Last week, thousands of women protested and ultimately ran Virginia’s state-sanctioned rape train off the rails. It’s time to do the same in Alabama. Call or email Governor Bentley and ask him to veto SB12. Sign this petition.
Alabama Governor Bentley claimed yesterday that he just learned about the state-sanctioned rape bill that is quickly moving through the Alabama legislature:
Yesterday Governor Bentley (who, unlike SB12’s “author,” has a medical degree) said he had just heard about this bill. He declined to take a position on SB12. Call or email him and ask him to veto it.
A similar bill was on the fast track in Virginia, but has now come off the rails. How did they do it in Virginia? A few people understood what this bill really required, they communicated that knowledge very effectively, including pictures and blunt language, to members of the legislature and to the media. The bill and its supporters were widely ridiculed. Then the public began to understand. Then 1000 women silently lined the path used by Virginia legislators on the way to and from the chamber where they were voting away womens’ rights. The ultrasound requirement is not completely dead in Virginia (and certainly not in Alabama) but conservatives have definitely been burned.
Meanwhile, the proponent of the bill, Senator Greg Reed owns a company that sells the type of equipment that the bill would require, but doesn’t see a conflict of interest because of course he doesn’t:
The chairman of the Alabama Senate Health Committee said he doesn’t see a conflict of interest between his support for a bill that would require physicians to perform ultrasounds on women seeking abortions and his company, which sells the type of equipment the bill would require.
Sen. Greg Reed, R-Jasper, voted to move Senate Bill 12 out of committee last week because he said it’s a good bill that would help “a mother to understand that a live baby is inside her body.”
But there’s no chance Preferred Medical Systems, where Reed is vice president, would benefit, he said. It is the company’s policy not to do business with abortion providers, Reed said.“I do not sell ultrasound equipment in my business to clinics that are abortion clinics,” he said recently. According to campaign information, Preferred Medical Systems sells diagnostic medical equipment in five states.
The bill from Clay Scofield, R-Guntersville, passed out of committee with a vote of 4-to-1 last week. Sen. Linda Coleman, D-Birmingham, voted against it.
The bill calls for the ultrasounds to be done either vaginally or with an abdominal scan, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly. The doctor also would be required to describe the images to the woman.
Scofield said he hopes that, if signed into law, his bill will stop some abortions. Though the bill states a woman can look away from the ultrasound image, Scofield wants her to see it.
“So she sees that this is not just a clump of cells as she is told,” he said. “She will see the shape of the infant. And hopefully, she will choose to keep the child.”
The procedure would not be required in the case of a woman seeking an abortion to save her own life. But the bill doesn’t allow victims of sexual assault to opt out of the ultrasound.
Physicians who don’t perform the required ultrasound could be convicted of a Class C felony, which is punishable with between two and 20 years in prison. The bill also says the doctor could be sued by the unborn child’s father or grandparents.
Because one thing a woman who has chosen to abort a pregnancy doesn’t realize is that she’s actually pregnant. Because women are stupid, you see.
Sign this petition. Call or email Governor Bentley.
Just say no to inner-vaginal Republicans.
[via Left in Alabama]
[cross-posted at ABLC]
Rafer Janders
Sen. Greg Reed, R-Jasper, voted to move Senate Bill 12 out of committee last week because he said it’s a good bill that would help “a mother to understand that a live baby is inside her body.”
I would have thought this was something a woman seeking an abortion would have already figured out on her own, but what do I know…
Rafer Janders
Also, too, semantics, but if the live baby is INSIDE your body, you’re not a mother. Not yet, anyway.
Paul in KY
So I guess if Sen. Reed’s company sells his sonohappytime devices to another company, who then sells them to the ‘abortuariums’, his company would not make any money at all. Nosiree.
See ladies, nothing to worry about here…
geg6
Please don’t forget about us here in the Keystone State. We have our very own government dictated rape act coming up, too:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1077&pn=3047
Here, they are going to make the tech note whether or not you watched the ultrasound and it will be a part of your permanent medical record.
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_20033700?source=most_viewed
c u n d gulag
Help a “…mother to understand that a live baby is inside her body.”
What does he think she thinks it is?
The watermelon seed she swallowed accidentally at the picnic, bearing fruit?
Her husband jammed a basketball down her throat?
