Subscribe via RSS Feed

By the Time You Get to Phoenix

[ 73 ] March 31, 2012 |

Your uterus will belong to the state.

Comments (73)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Thers says:

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

  2. c u n d gulag says:

    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 says:

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

      It would involve setting-up a Menarche.

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

  3. joe from Lowell says:

    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.

  4. DrDick says:

    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.

  5. Fats Durston says:

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

  6. Malaclypse says:

    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.

  7. ema says:

    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 says:

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

      • efgoldman says:

        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 says:

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

      • DocAmazing says:

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

      • R Johnston says:

        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.

  8. Hob says:

    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 says:

        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.

  9. DrDick says:

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

  10. c u n d gulag says:

    Well, I can see someone’s already had their cup of stupid this morning.

  11. joe from Lowell says:

    Well, if you don’t see any difference, then I guess there must not be any.

    Allow me to let you in on a little secret: there are a whole lot of people on this site who don’t like the Affordable Care Act, but who recognize that the constitutional argument against it is ridiculous.

    Being a wingnut, it’s understandable that wouldn’t be sufficiently familiar with this distinction to recognize when it is being made.

  12. Furious Jorge says:

    Here is one difference:

    ObamaCare is designed to improve access to health care for Americans without insurance. It’s not perfect by a damn sight, but it will represent a net improvement in the overall quality of life for millions.

    These state-level laws are not designed to help anyone, really, since wealthy women who want or need these procedures can travel to another state, just like pre-Roe. This Arizona law, for example, is specifically designed to make life – and access to health services – harder for women without the means to circumvent it.

    So yeah, one is designed to help, the other to punish.

    Big difference there in my eyes.

  13. redwoods says:

    Can you explain (of course you can’t!) why we are supposed to give fetuses rights more extensive than that of actual children? Smoke in the presence of your child, keep an unlocked firearm in the home, feed them a diet of McD’s, beat them up to the point of injury or refuse them medical care because of your religious convictions, none of these things are illegal. But abort a pre-viable fetus, and you should be imprisoned? It’s about your stiffy, isn’t it?

  14. c u n d gulag says:

    joe,
    And if R’s win in November, they’ll try to privatize SS.
    And, guess what?
    Their plan requires a mandate!

    Something tells me wingnuts, and their “Gang of Five” on the SC, will think THOSE mandates are ok…

  15. c u n d gulag says:

    ZZZzzzzzZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

  16. Scott Lemieux says:

    Privatizing SS, while it would be abominable public policy, would be perfectly constitutional. Just like the ACA, which doesn’t “push the envelope” at all.

  17. c u n d gulag says:

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz…

  18. Fats Durston says:

    Truly, “Christian-Judeo” rules rule us all:

    If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.

    You should not let a sorceress live.

    If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, … You shall stone him to death…

    [Y]ou may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. …If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years…

    If mildew again appears in his house… Then the owner must tear down the house, remove all its stones, plaster, and wood, and take them to the unclean place outside the city.

  19. Walt says:

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz

  20. Furious Jorge says:

    If that were true, then abortion wouldn’t be an issue – the Old Testament commands a man who suspects his pregnant wife of adultery to bring her to the temple, where she will be given what amounts to an abortifacent; if she miscarries, it’s because she is an adultress.

    Basing laws on the Bible is flat-out stupid.

  21. (the other) Davis says:

    Ya’ know, like not murdering or stealing, etc.

    Yes, because it’s not like anyone had criminalized those things prior to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

  22. (the other) Davis says:

    Especially since 98% of the people of the US are theists.

    Also, this number is wildly incorrect. At least 10% of Americans are completely secular, and at least another 1% of Americans adhere to non-theistic faiths.

  23. DrDick says:

    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

    From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, unanimously ratified by Congress (including numerous founders) and signed by President John Adams (a founder).

  24. N__B says:

    Don’t you mean: $$$$$$$

  25. c u n d gulag says:

    X’s Infinity!

    Nyah, Nyah!

    I WIN!!!

  26. Walt says:

    I fell asleep while counting my money.

  27. Walt says:

    That’s the One Ring. The One Ring rules us all.

  28. Furious Jorge says:

    I think his argument is, the connection you think exists to Biblical times and morality isn’t as strong as you imagine it to be.

    But maybe I’m wrong.

  29. Fats Durston says:

    Most all of American laws and morals are based upon Christian-Judeo religious rules.

    Point: These claims are a lie. Most Levite jurisprudence is alien to American law and vice versa. The moralities involved in pushing this law are recent inventions, not “Christian-Judeo,” no matter what their partisans claim.

  30. R Johnston says:


    You don’t win.
    You spelled infinity.
    I win.

    Alt-236 is always good for some fun.

  31. c u n d gulag says:

    You’re just showing mo-bius towards those of us PC symbol impaired!

  32. c u n d gulag says:

    R Johnston,
    Thanks X’s ∞, X’s ∞!!!

  33. R Johnston says:

    On the contrary, I’ve given you a copy/paste opportunity to help you out in the future.

  34. R Johnston says:

    Lies pulled out of a troll’s ass aren’t so much wildly inaccurate as completely unrelated to reality. Inaccuracy requires missing a target.

  35. Malaclypse says:

    But is feeding trolls constitutional?

  36. R Johnston says:

    Lots of ridiculous and bad policy is, in fact, constitutional.

  37. R Johnston says:

    De nada ∞²

  38. Njorl says:

    Whoa, infinity triple factorial – careful, you might break the internet.

  39. Malaclypse says:

    (which is a specious figure at best)

    How cute. The troll tried to use a big word, and failed.

  40. Uncle Kvetch says:

    “For the sake of argument” appears to be this week’s “Not intended to be a factual statement.”

  41. DrDick says:

    The reality is that the acts banned in both American law and Levitical law are also banned by every culture on earth. Therefore, it is clear that American law is directly derived from Aztec law, which means we need to rip the still beating hearts out of our trolls and offer them to the sun while casting their bodies down the steps of the temple.

  42. DrDick says:

    It also states that if you strike a woman and cause her to abort, there is no injury (crime) in the abortion, though striking her is one.

  43. DrDick says:

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”

    (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

  44. DrDick says:

    So far in this thread, we have established beyond all doubt that whiny coward troll is totally ignorant of law, history, science, and theology. We also have strong evidence that he can’t find his own weinie and does not know his ass from a whole in the ground.

  45. DrDick says:

    Why would this be any different from everything else he has ever tried or one?

  46. demz taters says:

    Considering that the first four commandments are in direct opposition to the First Amendment and only two and a half from the whole list are included in American law, I’m just not seeing the Bible connection.

  47. DrDick says:

    Yes, but you are not a rightard. I’ll bet you believe in that sciencey stuff like evolution and global warming, too!

  48. gocart mozart says:

    The prohibitions against coveting are somewhat communistic and downright un-American.

  49. thebewilderness says:

    Yes, I think it is partly that. It is also the view that the preborn are the property of the state and the post born are the property of the parents.
    Women are simply the means to produce human resources. If they refuse to produce they will be punished by any means possible. If they do produce they will also be punished, of course, because they are, after all, women.

    I really want to hear again about how we are all equal now and we have no need for the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution so the Feminists should calm their lady brainz and say thank you for the equality they have been given, then all just sit down and shut up.

  50. thebewilderness says:

    I saw what you did there.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site