Who Hijacked Our Country

Friday, July 21, 2006

New Abortion Law

Just when you think Senator Bill Frist couldn’t possibly sink any lower, he does. What’s our sleazy video doctor up to now?

The cat mutilator is sponsoring the “Child Custody Protection Act.” Gee, what a nice innocent name for a law. This law will make it a federal crime for ANYONE other than a parent to accompany a girl across state lines to seek an abortion.

Again, that’s ANYONE other than a parent. A grandparent, aunt or uncle, religious counselor — guilty of a federal crime.

These mouth-breathing snake-handling Biblehumpers aren’t satisfied just banning abortion in individual redneck states. They also want to prevent desperate pregnant women from being able to go to a neighboring state. And Bill Frist is once again bending over for the Speak-In-Tongues crowd.

Fortunately, you can help. Please click here to ask your senators to vote against Frist’s new abortion law. If you don’t want the Spanish Inquisition taking over your life, please tell your senators.

And now, here is a test to see if YOU will be allowed to live in the new Christian States of Righteousness (formerly known as America). Check it out. One wrong answer and you’ll be sent to Guantanamo for some Christian "counseling."


Blogger J. Marquis said...

Thanks for putting the link on there. I sent the message...

July 21, 2006 at 7:27 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

J. Marquis: Thanks. It's a good cause.

July 22, 2006 at 12:24 AM  
Blogger Snave said...

Maybe Frist is still thinking of running for president. I figured he might not after the embarrassment of the Terri Schiavo fiasco, but he may figure that the public has had enough time to forget about the Schiavo thing.

I say this because Frist has talked about being in favor of stem cell research to a certain point, and that's anathema to the religious wingnuts... but now this... It looks to me like he is attempting to curry favor with the kooks in preparation for a run at the presidency. They are an important part of the GOP voting base, after all.

Thanks for the link, I'm on it right now!

July 22, 2006 at 6:53 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Snave: There's no doubt Frist is gunning for the White House. I don't see how he has any cred left. His video diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, his constant flipflopping -- nobody could possibly take him seriously.

He might have screwed himself by voting in favor of stem cell research. That's such a perfect wedge issue. Wingnuts won't vote for anyone who's in favor of it, and the other 80% won't vote for anyone who's against it. Drive That Wedge! Drive That Wedge! (I'm picturing a bunch of cheerleaders.)

July 22, 2006 at 7:27 PM  
Blogger Ricardo said...

What on earth would that solve? This is ridiculous and yet another another arbitrary way to make an already difficult moment for a woman more so.

July 23, 2006 at 1:24 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Ricardo: Unfortunately, for wingnuts this does solve a problem. They're always looking for "another arbitrary way to make an already difficult moment for a woman more so." Mission Accomplished.

July 23, 2006 at 2:51 PM  
Blogger L said...

lovely. I weep for the futue

July 23, 2006 at 9:36 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

L: Or instead of weeping, we could vote these bastards out. It's our only hope.

July 23, 2006 at 10:41 PM  
Blogger James said...

Sorry Tom,
I am no Frist fan but Im not with you on this based really on the underlying principle. There is no reason for anyone to be able to take my child and have a major medical procedure done to her without my approval.

In fact it is sheer hypocrisy because without my consent they couldnt touch her for any other medical reason. There is too much of the state trying to meddle in private affairs and the only reason this gets momentum is because of the A word.

Think about it without the emotional response of abortion involved. Would you want a religious advisor taking your daughter to get oh I dont know... a tattoo, a tounge peircing, a hysterectomy, a tonsilectomy.

Anyone being honest would say no that is my place as a parent. Im sure Frist is doing this to be anti abortion and thats his opinion but this simply isnt right.

This is one time I have to dissent. Less government control not more.

July 24, 2006 at 3:27 AM  
Blogger Jane Lake said...

