The Nationwide Effort To Restrict Reproductive Rights

As has been noted here and elsewhere, 2011 has seen a nationwide resurgence in the effort to curtail women's reproductive rights. I know! It's almost as if an entire political faction that preaches the importance of a small and unintrusive government doesn't actually mean it, right?

Here in Washington, D.C., we've seen the House of Representatives pass an amendment that would defund Planned Parenthood and attempt to create a whole new crazy definition of rape. And state governments have been doing much the same: South Dakota lawmakers briefly floated the idea of making protecting the unborn a justifiable reason to commit homicide -- with language that didn't make it clear that abortion providers who perform legal medical procedures wouldn't be, in some way, protected from the crazy people who believe they are morally allowed to murder them. That law's been shelved in South Dakota, but it's being emulated elsewhere.

And others are going further, including a Georgia lawmaker who's crafted a law that would make miscarriages a felony. Again, there's vague wording there, that seemingly exempts miscarriages that are not brought about by "human involvement." Unfortunately, medical professionals do not know, with precision, what causes miscarriages, and the law doesn't set sufficient parameters.

But that's all beside the point: why bring miscarriages into the matter at all? No one has ever suggested that miscarriages of any sort by subject to criminal penalty, so why start now? The answer is that this is all some "moving the Overton Window" nonsense -- by pushing boundaries further past the fringe, it makes the original fringe position more palatable. I've said this once before, but it bears repeating:

Just to review, the way this game is played is that a legislator will conceive of an absolutely insane anti-woman law, stoke outrage, then make a big show of relenting on the crazy part of the law in order to get what they want -- making abortion illegal -- enacted. They will then aver that this is the result of "negotiations" in which "all sides" have been "heard out" resulting in a "compromise."

Here, for your benefit, we've collected many examples of the ways in which reproductive rights are being encroached upon. Some are more reasonable sounding than others. There's a wide gulf between a radical redefinition of rape and a law that aims to shut down abortion providers in the name of enhanced patient comfort. But one thing that all of these laws have in common is that they suggest a deep and abiding belief that women are chattel.

1 of 10

Iowa Bill Allows The "Justifiable Use Of Deadly Force" To Protect The Unborn

1 of 11

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

Bill Premise: Two bills have been combined into one to essentially define an unborn fetus as a person. In protecting that person, the Iowa legislature wants to allow the use of deadly force against abortion doctors or family-planning practitioners. The far-reaching consequence is that if this bill passes, persons that harm or kill abortion providers would be protected under state law from persecution. From the Iowa Independent:

Also included in the proposal is a new section to the Iowa Code that would provide automatic criminal and civil immunity to a person who uses deadly force, unless a police investigation proves that the person was not acting "reasonably." Also key to the immunity clause is the fact that law enforcement would likely be barred from arresting a person at the scene of an incident "unless the law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force was unlawful under this chapter." If law enforcement does make an arrest, and if that person is later found to have used reasonable force by a court of law, taxpayers could be on the hook for the reimbursement of the person's attorney fees, court costs, compensation from loss of income and other expenses. [...] "Does this provide someone who is a person with an anti-abortion stance at least an opportunity that is more likely to get to a jury? I think the answer is yes," [associate professor of law at the University of Kansas Melanie D.] Wilson said.

Bill Status: Currently under debate.

gadgets/slideshows/218103/slide_218103_830691_small.jpg

Andy Gipson, Mississippi GOP Lawmaker: Gays Are Still Sinners, But I Don't Want Them Dead

Obama Air Force Academy Graduation: President In Colorado For Commencement Address

John Edwards Trial: Jurors Will Resume Talks Monday

Sarah Palin: Jeremiah Wright Is Fair Game (VIDEO)

Ron Paul Endorsed By Jon Hansen After Paring Back 2012 Presidential Campaign

Notre Dame, Catholic Groups Suing Obama Administration Over Birth Control Mandate

Bill Premise: Two bills have been combined into one to essentially define an unborn fetus as a person. In protecting that person, the Iowa legislature wants to allow the use of deadly force against abortion doctors or family-planning practitioners. The far-reaching consequence is that if this bill passes, persons that harm or kill abortion providers would be protected under state law from persecution.