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
I’d suggest an anal probe, a heart stress-test, and a catheter be shoved up the dick, of every guy who wants a boner pill – but, unlike this schmuck, I don’t own a probe, heart-stress, or catheter company, so I can’t make a profit off it anything.
You want a ‘quicker-pecker-upper?
Ok – bend over and spread ’em, then start running, and after that, we’ll pull out Lil’ Bubba so we can shove a tube in ‘im.
Butch
Where the hell are the doctors? Why aren’t they screaming bloody murder about this nonsense?
Citizen_X
@Butch: Especially given this:
Carnacki
What if as a physician I have a religious objection to state-sanctioned rape? Where’s my freedom of religion?
Silver
@Citizen_X:
How very Taliban-esque. Women need to be controlled by husband/daddy at all times.
Ash Can
I guess ALEC must think this issue is a real winner.
scav
@Silver: Don’t omit the grandma suing because the slut won’t have her rapist son’s baaabbbbeeee! ETA: or does just the incestuous grandma have the right to sue? questions questions . . . . Home life in the south gets a little complicated.
ABL 2.0
@geg6: i’m crowd-sourcing state-by-state information on all the anti-choice/anti-women legislation that has passed or pending. penn. and ala. are the states that are on my radar right now.
I should have the website up and running by tomorrow: http://www.teamuterati.com
Richard
I think the more accurate terminology would be state MANDATED rape.
Nutella
@Carnacki:
Physicians would be required to perform the state-sanctioned rapes. That’s objectionable, to put it mildly.
Bullsmith
Love how they come right and say they’re doing this because women are too stupid to understand what pregnancy is. Women’s rights are something that need to be kept firmly in hand of religious white men.
Insomniac
So, given this:
that means a rapist would be able to sue a doctor for not performing a potentially invasive (rape-like even) ultrasound procedure on the woman he raped and impregnated? Add another violation, why not? Is that part of the gist of it? Do these people think things through at all? Heck, do they think at all even?
scav
@ABL 2.0: Don’t miss IL, that one might come with cattle prods. IL House panel approves anti-abortion measures, including bill on ultrasounds before abortion (from the 21st)
Scott
@Carnacki: Legislators would consider any religion that objected to inflicting pain and suffering on others to be some bizarre fringe cult with no followers worth mentioning…
harlana
there are just so many things wrong with that statement, i don’t know where to begin, but i will start with tears.
yes, my snarkolepter, such as it was, is broke.
Brachiator
@Silver:
Uh, no. This is women being controlled collectively by all the males in the state.
Notice this little gem in the proposed law,
This does not say that the woman need to be married to the unborn child’s father. A “father,” her a man who impregnated the woman, but has no necessary relationship with her, can decide that she be violated for no medically necessary reason, just so that she might be coereced into giving birth.
This shit is medieval.
harlana
all republicans everywhere are going for broke, trying to grab everything they can get on the way down, because they know they are finished – desperation and punishment, pure and simple
like Scott Walker, they have no sense of grace, shame or propriety
Richard
@Ash Can:
It’s amazing how blatantly obvious the degree to which the wingnut agenda is centrally coordinated. They’re not really bothering to hide it anymore. All the state GOPers in this country might as well be replaced by puppets manipulated by thick black strings. These guys are clearly incapable of independent thought.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
This Uterine war don’t end soon, I might start lactating. Fucking wingnuts, why can’t you just rob the poor to give to the rich, or clamor to bomb eastasia. jeebus.
pseudonymous in nc
@Ash Can:
I think this is a wake-up call on how the ‘laboratory’ actually works these days. You have a bunch of state legislatures, with a lot of power, whose members include a lot of fucking idiots, and are elected by voters who mostly don’t give a shit about who’s in the statehouse.
And it turns out that they’re passing bills that are put together by a bunch of wingnut welfare fuckheads in DC and faxed out to the states. Way to go, democracy.
scav
Will no one think of the tender religious sensibilities and freedom of her employer? ! Where is its legal ability to sue that doctor?
Bulworth
Less government!
ABL 2.0
I was talking to someone yesterday who was mentioning that her mother remembered that it wasn’t too long ago that women weren’t allowed to have bank accounts or credit cards with a husband’s signature.
we’re going back in time. it’s fucked up.
