnation.

[The Doctor.]

7. LOL! Actually, I've (unofficially) advocated parental 'pre-qualification'

psychology tests.

Would you like to see your children succeed?
Would you help them attain that success even it it meant being harsh?
Is your carreer important enough to utilize day care during business hours?
Do you own everything you need to own?
Do you want more?
"I have never lost my temper" (SA/A/D/SD)
"It is sometimes important to use harsh dicipline"(SA/A/D/SD)
"My child will be reading before other children"(SA/A/D/SD)

etc. etc.

I've often wondered how many of these 'Republican' and 'Right to Life' legislators would score.

-But I'll bet I could guess.

[Tsiyu]

8. Did I die and wake up in Bizarro World?

Great writing, as always PA, but what the hell.

Righties never cease to amaze and disgust me.


BTW, does this mean only married men should be able to get Viagra?

[Marnieworld]

9. Exactly

Thank goodness it was stopped-this time. Between this and Bennett's "Solution" you'd think they were abortion fanatics.

[AllyCat]

11. Fortunately stopped this time. Sponsoring senator withdraws bill.

But you know it's only a matter of time before this "pro-birth" (to the right people) nutcase party finds new language into which they can wrap this same, stupid idea.

What more do they want? People who are childless already have to have the means to pay for infertility treatments. It's not like it's covered by medicaid or something. The poor are already prevented from reproducing as they would like (either have or not have kids). My guess is this was aimed SOLEY at homosexuals. :mad:

[dogday]

12. The fact that he felt he could introduce this bill

raises quite a few concerns with me.

[AllyCat]

16. Believe it or not, it was a WOMAN who introduced the bill!!! nt

[imperialismispasse]

13. They are even screening the married couples

You dont just have to be married, you have to pass some sort of screening to get your certificate.

[JHB]

14. They want to outlaw the Virgin Mary

I wish I could take credit for the idea, but someone one a thread yesterday on this topic pointed out that Jesus's mother Mary (according to Christian theology) was an unmarried woman who had "a child through any means other than unprotected sexual intercourse with a man."

I wonder what Indiana Catholics will say?

[ClintonTyree]

21. Hey, you gotta' hand it to Mary........

no one could ever use THAT excuse again! ;)

[meow2u3]

15. Republicans also support abortion

Even if they claim to oppose legalized abortion, they secretly want it to be kept legal. The reason? Welfare claims will skyrocket and they don't want to foot the bill for all the poor kids being born. They'd rather punish the women.

[underpants]

17. Prescott Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_S._Bush

Bush was an acquaintance of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and herself an avowed eugenicist. Margaret Sanger is on record favoring infanticide, compulsory sterilization, and (arguably) genocide <2>. These accusations have been denounced by the Bush family, who indicate that Prescott Bush's aquaintance with Sanger were a result of his pro-choice beliefs. In fact, Prescott Bush served as Treasurer for Planned Parenthood's first national fund raising campaign in 1947 <3>

[ClintonTyree]

18. As usual, Adder.......

a spot on satirical, but in some ways all too real, punch to the groin of the theo-fascists. Great article and thanks for passing this information on to us all. It's mind boggling, isn't it?

[catrose]

22. I keep thinking I'm going to wake up...

but I keep waking up, and some new horror greets me everyday.

Thanks, PA, for keeping us in the loop.

[bloom]

23. Today in the Herald Times (Bloomington, Indiana paper)...

by Mike Leonard

"When Indiana University professor Ruth Engs read of the proposal, "The first thing I thought of was, 'Shades of the eugenics movement,'" she said Wednesday afternoon.

"The same thing happened at the turn of the (20th) century. You had people pass legislation to prevent individuals from reproducing who had different values than the people proposing the legislation," Engs said.

The professor of applied health science knows more than a little about the subject. Earlier this year, her book, "The Eugenics Movement: An Encyclopedia," was published by the Greenwood Press.

"What happened was that there was forced sterilization or the separation of individuals who were deemed not worthy of reproducing, including the feeble-minded, which could include anyone with a learning disability or mental-health problem, the uneducated, the poor and particularly, uppity women who had sex outside of marriage," Engs said. "Women who smoked, drank or had several sexual partners.

"So when we're talking about gays, lesbians and unmarried individuals," Engs went on, "we're back to talking about certain groups of society considered not worthy of reproducing, so whether it's forced sterilization or the denial of reproductive alternatives, we're talking about pretty similar things."

