Wisconsin GOP: Forcing Women To Undergo Transvaginal Ultrasounds Is Our ‘Priority"

[TemplarKormac]

I have never had an abortion. Since you are such an expert on them, how many have you had?

I gotta wonder how much experience you have with men, you an expert?

Not in the least, which is why I don't go around trying to make medical decisions for men.

But you can play the role of executioner?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's not because she doesn't know it...it's because she made a disparaging comment about American involvement that was incorrect...and then snarled that we shouldn't expect her to know.

Nobody expected her to know. She offered her stupid commentary on a subject she knew nothing about. She has admitted she just made shit up for argument's sake.

Which is kind of disturbing.

Advice to Noomi:

"Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."

-Abraham Lincoln

 

[Dot Com]

omg...cruel and immoral..can you be any more dramatic?
...you ever have a pap smear?
if you want I'll give you the details and then you can judge if it's cruel and immoral..good grief

ask "Dottie".....

you know you don't have to be a FAILTroll EVERY DAY of your life. Well, maybe in your case you do.

As to the OP, yeah, the Repub base is overplaying their hand AGAIN

for asswipes clarification

It's not because she doesn't know it...it's because she made a disparaging comment about American involvement that was incorrect...and then snarled that we shouldn't expect her to know.

Nobody expected her to know. She offered her stupid commentary on a subject she knew nothing about. She has admitted she just made shit up for argument's sake.

Which is kind of disturbing.

NEWSFLASH!!! Your obsession w/ talking about lady's bits 24/7 & how you want to police them according to your sky pixie's dictates "is kind of disturbing"

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's against the law to commit murder. In my state, if you kill a pregnant woman, and her child dies too; that's two counts of murder. It's a wonder why people like you never grasp the value of life.

You know, when you're too stupid to know your own state laws, you might be well advised not to talk about them as if you do.

When I'm studying for a bar exam, it helps if I do, you dolt. Have codes from all 50 states stored on my hard drive, and I update them each legislative session. So, I know plenty.

Check it. And do your research, oh mouthy one.

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-80 defines feticide. A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick" by causing any injury to the mother of such child. The penalty for feticide is imprisonment for life.

Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-393.1 defines vehicular feticide and provides for penalties.

Ga. Code Ann. § 52-7-12.3 defines the term "unborn child" to mean a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb. The law defines feticide by watercraft in the first and second degrees and provides for penalties.

God help us if someone like you could ever be a lawyer.

Your own link, which is the same as mine btw, proves that only in certain cases can a person who kills a pregnant woman be charged with feticide:

A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick"

Do you know what that means?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Women don't need lifers to educate them. They know what abortion is, they don't need to see the fetus before making a decision. They are not stupid.

When did you appoint yourself the spokesperson for women?

Looks to me like many women don't agree with you.

National Pro-Life Women?s Caucus Launched for Pro-Life Women Legislators | LifeNews.com

Go and ask women who have had abortions if they believe they made the right choice.
The only women who say they didn't make the right choice are women who have been brainwashed into becoming pro life for the sake of making money - like Norma McCorvey.

Go ask women who have decided to give birth and ask them if they believe they made the right choice. The women who advocate the murder of the unborn have been brainwashed by leftist, authoritarian propagandists who seek to manipulate the masses.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know, when you're too stupid to know your own state laws, you might be well advised not to talk about them as if you do.

When I'm studying for a bar exam, it helps if I do, you dolt. Have codes from all 50 states stored on my hard drive, and I update them each legislative session. So, I know plenty.

Check it. And do your research, oh mouthy one.

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-80 defines feticide. A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick" by causing any injury to the mother of such child. The penalty for feticide is imprisonment for life.

Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-393.1 defines vehicular feticide and provides for penalties.

Ga. Code Ann. § 52-7-12.3 defines the term "unborn child" to mean a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb. The law defines feticide by watercraft in the first and second degrees and provides for penalties.

God help us if someone like you could ever be a lawyer.

Your own link, which is the same as mine btw, proves that only in certain cases can a person who kills a pregnant woman be charged with feticide:

A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick"

Do you know what that means?

It took you long enough to respond. I was hoping you'd ask such a question. If you had taken the time to read the third statute:

O.C.G.A. § 52-7-12.3 (a)

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.


Please be on your way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's against the law to commit murder. In my state, if you kill a pregnant woman, and her child dies too; that's two counts of murder. It's a wonder why people like you never grasp the value of life.