Bulworth
OK, but I assume the very less-government teabaggers are up in arms about this governmental abuse of power and are mobilizing their thousands of costumed members to protest as we speak…. //
scottp
Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to view this as state mandated rape, not state sanctioned rape.
ABL 2.0
@scav: one can hardly keep up. :-/
Nutella
The exam tables at the gynecologists will need stirrups at both ends so they’ve got a way to strap the woman’s head down to force her to see something she already knows about.
The ignorance and viciousness is amazing.
Tweeter @ClinicEscort, who should actually know about these things, says
RoonieRoo
I am so thrilled to see everyone fighting back on this. But I can’t help wondering where the heck everyone was when this was happening in Texas. While we were fighting it here, nationally and on progressive blogs all Texas women heard were crickets.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Mighty white of them there good ole’ boys to not force someone to look at something they dint want to look at. That would be pure commie, as opposed to the transvag wand of freedom.
Cluttered Mind
The thing that really astonishes me about this is how so many Republicans claim to disdain the federal government and place the rights of the states above all else…but then they allow a few centralized legislation factories like ALEC to dictate to the state governments how to operate. How is having ALEC decide uniform policy for the states any different philosophically than having the federal government do it? Either way it’s not the states themselves or the people in those states who are deciding their own policies. It’s so ideologically incoherent that it makes my head hurt. Then again, values dissonance has always been more of a feature than a bug on the right, so maybe it shouldn’t surprise me.
Culture of Truth
doc: see its got a shape
woman: well i’ll be hornswaggled so it does doc
Brutusettu
@Rafer Janders:
Being more semantic, it’s not a “baby” at that point either.
It’s a zygote or embryo or fetus.
scav
In the name of fully informed consent, does anyone think we should mandate that all juries hug the accused before pronouncing a death sentence, plus require another hug just before execution? Just so they know it’s a real person there?
Paul in KY
@Nutella: How about those eyeball-opening thingees in ‘A Clockwork Orange’?
Malcolm MacDowell didn’t get to look away, no indeedy.
Mara Holbrook
Lucky me, I actually live in Alabama. My husband and I moved here nearly seven years ago, so that my husband could keep bringing in a paycheck. The people are very nice, but the politics, religion and ultra-conservatism gets tiring. Especially for left-leaning liberals from the west coast.
The first I heard of this latest outrage was from a short article in the Huntsville Times last Friday, Feb 24. Along with the same crap about how women will never have that abortion once they have “more information,” what stood out to me was a jaw dropping quote from the bill’s author, Senator Clay Schofield.
“We’re not requiring it unless the woman wants to get an abortion. If she doesn’t want to get an abortion, she doesn’t have to do it.”
pseudonymous in nc
@Cluttered Mind:
“Open bar at ALEC conventions.”
danimal
I’ve got to believe that ALEC has screwed the pooch. The whole point of the exercise is to fly under the radar, pay off the wingnuts with abortion restrictions while spouting off “Freedom” and “Liberty” with all the gusto of Mel Gibson in Braveheart. The more publicity these odious, medically unnecessary, body invasion laws get, the more trouble for the GOP.
Somewhere right now, in one of these states, is a GOP representative in a swing district yelling at his leg affairs staffer to make sure he (almost always “he”) doesn’t actually have to vote on this bill. For many of them, hahaha, too late.
jon
“You can have what you want, but first you have to consent to having me put this thing in your vagina.”
Yeah, that’s not rape.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Cluttered Mind:
Easy. ALEC is private enterprise, while the gubment is the gubment. Private groups are always inherently more accountable than that evil gubment. Thus laws coming out of private groups is always more trustworthy than anything crafted within the gubment.
Calouste
A Republican called G.Reed, this is from the Onion, right? Right?
Cluttered Mind
@Mara Holbrook: I love that phrasing. No one “wants to get an abortion” the way that jackass apparently thinks they do. I’ve never heard anyone talk about abortion as though it’s ever a desirable thing, only that it’s the best of a bunch of crappy options for unplanned pregnancies. All this legislation is doing is making a traumatic decision for women even more traumatic than it already is. It’s about punishment and shame, nothing more.
Cluttered Mind
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik: Considering how completely under the sway of private enterprise the federal government is, I can understand the nature of your point but I have a hard time understanding how it could possibly make any sense to anyone. I guess it’s my fault for living in the reality-based community. I shouldn’t be expecting consistency from the right.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Calouste:
Dude, you haven’t been paying attention, have you? The Onion is lagging way behind on real life. There’s just no way you can amusingly out-absurd these clowns anymore.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Cluttered Mind:
Consistency and reasoning are no longer virtues in politics these days, they’re detriments. You should know this already.