Needless to say, I fully agree with James. If a school gave an aspirin to a child without parental consent they would be shut down. But you think someone taking a child to another state for a medical procedure that could result in a number of bad results beyond the killing of an innocent unborn child is okay?

Adoption doesn't kill and doesn't risk anybody's health. Let's keep that in mind!

July 24, 2006 at 5:37 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

James: So Frist’s proposed law equals “less government control”? I’m afraid I’m not following you on that. The entire abortion issue is a question of whether the government has any right to meddle in somebody’s private medical decision. I say it doesn’t.

Since tattoos, tongue-piercings, hysterectomies and tonsillectomies are all legal, that’s not much of a comparison. No, I wouldn’t want my somebody else taking my child to get one of those things done, but since they’re all legal, there wouldn’t be any reason to. And don’t forget, Frist’s law is aimed at other family members as well: aunts, uncles, grandparents, siblings — anyone other than a parent. A fairly large percentage of children are being raised by their grandparents instead of their parents. Not a majority but it’s still a fairly large minority. Frist overlooks this completely.

“Think about it without the emotional response of abortion involved.” Well, that’s just the trouble. Half of the GOP’s platform is based on the emotional buttons that get pushed by the A-word (and other “social” issues). Republicans and Bible-types might have to actually get out there and deal with real problems if they couldn’t hide behind these fake “issues.”

Jane: Ah yes, adoption. Probably 99% of the time, when people talk about adoption, they’re talking about white blonde blue-eyed babies. If the baby isn’t white, or has any sort of defect or disability, the chances of being adopted are slim to none.

July 24, 2006 at 10:57 AM  
Blogger Jane Lake said...


I'll take alive and unadopted over dead any day of the week!

By the way, 25% of adopted children are from minorities.

July 24, 2006 at 12:05 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Jane: Minorities make up a lot more than 25% of our population. But that's still a higher figure than I thought.

July 24, 2006 at 3:43 PM  
Blogger James said...

Tom youre right the government has no place in medical decisions.

So to say to someone your kid can have an abortion no matter what you think about it and on top of that you dont even have the right to know is intereference.

Last I checked abortion was legal too so I think it is a rather valid comparison. The point is it is nobody s place to make that decision other than a parent. Allowing a child to handle such a situation without even informing a parent doesnt help that situation. In fact I would say it hurts their development by teaching them to avoid problems and hide them.

Also if you are being raised by a grandparent then they are your gaurdian and this wouldnt apply.
To accuse the right of campaigning on hot button issues kind of overlooks the way the left wraps themselves in the same issues just the other side of the coin. Its a little one sided.

There are some limits on abortion that are just common sense and this is one. I dont want the government telling me how to raise my child.

How are republicans and bible types going to del with these issues if the government just steps in and takes over.

This is my problem with both parties and all politics. Each side wants the government to step in and enforce their social agenda.

I suppose we shall just have to disagree here.

July 24, 2006 at 7:07 PM  
Blogger Snave said...

I agree with what Bill Clinton said about abortion... let's keep it safe, legal, and RARE. I don't like abortion, but I still think it is up to women, not churches, to decide what they want to do with their bodies. I would like to see abortion as a matter of convenience ended in practice. I much prefer the concept of putting unwanted babies up for adoption. When it comes to having to choose between the life of a pregnant mother and a fetus, I go for the mother in that case. I think there are times and places where aborting a fetus is o.k., but not as a general thing.

I am against the proposal by Frist et al because I think there may actually be some cases where it is the dad who impregnates the daughter. What happens then? If the parent is the abuser in this case, who helps the young woman?

July 27, 2006 at 12:05 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Snave: There are definitely lots of other issues buried in this larger issue. (And as you've probably read today, this law got passed by the Senate.) Grandparents (or aunts/uncles) who are raising the kids, fathers who impregnated their daughters -- none of these issues are addressed by Frist's pandering.

You're right -- Clinton had it in a nutshell, that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

July 27, 2006 at 12:53 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home