In MY country, a fetus is not a person until it is born.

Your point?

My point? You don't live in my country. Therefore your definition of what is and isn't a person is irrelevant. Your laws have no hold here.

But our laws do, and here, the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected. Under our federal law, the fetus possesses virtually no personhood rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I'm studying for a bar exam, it helps if I do, you dolt. Have codes from all 50 states stored on my hard drive, and I update them each legislative session. So, I know plenty.

Check it. And do your research, oh mouthy one.

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-80 defines feticide. A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick" by causing any injury to the mother of such child. The penalty for feticide is imprisonment for life.

Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-393.1 defines vehicular feticide and provides for penalties.

Ga. Code Ann. § 52-7-12.3 defines the term "unborn child" to mean a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb. The law defines feticide by watercraft in the first and second degrees and provides for penalties.

God help us if someone like you could ever be a lawyer.

Your own link, which is the same as mine btw, proves that only in certain cases can a person who kills a pregnant woman be charged with feticide:

A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick"

Do you know what that means?

It took you long enough to respond. I was hoping you'd ask such a question. If you had taken the time to read the third statute:

O.C.G.A. § 52-7-12.3 (a)

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.

"an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick""

See? The law is saying not just any 'unborn child', but limited to unborn children that have reached quickening.

Unborn child is the general definition. Feticide only applies to a subset of that general group.

Use your head. Put your agenda on hold for one minute. You want to be a lawyer you're going to have to learn to think in terms of facts,

not wishes.
Please be on your way.

Learn to read:

 

[TemplarKormac]

In MY country, a fetus is not a person until it is born.

Your point?

My point? You don't live in my country. Therefore your definition of what is and isn't a person is irrelevant. Your laws have no hold here.

But our laws do, and here, the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected. Under our federal law, the fetus possesses virtually no personhood rights.

Were you not aware of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004? Guess the law trumps you on that one. The law acknowledges that fetuses are "children" and therefore have rights.

18 USC § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

(a)

(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2)

(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)).

(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.


18 USC § 1841 - Protection of unborn children | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Learn to read.

 

[NLT]

It's like talking to a post.

A post is the same as a stupid sheila expect a post is smarter than a noomi

 

[TemplarKormac]

On top of that, court precedent in Wisconsin:

Norman v. Murphy (1954), 124 Cal. App. (2d) 95, 268 Pac. (2d) 178; Drabbels v. Skelly Oil Co. (1951), 155 Neb. 17, 60 N. W. (2d) 229; Graf v. Taggert (1964), 43 N. J. 303, 204 Atl. (2d) 140; In re Estate of Logan (1956), 4 Misc. (2d) 283, 156 N. Y. Supp. (2d) 49; Howell v. Rushing (Okla. 1953), 261 Pac. (2d) 217; Hogan v. McDaniel (1958), 204 Tenn. 235, 319 S. W. (2d) 221; Carroll v. Skloff, supra, footnote 10. See also 10 A. L. R. (2d) 639, et seq. These cases in the A. L. R. annotation are not directly in point, however, since they did not involve an action for a wrongful death of an unborn child. Rather, in these cases the plaintiffs attempted to include such damages as part of the mothers' causes of action.

Many of the cases above are not applicable to the law in Wisconsin because denial of recovery is effected for reasons peculiar to the law of that state. New York and New Jersey both require pecuniary loss as an element of a wrongful-death action and do not permit recovery for loss of society and companionship. These courts hold that any showing of pecuniary loss by loss of an unborn infant child is too speculative to be compensable. In California recovery is denied because of a statute which states "A child conceived but not yet born is to be deemed an existing person, so far as may be necessary for its interests in the event of its subsequent birth."

 

[TemplarKormac]

The threshold issue is whether Angela's viable fetus is a "child" within the meaning of the juvenile code, § 48.02(2), STATS. We conclude that a viable fetus is a child within the meaning of the statute. As such, we further conclude that the State has a legitimate and compelling interest under Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), to provide CHIPS protection to the fetus. We therefore hold that the juvenile court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the pending CHIPS proceeding.

State ex rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 197 Wis. 2d 532, 541 N.W.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995)

 

[koshergrl]

In MY country, a fetus is not a person until it is born.

Your point?

My point? You don't live in my country. Therefore your definition of what is and isn't a person is irrelevant. Your laws have no hold here.

But our laws do, and here, the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected. Under our federal law, the fetus possesses virtually no personhood rights.