Gretchen
@Brachiator:
and if the “father” doesn’t care about the abortion, his mom and dad, who may not even have met the “mother” can weigh in on the decision.
kay
Wow. The woman’s name can be revealed in these (upcoming) lawsuits at the sole discretion of the judge. So, the father or grandparents can bring an action and then the judge decides if the woman’s name is publicly disclosed.
No potential for abuse there! No, sir.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@kay:
These sluts aren’t going to shame themselves, you know. (EDIT: Feh, stupid fickle HTML, not allowing me to use a ‘/GOP’ tag. :P)
jenn
@ABL 2.0: Thanks, ABL. I’m so angry about all this, that I can hardly see straight. I’ve got my Senators and Rep on speed dial, though! Now, I just have to get my state reps on there. Fortunately, I haven’t yet heard of any state-sponsored attacks on women, but that’s not to say they aren’t being planned.
scav
sshhh can everyone hear the women of Kabul rioting for exactly this kind of freedom?
Brachiator
@Gretchen:
Every fertile woman is potentially nothing more than a womb with a view.
There is so much room for mischief here. A married woman has an affair, gets pregnant, and decides to have an abortion. Presumably, her lover, or the lover’s parents, could demand that procedures be taken to … persuade … her to have the child.
Every husband becomes his own cuckold.
And no woman ever has any right to her own body.
wrb
Is how I first read it
kay
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
It’s a nightmare. Imagine those lawsuits. Her parents. His parents. Him. Or any combination thereof. She’s not a party, I guess, so that makes her a…witness at this trial?
I can’t even get my head around it. Just horrific.
Phoenix_rising
Two details about this bill, for more specific outrage-outbursts in the AM:
-Does the bill address what happens if the ultrasound doesn’t show what was expected? This happens all the time with ultrasound: it’s not actually a magic trick that makes the abdomen, uterus etc. transparent but instead a diagnostic tool, and its outputs aren’t quite a predictable as “show her the baby” seems to suggest. (I’m wondering because I’m in the third year of disputing the $895 bill for a transvaginal ultrasound that failed to image my ladyparts in a fashion that permitted the doc to see what she was looking for.)
-What if the pregnant woman does not wish to name the man/men who potentially could be the father of her potential child? It’s hard to understand how the exercise of the fundamental right to control one’s uterus could be burdened by compelled speech of that kind.
Culture of Truth
What if someone left the state, got an abortion, then came back?
Redshift
@RoonieRoo:
Honestly, I think it’s because Bob McDonnell is running for VP, and that made it a national issue and it was enough of an embarrassment to him to give us some leverage. If it wasn’t for that, the wingnuts here in VA probably would have said “so what?,” no matter how many women protested outside the General Assembly.
There’s nothing logical in what causes we can actually succeed in publicizing. A few years ago, one of our wingnut legislators introduced a bill that would require all miscarriages to be reported to the police within 48 hours. It was in the (relatively) early days of blogs, but a friend of mine found out about it and started discussing it, and it jumped over to some nonpolitical “mom” blogs and forums where it took off, and my friend ended up on Nightline (and the bill was withdrawn, accompanied by obviously BS excuses from the wingnut.)
Phoenix_rising
@Brachiator:
I’m pretty sure that in AL, as in many other states, the spouse of the pregnant woman is the father under other provisions of state law. Putative fatherhood that is clearly not biological fatherhood crashes and burns with some regularity around adoption and is the petri dish of child support disputes, but this would be the first abortion-related conflict of laws I’m aware of. Hmm…
Brachiator
@Phoenix_rising: RE: A married woman has an affair, gets pregnant, and decides to have an abortion. Presumably, her lover, or the lover’s parents, could demand that procedures be taken to … persuade … her to have the child.
Yep, most states protect the marriage, and the children of the marriage. The question is how far the anti abortion zealots are willing to go to intrude on a woman’s reproductive rights in order to “protect” the unborn.
Laws against contraception, and the Catholic Church’s re affirmation of their opposition to in vitro fertilization already seek to have religious authorities intrude on a marriage to make sure that it is “fruitful” in an approved way. It will be interesting to see how far they are willing to go.
