Kalipornia Dimocrats vote down bill outlawing sex-selection abortion

[Noomi]

I haven't had sex so am hardly a slut. Douche.

I'm here for you Noomi !

Don't count your chickens.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Politico]

And your IQ just dropped to under room temperature!

No but we know yours never has been.

You're right, it averages double room temperature, You're now under 60!

Yeah not....Only a moron would think someone would say yeah I am aborting because it is not the right sex. Can I have my felony charge now please?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Or it's around about way for right wingers to outlaw abortion altogether. Nice try though.

Sex-selective Abortion Bans: A Disingenuous New Strategy to Limit Women's Access to Abortion

At the end of the day, these advocates are fiercely denouncing PRENDA and its copycats because of their deep-seated conviction that the true motivations of the measures’ proponents have everything to do with undermining abortion rights and nothing to do with fighting gender discrimination—and that, in fact, the measures themselves threaten only to exacerbate that very problem. In written testimony opposing PRENDA, 24 organizations from the reproductive justice community had this to say: “This anti-choice measure dressed as an anti-discrimination bill…further exacerbates inequities and diminishes the health, well-being, and dignity of women and girls by restricting their access to reproductive health care. We represent the women and people of color this bill purports to protect, and we are announcing our unequivocal condemnation of it.”18 -

You guys would know about that, because that's what you do with gun restriction laws. Chip away, until guns are outlawed completely.

Incorrect.

Unlike the laws invalidated by the courts where conservatives have sought to deny women their right to privacy, the majority of recent gun control measures have been upheld as Constitutional, such as the New York SAFE Act.

Indeed, liberals accept Heller/McDonald as settled case law, and are making no efforts to ‘overturn’ those rulings – again, unlike conservatives who continue to seek to overturn GriswoldRoe/Casey.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hell's bells even freaking India has banned sex select abortions.

A statement which exhibits your ignorance of the American judicial system and contempt for the rule of law.

It also illustrates the propensity of most conservatives to seek to enhance the power and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hell's bells even freaking India has banned sex select abortions.

How do they prove the woman wants the abortion because the fetus is the 'wrong' sex?

They can’t, hence the idiocy of the OP’s premise.

This is a typical tactic of the American right, to contrive a controversy where none exists for some perceived political gain.

In this case those hostile to privacy rights for women are seeking to enact a ‘foot in the door’ measure designed to undermine privacy rights jurisprudence, where an ‘exemption’ to the right to privacy might be made in this case, then it might be made in another case.

It’s also an effort by conservatives to prop up the lie that women who seek abortions are ‘irresponsible’ and wish to end their pregnancies for ‘capricious’ reasons – when again nothing could be further from the truth.

And it’s a failed attempt by the partisan right to compel those defending the Constitution to take an unpopular stand on this non-issue, having everything to do with advancing the conservative political agenda hostile to individual liberty and nothing to do with prohibiting ‘gender abortions.’

It is difficult to determine which is more worthy of contempt, conservative hypocrisy or duplicity.

 

[Sallow]

So which party is it that has a war on women?

The GOP, clearly, given its propensity to seek to violate a woman’s right to privacy.

This inane proposed measure by republicans being one such example; not only is it a ‘solution’ in search of a problem, but it would be impossible to ‘enforce.’

This is nothing more than partisan demagoguery by republicans.

Exactly!!

There's no data to back this up. And anyone that's been to California? Knows that that gender abortion is not a problem.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Why CONSENT, as it is NO LONGER NEEDED in several states (Kalipornia, Conn., Hawaii, Maine, Nev., N.J., N.M., N.Y., Oregon, VT., & Wash.) for a girl UNDER AGE, to get an abortion!

I think you are a little confused here. PARENTAL consent isn't required for minors, the girl still has to consent. And this is a good idea because, frankly, more often than not, it was one of the parents that knocked her up to start with.

[
So why bother with CONSENT, when you just make it mandatory! The girl always has A CHOICE! Inform her of what is required BY LAW and she makes her mind up!