"Virtually".

Same as "has personhood rights".

 

[Katzndogz]

Oh please this has nothing to do with viability. It has to do with a medical determination that at 20 weeks the fetus is developed enough to feel pain including the pain of being ripped apart alive. At 20 weeks, they have nerve receptors.

Women do not get the choice to inflict that kind of pain on another human being.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My point? You don't live in my country. Therefore your definition of what is and isn't a person is irrelevant. Your laws have no hold here.

But our laws do, and here, the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected. Under our federal law, the fetus possesses virtually no personhood rights.

Were you not aware of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004? Guess the law trumps you on that one. The law acknowledges that fetuses are "children" and therefore have rights.

.

I'm waiting for you to acknowledge you were wrong about Georgia law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My point? You don't live in my country. Therefore your definition of what is and isn't a person is irrelevant. Your laws have no hold here.

But our laws do, and here, the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected. Under our federal law, the fetus possesses virtually no personhood rights.

Were you not aware of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004? Guess the law trumps you on that one. The law acknowledges that fetuses are "children" and therefore have rights.

18 USC § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

(a)

(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2)

(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)).

(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.


18 USC § 1841 - Protection of unborn children | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Learn to read.

That law is irrelevant to personhood. It does not establish personhood for the fetus because the very same fetus as might be unlawfully harmed in the above circumstances could still be legally aborted under other laws.

You can't legally abort persons protected as persons under the Constitution.

 

[koshergrl]

You know, when you're too stupid to know your own state laws, you might be well advised not to talk about them as if you do.

When I'm studying for a bar exam, it helps if I do, you dolt. Have codes from all 50 states stored on my hard drive, and I update them each legislative session. So, I know plenty.

Check it. And do your research, oh mouthy one.

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-80 defines feticide. A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick" by causing any injury to the mother of such child. The penalty for feticide is imprisonment for life.

Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-393.1 defines vehicular feticide and provides for penalties.

Ga. Code Ann. § 52-7-12.3 defines the term "unborn child" to mean a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb. The law defines feticide by watercraft in the first and second degrees and provides for penalties.

God help us if someone like you could ever be a lawyer.

Your own link, which is the same as mine btw, proves that only in certain cases can a person who kills a pregnant woman be charged with feticide:

A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick"

Do you know what that means?

"Quick" means about 4 months.

 

[Vox]

But our laws do, and here, the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected. Under our federal law, the fetus possesses virtually no personhood rights.

Were you not aware of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004? Guess the law trumps you on that one. The law acknowledges that fetuses are "children" and therefore have rights.

.

I'm waiting for you to acknowledge you were wrong about Georgia law.

It was YOU who was wrong

 

[Vox]

That law is irrelevant to personhood. It does not establish personhood for the fetus because the very same fetus as might be unlawfully harmed in the above circumstances could still be legally aborted under other laws.

You can't legally abort persons protected as persons under the Constitution.

of course it does. it is just a disconnect between the two - under one law abortion is legal at the same gestational age as it is considered murder under the other law.


that is not the only one idiocy - for OB/GYN who is performing an abortion after 22 weeks and considers herself to be in good standing with a reason when she considers aborting "a cluster of cells" and then proceeds to do CS to help save the 22weeker preemie, who is a "baby."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Were you not aware of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004? Guess the law trumps you on that one. The law acknowledges that fetuses are "children" and therefore have rights.

.

I'm waiting for you to acknowledge you were wrong about Georgia law.

It was YOU who was wrong

READ:

First, Georgia law specifically addresses the killing of a unborn child. O.C.G.A. § 16-5-80. Feticide - "(a) A person commits the offense of feticide if he willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick" by any injury to the mother of such child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of such mother."


So what is "quick"? In the case of State v. Newsome (1987), the victim was one of several people in a club during a robbery. She was shot in the abdomen and the child died, although the mother lived. The mother stated that she could feel the child moving within her prior to the shooting. The court held "Georgia case law adopted common law understanding of "quick", medical and lay testimony at trial indicated mother of unborn child in question was far enough along in pregnancy for fetus to be "quick", and mother herself testified that she had felt and recognized unborn child move in her prior to its destruction." It is not necessarily "viability" that is the determining issue, because viability is the point at which the baby can sustain life on it’s own. (Now that is curious too, because frankly a two-month old baby can’t sustain life on their own without parental care!)

Killing an Unborn Child is Feticide - Houston County District Attorney - Houston County District Attorney