By the way, I recall a couple of cases where a lover tried to sue for custody of a child conceived during an affair. I’m not sure what the outcome of these cases were.
Redshift
@Phoenix_rising:
These are undoubtedly legislators who believe in the truth of the posters at anti-abortion rallies, which show something that looks exactly like a cute little baby all the way back to one inch.
If you listen to the Virginia legislators and governor on this, it’s clear that they have absolutely no idea how any of this works, and are working on the basis that an ultrasound is like a cartoon X-ray, showing a perfectly clear image. Bob McDonnell is trying to claim that he never wanted it to be invasive or humiliating, just to establish the “gestational age” to ensure the law is being followed. It’s clear he’s both ignorant and lying, because the whole reason for the invasive ultrasound is that the external ultrasound won’t do that.
Your point that any ultrasound is unreliable reinforces that point even further.
mikefromArlington
Time to print tee shirts:
Keep your BIG Government hands OUT of my Vagina!
scav
@Brachiator: I think this got really confuzzled in VA as that bill mentioned the “birth father” so maybe this one avoids this issue for woman that are married. Still leaves the issue of fatherhood and legal standing up for the partners of unmarried sluts.
Canuckistani Tom
@ABL 2.0:
ABL, I’ve been very dense and need to apologize publicly
I’ve spent 10 minutes thinking your URL read ‘tea [party] mute rati’ instead of ‘team uterati’ and trying to figure out what r-a-t-i stood for.
Calouste
@Phoenix_rising:
You think GOP state representatives actually think about the bills the propose? You’re lucky if they don’t forget to instruct their staffers to replace “” with the actual state name in their ALEC-provided templates.
jenn
@jenn: by which I mean, in my state, of course!
Redshift
@Calouste: I’m tempted to search the VA legislative database for the phrase “your state here”…
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@kay:
Feature, not bug. The whole point seems to be literally stripping the rights of mothers to the point that the unborn’s rights supercedes the woman’s in any and all cases. Once you’re pregnant, you’re not a person anymore; you’re an incubator.
Culture of Truth
If there was a gun in there the NRA would never permit this.
g
@danimal: Here’s what I don’t get. Why is abortion an issue for ALEC? I can understand them want to push through laws that are anti-union and anti- regulation, to please their corporate overlords. and I can understand them wanting to push through so-called “voter reforms” that suppress the votes of their opponents, so that they can gain power. But I don’t understand why they care about abortion. They can’t make any money on it. Is it just to throw a sop or two at the religious dupes that support them? But doing that risks losing the female vote – why fly so openly on the radar?
PurpleGirl
@Brachiator: I’ll bet that there is no procedure to make sure the “father” supports the child after birth… no. the man can contest the abortion and prevent it but probably not support it.
danimal
@g: G–that’s my point. ALEC wants to support conservatives, and restricting abortion rights incrementally is the gift that keeps on giving. ALEC never wanted this to become a national issue, because the pushback from wommin folk can be fierce when it’s directed at a common opponent.
Bottom line: ALEC can win in multiple conservative-leaning states with measures like this, but once the national conversation is about medically unnecessary vaginal penetration, even the neanderthals have a hard time supporting these laws.
My apologies to neanderthals.
Brachiator
@PurpleGirl:
Ultimately, these laws, if rigorously enforced, will see a rise in infanticide and health crises in women who tried to hide a pregnancy or give birth in secret.
Women who can afford it will go someplace where they can quietly have an abortion. For others, there will be a return to hypocrisy. They will go out of state, have a child in secret, give the child up for adoption, and return home to pretend nothing has ever happened. Women will fight to prevent men from interfering with their decisions. As always, less affluent women will suffer the most. And sanctimonious fools will think that they have saved lives, blind to all the misery that they have caused in the name of piety.
kay
Snarksist, religious conservatives have odd, archaic beliefs about the “rights” of grandparents that are not reflected in US law or culture.
I don’t know where it comes from, but they are convinced they have “rights” equal to those of parents.
They ask me all the time.
Their standing is very narrow in Ohio, sensibly, because parents trump in the US, but they insist they have some imaginary “right” to intervene.
I’d love to know what their preachers are telling them, because I get the “grandparents rights” question once a month.