From the Iowa Independent:

Also included in the proposal is a new section to the Iowa Code that would provide automatic criminal and civil immunity to a person who uses deadly force, unless a police investigation proves that the person was not acting "reasonably." Also key to the immunity clause is the fact that law enforcement would likely be barred from arresting a person at the scene of an incident "unless the law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force was unlawful under this chapter." If law enforcement does make an arrest, and if that person is later found to have used reasonable force by a court of law, taxpayers could be on the hook for the reimbursement of the person's attorney fees, court costs, compensation from loss of income and other expenses.

[...]

"Does this provide someone who is a person with an anti-abortion stance at least an opportunity that is more likely to get to a jury? I think the answer is yes," [associate professor of law at the University of Kansas Melanie D.] Wilson said.

Bill Status: Currently under debate.

comments(9231)

Total comments: 9231 | Post a Comment

1 of 11

Extreme or Reasonable?

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Reasonable Insane

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Biggest Overreach

loading...

Biggest Overreach

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[flhu]

11:59 AM on 04/07/2011

"We were elected for Jobs"
And how many of these bills are designated as HR-1, or HB-1, which means the first bill to be presented for vote on the session?

No, the right was elected because the "left", once in power, acted like the right usually does, and the liberal voters stayed home election day forgetting how much further Reich government can go.

[karo44]

06:08 PM on 04/06/2011

This argument has been going on forever. I am an independant who doesn't believe in abortion for myself but who doesn't judge another woman if she has one. Everyone has their own crosses to bear in this life with choices and decisions to make about what affects them personally. I don't understand with all the birth control out there why this is still an issue? Except for rape, incest or health of the mother or fetus there really is no reason for abortions in this day and age. Even a ten year-old knows having sex can lead to pregnancy.People need to be responsible for their actions or suffer the consequences. If you don't want a baby then make sure you don't get pregnant!! Yes I know BC isn't 100% reliable but its about 90% so in that case abortion should at least go down 90 % for women who use BC. Men need to step up also-just cause you don't want the kid doesn't mean you shouldn't pay to raise it!!!! Its called responsibility people!!!!! Better yet everyone wait until you get married before you have sex!! Just kidding-just wishful thinking I know but I do believe abortion should still be legal but that it shouldn't be used as a form of BC.

[Lindsey Gregory]

12:46 AM on 03/19/2011

Preborn???? What the what?

[MilesLong]

05:24 PM on 03/04/2011

Men have no voice in this debate, but their automatic entitlement issues will have them debate that. (laughing)

However, until you bear a child, sir, you have NO say in what a woman does with her body. Men do not own women, well except in the minds of conservatives with 18th Century mindsets...

Miles "Still...No Uterus, No Vote" Long

[freedomspeak]

03:06 PM on 03/01/2011

NO ONE CONTROLS MY FEMALE PARTS!! I DO!!! SO DONT TRY TO!! DICTATE TO ME GOP!! YOU ARE A BUNK OF W@@@@@@@@@@@ NK ERS!!

[freedom4allau]

09:18 AM on 03/01/2011

When I posted my comment that I believe in abortion, another poster told me I believed in murder. That is that persons' right. What I want to ask that person is though, if the mother does not want the child at all, or it is a child there because of rape or incest, are you, dvtaz willing to take that child in and raise it as your own? Are you willing to pay for the costs to raise that child?

You are using your xian beliefs on an issue. I do not share those beliefs. In my belief system, life does not begin until outside the womb. Late term abortions, only if the mothers' life is at risk. Again, what gives you dvtaz, the right to judge anyone on their decision? You are not god the last time I checked.

[boyd3b]

01:23 PM on 03/01/2011

"I do not share those beliefs. In my belief system, life does not begin until outside the womb. Late term abortions, only if the mothers' life is at risk. "

You contradicted yourself. Why would you only be supportive of late term abortions when the mother's life is at risk when you believe that the baby is never alive in the womb. If the baby is never alive in the womb, why not permit all abortions for whatever reason, including late term abortions?