BTW, how many women have DIED while having an abortion compared to those that DIED from a tubal ligation???

Guy, you are just coming off more and more like a nutjob. You guys can't even pass a law prohibiting abortions in the first trimester, much less forcing sterilizations on women.

 

[Vigilante]

No but we know yours never has been.

You're right, it averages double room temperature, You're now under 60!

Yeah not....Only a moron would think someone would say yeah I am aborting because it is not the right sex. Can I have my felony charge now please?

Why answer the terminally stupid?....It is because I MIGHT be able to save JUST ONE LIBERAL from the INSANITY it causes....

Planned Parenthood's Okay With Sex-Selection Abortions in the U.S. | LifeNews.com

 

[Vigilante]

[

Why CONSENT, as it is NO LONGER NEEDED in several states (Kalipornia, Conn., Hawaii, Maine, Nev., N.J., N.M., N.Y., Oregon, VT., & Wash.) for a girl UNDER AGE, to get an abortion!

I think you are a little confused here. PARENTAL consent isn't required for minors, the girl still has to consent. And this is a good idea because, frankly, more often than not, it was one of the parents that knocked her up to start with.

[
So why bother with CONSENT, when you just make it mandatory! The girl always has A CHOICE! Inform her of what is required BY LAW and she makes her mind up!

BTW, how many women have DIED while having an abortion compared to those that DIED from a tubal ligation???

Guy, you are just coming off more and more like a nutjob. You guys can't even pass a law prohibiting abortions in the first trimester, much less forcing sterilizations on women.

The more I read you liberals demented comments the more I realize just how LOW many of the human race has devolved.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

The only exception was for abortion, which IS ILLOGICAL, letting a WOMAN decide life or death without punishment, that her husband was to face if HE
attempt to abort her baby for her!

 

[JoeB131]

The more I read you liberals demented comments the more I realize just how LOW many of the human race has devolved.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

The only exception was for abortion, which IS ILLOGICAL, letting a WOMAN decide life or death without punishment, that her husband was to face if HE
attempt to abort her baby for her!

well, that's a pretty stupid law in general.

And probably will be struck down if it is ever challenged in the courts.

Reality, though, even the BIble didn't consider fetuses to be people.


If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

 

[Vigilante]

The more I read you liberals demented comments the more I realize just how LOW many of the human race has devolved.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

The only exception was for abortion, which IS ILLOGICAL, letting a WOMAN decide life or death without punishment, that her husband was to face if HE
attempt to abort her baby for her!

well, that's a pretty stupid law in general.

And probably will be struck down if it is ever challenged in the courts.

Reality, though, even the BIble didn't consider fetuses to be people.


If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Well, you seem to be pretty stupid as it's a TEN YAR OLD LAW, and still ON THE BOOKS

Are you some sort of religious hating freak, as you keep bringing religion into our conversations when YOU know I'm agnostic! I talk science and you can't refute that!

 

[Faun]

How about you ask them?

Abortion is a Constitutional right. YOU don't get to decide what reasons qualify for a woman to choose. Get over it already.

Please show me where in the Constitution it says "ABORTION".

What a moron you are, Vagisil. You apparently don't know that we have a U.S. Supreme Court which decides what is, or is not, Constitutional. And they ruled that abortion is a right protected by the Constitution.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

 

[Vigilante]

Abortion is a Constitutional right. YOU don't get to decide what reasons qualify for a woman to choose. Get over it already.

Please show me where in the Constitution it says "ABORTION".

What a moron you are, Vagisil. You apparently don't know that we have a U.S. Supreme Court which decides what is, or is not, Constitutional. And they ruled that abortion is a right protected by the Constitution.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Pawn, you asshole, a SCOTUS decision is NOT WRITTEN in the Constitution! It can also be amended! Fruitcake!

 

[Faun]

Please show me where in the Constitution it says "ABORTION".

What a moron you are, Vagisil. You apparently don't know that we have a U.S. Supreme Court which decides what is, or is not, Constitutional. And they ruled that abortion is a right protected by the Constitution.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Pawn, you asshole, a SCOTUS decision is NOT WRITTEN in the Constitution! It can also be amended! Fruitcake!