I wonder how they got to the place where they feel they have to sue their grown children, and whether they might be better served working on that relationship rather than looking to a judge.
Gus
@harlana: I really wish that was true. Do you really think that Republicans will lose seats because of this in Alabama?
PurpleGirl
@Brachiator: Yup, a return to the 1950s and earlier. The people who develop these ideas and bills only want to punish women. (Personally, I think these ideas express some men’s envy that they can’t have children and be sure of the fatherhood of the child.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@kay:
Geez, is this only in the case of expectant mothers, or are they pulling that in the case of already born grandchildren too?
kay
These laws are a recognition of the complete failure of the pro-life community’s ability to persuade women.
They failed at that, so that leaves state coercion.
It’s a failure of imagination, really, because law and courts are only one way, and they’re the least effective way if you’re actually out to change minds.
If all you have left is a hammer, I guess women start to look like a nail.
Mnemosyne
@kay:
I do kind of get the “grandparents rights” thing, because sometimes your kid is screwed up and screwing up their kid, and you really want to do something about it. Have I mentioned lately that my sister-in-law has been “borrowing” Vicodin from her father, who needs it because he’s undergoing chemo for his brain tumor? Good times, good times.
kay
Mnem, I get that, I really do, but the right to raise your own children is a fundamental constitutional right, and grandparents can’t be given “rights” or ALL HELL will break out.
The way to go is persuasion.
Consent.
It’s better for everyone, but it’s hard work, and everyone has to buy in.
I do elaborate agreements with sisters, brothers, aunts, a whole host of temporary caregivers.
I once did a (grown) half-brother as the guardian of his (child) half-sister, where no one lost parental rights, but she was protected and he had sufficient authority, although not complete control.
It’s adding caregivers, not subtracting parents.
Agreements are much harder than winning at hearing, but it’s worth it.
Brachiator
@PurpleGirl:
Men are being punished as well. Remember, the idea is to enforce a narrow vision of religious piety, in which the most socially valuable people are married heterosexuals who have lots and lots of children.
This leaves a lot of people, men and women, straight, gay and transgender, out in the cold, or back in the closet.
By the way, I’m sure that the GOP would love to do away with welfare, and to replace it with religious based charity and orphanages.
Also, while there are some men who might envy women’s ability to give birth, there are others who could give less than a rat’s ass, nor would they care whether or not a woman gave birth, especially since there is nothing in this outburst of puritanism that would ensure that a man who impregnated a woman marry her or even provide for a child. Still other men might take the child and ignore the woman, especially if she had sought an abortion.
And although I even hate contemplating such a thing, there will be rapists who will get off knowing that they have trophy spawn incidental to a rape, if state sanctioned forced pregnancy is permitted.
The Other Chuck
ABL, I think you should use this picture instead:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/GOPUltrasound.jpg
Not only less fuzzy, but has a bonus caption.
El Cid
Wouldn’t it be more effective to show these sluts trying to abort their shame a pre-done video meant to look sufficiently clear & cartoonish rather than the real ultrasound, while making sure the transducer is as painful as possible, perhaps designed to administer electric shocks in the vagina?
Why do these soulless sex-beasts deserve to see the holy image of the holy child forced by mere chance to gestate within their unappreciative wombs?
Those images should be recorded and preserved for those with the capacity to appreciate life, such as a carefully-selected panel of religious leaders.
I blame the timidity of today’s so-called “conservatives”, who are content to forcibly shove a mere “transducer” up one of these alleged non-breeder’s openings, whereas a real movement would make sure these women felt during this procedure at least a good fraction of the pain they intend to visit upon the Godspawn within their husks.
Patricia Kayden
While signing the petition is fine, what are Alabamians (spelling?) especially Alabamian women doing about this bill? I don’t see how outsiders are going to influence a deeply red legislature in the Bible belt. If the women of Alabama think this bill is okay, that’s their business.
I am sick and tired of women voting for Repubs and then acting shocked when they pass crazy laws. That’s why I live in Maryland and only vote for Democratic governors. I don’t have to worry about crazy anti-women laws.
Nylund
@Paul in KY:
The link doesn’t even have to be that specific. If the law requires more of these devices, it’ll push up demand for those devices, increasing the price of them, no matter who buys or sells them. That might not lead to quite as much new profit as directly or indirectly selling the devices, but it would, in theory, still benefit him.