Personally, I do not think the situation is a simplistic as saying "the baby is never alive in the womb." Doctors do not believe it, in fact, they constantly check for vitals signs of the baby while it is in the womb to make sure that it is alive and healthy. The baby also moves in the womb and its movement can be felt by the mother very early in pregnancy. I have never heard of a dead thing "moving." I have also never heard of a cancer twitching, moving kicking, and punching.

Plus, there is a line of people waiting to adopt infants, including my own siblings. They would love to take care of and raise the baby. Though it is sad that a lot of older children wait in the system for the same opportunity, bringing them up does not negate the fact that their are a lot of individuals who would love to adopt the babies that are aborted.

[freedomspeak]

03:04 PM on 03/01/2011

MORE UNWANTED BABIES!! YR IDEA STINKS!!

WHAT>>?? ARE YOU PAYING THE BILL??? FOR THE UNWANTED BABIES??

THEM LIVING IN CARE FOR EVER!!

GET REAL!!

[goatini]

08:45 PM on 03/01/2011

Women are NOT free of charge, public use Baby Ovens for the barren to plunder.

How disgusting, to think that you or your siblings or whoever are entitled to compel a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, into becoming your personal slave container from whence any ensuing issue are up for grabs.

Suggest that all barren individuals who want to legislate involuntary servitude for all women with unwanted pregnancies, should really be playing to their G-d to make their barren women fertile, instead of virtually jailing a stranger and then stealing the product of her womb without compensating the woman for her work, effort, sacrifice, and perhaps pregnancy-related injury up to and including death.

What a bunch of cheap, nasty, vicious exploiters, with such overwhelming entitlement!

[TedEjr]

10:14 PM on 03/01/2011

Posted---What I want to ask that person is though, if the mother does not want the child at all, or it is a child there because of rape or incest, are you, dvtaz willing to take that child in and raise it as your own? Are you willing to pay for the costs to raise that child? (End)

I concur. I have posted many times, that if someone wants to dictate to another, they need to take responsibility for their dictates. Which would mean either adopting or paying for all of the expenses involved in raising the child.

F&F

[SmileAndActNice]

09:02 PM on 02/28/2011

I offer this quote to you all in the context of both the abortion debate and the child support payment debate.

It is from the movie Serenity.

--------------
Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can MAKE PEOPLE ... better.

And I do not hold to that.
---------------

You can't force people to be better. You can't coerce love. You can't demand caring. You can't dictate responsibility. Especially in the context of parenthood.

But the really neat thing here is this.

If you wait long enough, and the kid doesn't get his or her dang fool self killed in the interim, most people come to a point in their life where they want to be a parent. On that day they will find in themselves a font of love and caring. And it will drive them to greater heights of responsibility.

This is an actual "Natural Law" and you can tell it is because you don't need to write laws or hire storm troopers to shove it down people's throats. It takes care of itself, naturally.

[Chaton de Malheur]

04:12 PM on 03/01/2011

Great series & film. Absurd analogy. When it comes to women’s rights, we are and have always been at a deficit. Bargaining away some rights in order to obtain others is unnecessary and unconscionable. We have plenty of opposition without the capitulation of Vichy-Feminists. Consider the fact that many of your “supporters” in your idea to trade child-support for a ban on contact with the children are men.

Child support was a hard-won benefit that should not be given up lightly. Millions of single-parent families would be pitched into destitution. You are operating on the assumption that all break-ups are contentious. This is simply not true. Many fathers want involvement and do contribute, they just are not consistent enough. The problem is that the woman has enough on her hands trying to raise children on her own, without the added duty of playing bill collector. A well meaning father isn’t necessarily going to pay enough or with enough regularity to meet his fair share of the cost of raising his offspring. Leaving this discussion open to constant negotiation and disagreement will almost certainly cause a deterioration in a formerly amicable cooperation between exes, and the children will inevitably be dragged into it.

[Dani09]

09:38 PM on 03/02/2011

"Great ser ies & film. Absurd analogy. When it comes to women’s rights, we are and have always been at a deficit. Bargaining away some rights in order to obtain others is unnecessar y and unconscion able."

Well said indeed, Chaton de Malheur. Already Fanned!

[joedaplumper]

10:57 AM on 02/28/2011

GOP abortion dilemma- They develop a test to see if the fetus is gay.