Holyfuck, Vagisil, just how rightarded are you? Laws don't have to be explicitly written in the Constitution to be Constitutional. It's one of the reason we have a judicial branch; to make such determinations.

Are you also under the delusion that other rights, such as the right to get married and have children, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the presumption of innocence when facing a trial; are not rights because they are not exclusively mentioned in the Constitution??

 

[Vigilante]

What a moron you are, Vagisil. You apparently don't know that we have a U.S. Supreme Court which decides what is, or is not, Constitutional. And they ruled that abortion is a right protected by the Constitution.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Pawn, you asshole, a SCOTUS decision is NOT WRITTEN in the Constitution! It can also be amended! Fruitcake!

Holyfuck, Vagisil, just how rightarded are you? Laws don't have to be explicitly written in the Constitution to be Constitutional. It's one of the reason we have a judicial branch; to make such determinations.

Are you also under the delusion that other rights, such as the right to get married and have children, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the presumption of innocence when facing a trial; are not rights because they are not exclusively mentioned in the Constitution??

If not directly written into the Constitution, it is all INTERPRETATION by 9 UNELECTED people.... sounds like DEMOCRACY to me!

 

[JoeB131]

The more I read you liberals demented comments the more I realize just how LOW many of the human race has devolved.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

The only exception was for abortion, which IS ILLOGICAL, letting a WOMAN decide life or death without punishment, that her husband was to face if HE
attempt to abort her baby for her!

well, that's a pretty stupid law in general.

And probably will be struck down if it is ever challenged in the courts.

Reality, though, even the BIble didn't consider fetuses to be people.


If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Well, you seem to be pretty stupid as it's a TEN YAR OLD LAW, and still ON THE BOOKS

Are you some sort of religious hating freak, as you keep bringing religion into our conversations when YOU know I'm agnostic! I talk science and you can't refute that!

guy, you talking science is like watching a monkey operate a calculator. Amusing at first, but depressing after a while.

It's a ten year old law that has had almost no real cases applied to it, usually because when they charge for the death of a fetus, the mother was also killed. SO it's kind of like all those rapists who got charged with sodomy... just piling on.

 

[Statistikhengst]

well, that's a pretty stupid law in general.

And probably will be struck down if it is ever challenged in the courts.

Reality, though, even the BIble didn't consider fetuses to be people.


If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Well, you seem to be pretty stupid as it's a TEN YAR OLD LAW, and still ON THE BOOKS

Are you some sort of religious hating freak, as you keep bringing religion into our conversations when YOU know I'm agnostic! I talk science and you can't refute that!

guy, you talking science is like watching a monkey operate a calculator. Amusing at first, but depressing after a while.

It's a ten year old law that has had almost no real cases applied to it, usually because when they charge for the death of a fetus, the mother was also killed. SO it's kind of like all those rapists who got charged with sodomy... just piling on.

 

[Faun]

Pawn, you asshole, a SCOTUS decision is NOT WRITTEN in the Constitution! It can also be amended! Fruitcake!

Holyfuck, Vagisil, just how rightarded are you? Laws don't have to be explicitly written in the Constitution to be Constitutional. It's one of the reason we have a judicial branch; to make such determinations.

Are you also under the delusion that other rights, such as the right to get married and have children, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the presumption of innocence when facing a trial; are not rights because they are not exclusively mentioned in the Constitution??

If not directly written into the Constitution, it is all INTERPRETATION by 9 UNELECTED people.... sounds like DEMOCRACY to me!

Yes, you infinite idiot. That's how our Constitution works. Plus (are ya sitting down?), we're not a democracy. Don't you know anything? Stop watching Fox, it's dumbing you down.

And I notice you didn`t answer the question ... which of these do you believe are unconstitutional:

- marriage
- having children
- trial by jury
- Miranda rights
- presumption of innocence
- the airforce

c'mon, speak up. I can't hear ya.

 

[Noomi]

Vigilante will have a coronary if he keeps on like this.