The measure Miller proposed was disturbing for a number of reasons, including the haunting echo of history. Indiana passed the first eugenics law in the country in 1907. It later became a primary influence on the Nazi eugenics program in Germany that resulted in the forced sterilization of an estimated 400,000 people."

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/10/06/column.1006-HT-A9_PM049060.sto?lin

[Plaid Adder]

24. Well, I'm glad someone noticed the parallels.

This is totally a hangover from the good old days of eugenics. A lot of the right's reproductive policies are, IMHO.

I wrote up this FAQ a long time ago, but it still bears reading:

http://www.plaidder.com/eugen.htm

:scared:

The Plaid Adder

[bloom]

25. In an update...

to this:

"You may have noticed that there was a slight contradiction in the Republicans' Contract for America, which on the one hand advocated cutting welfare benefits for mothers who continued to have children while on welfare and on the other hand favored giving middle-class families a tax cut for every child they had...."


I saw this on Democracy Now! a couple days ago:

"As criticism about the government's slow response to the disaster mounted, President Bush gave a televised address where he promised to address racial inequality and implement plans to help the poor. And Congress is now considering various plans to give relief to the victims of the disaster including an expansion of the Child Tax Credit which first passed in 1997. The credit is an actual reduction in taxes as opposed to just a deduction in taxable income. It allows families to reduce the federal income tax they owe by up to $500 dollars per child per year. In 2001, President Bush extended the credit to $1,000 dollars and made it partly available to families too poor to have income tax bills. The credit phases out at incomes above $110,000 dollars and below $11,000 meaning the wealthiest and the poorest families receive nothing.

Bush has touted the child tax credit as proof that the steep tax cuts he's implemented since he's been in office don't just benefit the wealthy but are good for low-income families as well. But a new study by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center shows that the program does not benefit almost half of African-American and Latino children. And it turns out that the children who see the least benefit from the credit are in Mississippi and Louisiana."

(a discussion follows)

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/04/144244

[cynatnite]

27. Fucking scary!

They put it in the drawer for now. I wouldn't be surprised if they dragged this shit back up later on down the road. These people have no morals.

[RB TexLa]

26. Apply a true "conservative" principle

Just more trying to make different classes of citizens. This is where I think most all Americans believe in a what I call a true "conservative" principle, until the government HAS to step in, it should leave people the hell alone!

[FighttheFuture]

28. I do NOT see the fascism here. I do see the rise of a theocracy.

It's an important distinction. Both are deadly to democracy and individual rights. I suspect, however, that Fascism would be easier to defeat than a theocracy. One is based on greed and selfishness which wants to take and keep, the other on unquestionable faith which has little fear of destroying all if it cannot have its way.

[bloom]

31. fascism characteristic #5 - Rampant Sexism

by Lawrence Britt

Rampant Sexism

"The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy."

(with shades of #8 & 10)

Religion and Government are Intertwined

"Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions."

Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

See this link for the other 11:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRI411A.html

[free2decide]

29. wow, glad we didn't go there

That is sort of scary I agree, but not suprising. The debate over embryonic sem cells has brought awareness to the fact that many embryos are discarded through these processes causing many on the right to re-evaluate their position on IV fertilizaion. Most people on the left an right would likely agree that the world would be better if infertile couples adopted rather then use science to concieve. But of course evolution has people wanting to carry on their own line of genes.

Lionel Tiger, in a provocative book called The Decline of Males, posits a brilliant and disturbing new paradigm. He notes we used to think of a family as a man, a woman, and a child. Now, a remarkable new family pattern has emerged which he labels "bureaugamy." A new trinity: a woman, a child, and a bureaucrat." Professor Tiger contends that most, if not all, of the gender gap that elected Bill Clinton to a second term in 1996 is explained by this phenomenon. According to Tiger, women moved in overwhelming numbers to the Democratic party as the party most likely to implement policies and programs which will support these new reproductive strategies. Professor Tiger is not critical of these strategies. But it sort of worries me, because the more government becomes a part of this new family structure, the more government will want to play that father role and help decide things. In China the government went there, and had forced reproductive stratigies to get the population under control, which arguably is going to help them out.

[colorado thinker]

30. Ok, now I'm officially creeped out

What the hell is going on in this country? Who are these people? Maybe that alien abduction theory isn't so crazy, it would appear that all these evangelicals have had their brains sucked out.:tinfoilhat: