Subscribe via RSS Feed

By the Time You Get to Phoenix

[ 73 ] March 31, 2012 |

Your uterus will belong to the state.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

  • I shot a human freedom in Phoenix, just to watch it die.

    • Davis X. Machina

      Is this an unintended consequence of Kelo?

  • c u n d gulag

    Maybe they should roll the start time back to when a woman first goes through puberty.

    Let’s see, my mother was 26 when she had me – exactly 26, since I was born on her birthday.

    She was born in 1932.

    Let me do the math – with the war on, and bad nutrition in the relocation camps in Germany, she probably hit puberty at age 13, so that would be 1945.

    So, taking my pad and pencil to do some quick math… subtract 1945 from 2012…

    HEY – under THAT rule, that would make ME 67!

    HA! Quick! Give me my SS and Medicare before they’re done away with!
    Ok… PLEASE?

    This foolishness will never stop until we pry religion from their cold, dead hands.

    • c u n d gulag

      No, upon further review, I don’t think that would be allowed.

      It would involve setting-up a Menarche.

      ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche

  • joe from Lowell

    What’s interesting to me is that many of these extreme laws adopted over the past two years have been in very purple states like New Hampshire, Virginia, and Arizona, if not in outright blue ones like Wisconsin.

    The 2010 elections stretched the rubber band pretty far, and some sort of snap-back is inevitable in 2012. Republican state legislatures and governors seem determined to make it snap back as hard as they possibly can.

  • DrDick

    Whatever happened to religious freedom (and the freedom from religion) in this country? Every one of these laws is based on a theological, not biological, definition of when life begins. There is no medical or biological basis for any limitations prior to potential fetal viability at 24-26 weeks, and even that is debatable. Wingnuts constantly screech about religious freedom (witness the recent birth control stupidity), but apparently that only means the freedom to impose their religion on everyone else.

    • God sez blastocysts = people. Who are we to argue otherwise?

      • thebewilderness

        Actually God’s book says they are not people till they are born. This is why the Dominionists found it necessary to correct God’s book about ten years ago.

        • Thanks for the correction. God doesn’t talk to me and I last read the book in the 70s, so my memories are fuzzy.

        • Tyto

          Actually, doesn’t God’s book, depending on the interpretation, say that personhood doesn’t exist until some time *after* birth (e.g., bris at 8 days, baptism at whenever)? Doesn’t some (most?) religious doctrine actually forbid a funeral service for the unbaptized or uncircumcised infant?

    • c u n d gulag

      Here, read this weekend’s edition of “Rick Santorum Explains the Constitution For You!”

      http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/03/30/it_is_hard_to_be_catholic_in_public_life.html

      PS: Keep away from all sharp objects.
      PPS: A barf-bag is NOT a sharp object.

      • efgoldman

        Of course no religious body should “impose its will” on the public or public officials, but that was not the issue then or now.

        The idiot doesn’t even read his own writing.

  • Fats Durston

    with a gun cracker runnin’ things
    under her thumb…
    isn’t it odd and unique
    people smiling in the heat
    120 degrees?

  • The thread was about six inches deep with soap bars, vomit, and grapefruit rinds, mixed with broken glass. I had to put my boots on every time I went in there to comment. The nap of the mottled grey rug was so thick with troll spewings that it appeared to be turning green. The general back-alley ambience of the thread was so rotten, so incredibly foul, that I figured I could probably get away with claiming it was some kind of ‘Life-slice exhibit’ that we’d brought down from Darleen’s place, to show commenters from other parts of the interweb how deep into filth and degeneracy the trolls will sink, if left to their own devices . . . There was evidence, in this room, of excessive consumption of almost every type of wingnut foolishness known to civilized man since 1544 A.D.

    • soap bars, vomit, and grapefruit rinds, mixed with broken glass

      I.e., troll spoor.

      • joe from Lowell

        The soap reference seems optimistic.

        • The Supremes have not yet ruled that soap use can only be permitted by the states.

          • c u n d gulag

            But they have ruled that the box it came in can be recycled for use in parks all across this great nation, where nuts of all stripes can stand and bark out what the voices in their heads are telling them they need to warn others about!

        • c u n d gulag

          What, no undigested orange Cheeto pellets?

        • The soap reference seems optimistic.

          Note that they threw the soap on the floor.

    • DrDick

      Dude! We tried to warn you about attempting a mind meld with a wingnut. It is far too depraved and evil for a human to endure. Better to gaze upon the thoughts of Cthulhu himself than to do this.

    • Hunter S. Thompson is a hell of a drug.

  • ema

    I took a quick look at the bill and I have a question. Is a bill/law considered a legal document and, if yes, are there any standards governing it?

    I ask because the bill authors cite flawed studies [PK Coleman], lie about medical consensus [fetal pain], and misrepresent study/FDA findings [mifepristone]. Now, I get that these are politicians playing doctor. But, once you decide to include scientific material in a legal document, isn’t there a competency/accuracy requirement?

    Also, by what regulatory authority can these politicians make it illegal to use [some] drugs off-label, dictate treatment protocols, and declare drug labels (legal, not medical, documents) the standard of care?

    • DocAmazing

      That is a fascinating strategy. Can legislators be sued for legal malpractice?

      • efgoldman

        Or even better, medical malpractice, or prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license? (Which I think was suggested when all the wingnut ultrasound bills hit the various state house floors.)

    • DrDick

      Further confirmation of the new study showing educated conservatives are anti-science.

      • DocAmazing

        “There is no contradiction between faith and science. True science.”
        –Dr. Zaius

      • R Johnston

        That’s really no surprise because if you’re well educated and well versed in reason you simply are not a conservative.

        Education can teach you reason, but it can also sharpen your ability to rationalize the unreasonable, which is what has happened in the case of a well educated person who remains conservative. If a conservative becomes well educated and accepts science and reason we call him an ex-conservative.

  • Hob

    Just to be that nitpicky guy: Defining gestational age in terms of the last menstrual period is not, by itself, crazy or unusual. It’s inaccurate, since fertilization almost always happens a couple of weeks later, but it’s still the most commonly used measure for OB/GYNs (last I knew, though I’ve been out of health care for a few years) because there really isn’t a way to be accurate about this. Looking for physical characteristics on ultrasound is more accurate in terms of how far the fetus has developed, but it won’t give you a date either.

    The thing is, for any legitimate medical purposes, physical development is what matters, not the date. The reason the Arizona creatures are insisting on a date is (probably, though this assumes they actually thought about it) to avoid relying on the judgment of medical professionals, whom they trust almost as little as they trust women.

    Does anyone know how gestational age is defined in existing laws that regulate later-term abortion? I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s just as bogus; still the new rule would be a bigger deal for more people, since there are relatively few late-term abortions.

    • Does this mean that sexually active women will have to get notarized receipts with their periods? How else will you keep them from just lying about their cycles to avoid the law?

      • Hob

        If someone just walks into a clinic, of course there’d be no way to verify. I think this is more aimed at women who had a doctor they were already talking to before deciding to have an abortion, where there might be some note in the medical record about a conversation like this: “I have such-and-such symptoms”– “Hmm, when was your last period? We’d better do a pregnancy test”– etc.

  • DrDick

    Hmmm. I see Farley was here. Damned troll farts dissolved another thread.