[Chaton de Malheur]

11:36 AM on 02/28/2011

Good one! F&F

[Aimee Bellefleur Hogan]

04:16 PM on 02/28/2011

LOL! X2!

[SportyJim]

11:58 AM on 02/28/2011

most in GOP believe that being Gay is a choice. The left believes your born that way

[joeyfoto]

01:26 PM on 02/28/2011

Most on what are being called "the left" — because Americans have no idea what it is to have a genuine left-wing in politics — believe in science... The GOP thinks that data is just another opinion because they prefer to stick with prejudice in favor of facts.

[PuSencer]

08:07 PM on 02/28/2011

most of us on the left believe in a round earth, a heliocentric solar system and genetics-- on a side note, the 'gay gene' has already been identified

[Miss Peaches]

10:56 AM on 02/28/2011

Keep your laws off my body! The conservatives cry this over national obesity but want to attack my reproductive system. How hypocritical!

[boyd3b]

01:27 PM on 03/01/2011

What about prostitution laws? What right does the government have to say I cannot make money on my body if I want to? What about drug laws? Why can't I trash my body if I want to?

Both Democrats and Republicans support these laws, yet they violate my right to privacy over my body. Why is there an exception for abortions?

[Miss Peaches]

02:09 PM on 03/01/2011

I don't disagree...like I said keep your laws off my body! If you want to sell it to make an inflated mortgage payment you should be able too as long as its sold with the consent of the bodies owner. Even politicians pay for it. If you want to trash your body with drugs you should be able just don't come into my house looking for things to support your habit.

[massnana]

08:41 AM on 02/28/2011

"Pre-natal citizens" I believe was the term used by a republican in Georgia. I am constantly going back to the annoying Constitution which states an individual must be "born" of a citizen or "born" in the U.S. in order to be protected by the Constitution. Republicans just can't wait for more hungry poor citizens to vote for them.

[LeftRight]

09:21 AM on 02/28/2011

Yessiree bob!!

I pointed out to a rightwingnutjob earlier on this article that the ONLY thing the Constitution says about it is "Natural Born Citizen" when referring to qualifications to be President. Otherwise it's just obviously assumed that we're talking about people who have been born. Of course there was never any intent to give Corporations legal personhood either, so it makes sense that they are fighting this fight.....

[massnana]

12:13 PM on 02/28/2011

I heard the corporations were born again.

[blewvelvet]

08:16 AM on 02/28/2011

When you have a population that is raised unwanted...it heavily increases the aggressiveness, too much competition for jobs, crime rate increases and brings down the economics of a communities.

[boyd3b]

01:29 PM on 03/01/2011

There is a waiting line for people who wish to adopt babies. There are people who would desperately wish to love and care for an unwanted baby. I have several siblings and one brother who is in that line.

[boyd3b]

01:35 PM on 03/01/2011

I meant to say "I have several friends and one brother who are . . . ." My bad.

[blewvelvet]

08:12 AM on 02/28/2011

Freakonomics - Correlation between "wanted children" and the incredible crime drop in NYC in the early 1990s (twenty years later when it was legalized in 1970 - 3 years before roe v wade.)

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/abortion/

[sharin]

09:14 AM on 02/28/2011

oh, come on velvet, these wrongwing loonies can't read... a lefty book like that
;-)

[Chaton de Malheur]

11:38 AM on 02/28/2011

LOL @ "wrongwing".

[JohnBryansFontaine]

07:54 AM on 02/28/2011

Georgia Lawmaker's Anti-Abortion Proposal Could Punish Women for Miscarriages

http://www.cafemom.com/group/33200/forums/read/13472858/Georgia_Lawmakers_Anti_Abortion_Proposal_Could_Punish_Women_for_Miscarriages

[eva07]

08:13 AM on 03/01/2011

Yeah, that is my favorite...

[Kayla M KingSmallwood]

01:27 AM on 02/28/2011

I love how some of these "pro-life" women get knocked up and get abortions because they think it's OK for them to do it but when other women make that choice it's horrible and they are against it. Can we say hypocrite?

[Chaton de Malheur]

11:17 AM on 02/28/2011

Yeah, but they prayed on it and god told them it was ok.