Home | About | Donate

GOP House Poised to Pass 'Blatantly Unconstitutional' Abortion Ban


GOP House Poised to Pass 'Blatantly Unconstitutional' Abortion Ban

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives will vote Wednesday on what women's health advocates say is a "blatantly unconstitutional" nationwide 20-week abortion ban.

"Let's get one thing straight: This bill is a dangerous attempt to restrict women’s access to safe and legal abortion, and chip away at abortion access completely," Planned Parenthood Action Fund warned in advance of the vote.


For some reason, this reminds me of the Third Reich, where women were given all sorts of perks for bearing a lot of cannon fodder children for the Reich.

  • Apparently, here in the Fourth Reich, it is cheaper to just mandate that women cannot not have children.
  • The result will be roughly the same. Lots of hungry, jobless, young people with no recourse but the military, to continue to feed the Reich’s endless wars.


Issues like same sex marriage and abortion give corporations and the politicians they own an added bonus by distracting the electorate from paying attention to all the legislation that continues to transfer wealth from the 99% and into the hands of the 1%.


It seems to me that the constitution has been torched so often over the last 15 years – torture, mass surveillance, reproductive rights, environmental assaults – that this ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ move will get no more than an insignificant blip on the public’s radar. Unless and until single-issue-oriented activist choose solidarity and start protesting in very large numbers the demise of the constitution, no woman will be able to choose abortion in America. Politicians are by nature self-serving, and they will do nothing without either money for re-election or enormous pressure from the street.


Tiptoeing back into the Dark Ages. Astonishing that there are people out there who actually function at such a low level, and manage to get elected so that they hold the reins of power.


Uh, Ray - issues like abortion are a heck of a lot more significant than simply being “distractions” from what, it appears, many consider the more important issue of “wealth transfer” …


I agree - I have noticed that trade issues seem to be sucking all the air out of discourse these days - and, ironically, when everyone is so concerned about the “privacy” issues of communication, a much more, IMO, primary privacy issue - choice to reproduce - is being allowed to be degraded …


Shucks - don’t worry - pretty soon some “science” will pop up that shows a two celled zygote can feel pain -

The point is the sovereignty of a woman over her choice to reproduce - sorry if you don’t like that MN has put her in charge for that first 9 months …


“would almost certainly be vetoed by President Barack Obama”

ALMOST certainly?? Almost?


(Whatever happened to Republican demands to “get big government out of our private lives”?) We have got to get legislators out of these most personal decisions. Our social policies against the poor prove that any concern about babies is hypocritical. For a range of reasons that actually exclude laziness, America has a poverty crisis today, and the majority of poor are women and children. Clearly, our legislators intend to worsen conditions.


Well, women have been getting stripped of a long list of fundamental civil and human rights for years, starting with the poor. It was inevitable that this agenda would trickle up.


Proving your point? Standard retort … But saying so doesn’t make it so …

Sorry, but though the sex act is designed so that life can be reproduced by engaging in it, that does not mean it is the only thing it can be used for - and it is not the only thing it is used for - it can be a profound bonding experience between 2 people, without any consideration of procreation - i suspect that most sexual acts are not performed for the purpose of having children … But I am sure you are aware of that …, though you obviously don’t like the idea …

The idea that sex should not be engaged in unless one intends to procreate is a value judgement - not a fiat, a value judgement, that, I suspect, most folks don’t share, either now or for centuries past …

While male participation, or at least the transfer of sperm, may be necessary for procreation - it is a fleeting contribution - the burden for the first 9 months of development lies solely with the female and it is a burden indeed, though one often joyfully borne, and whether you like it or not, after that first fleeting insemination - the decision to procreate lies, by design, with the female … if you don’t think that is “fair”, take it up with Mother Nature …


There is nothing “inevitable” about it …


Good comment. Most people KNOW if they do not want a baby, married or not. Therefore the female or male should get that little surgery, end of problem. Or take huge precautions to prevent pregnancy. Or very early tern abortion, not long term! I do not approve of abortion as birth control. There are so many methods these days. Poor females need to have options, for them and the babies that become our burden to support. I do not understand why the GOP can not figure this out. Birth control is so sensible for many reasons, here and abroad, cheaper to provide than the support of many babies. BUT people are too lazy or careless, and get pregnant. IF ALL males were held responsible for the baby they create, then most of this issue would be mute! Good grief, this is 2015, not the middle ages. As long as they get by with no responsibility, then long term issues will continue. WHY should only the female have to be totally in charge of this? The main issue, IS the govt. should NOT be in our lives for this issue, whether sex, pregnancy, abortion, gay, marriage! These are personal rights, not govt., except to hold males responsible! IF they pay tax, they need to pay for their kids, one or a dozen……


The GOP thumpers can’t decide whether to follow their beliefs, or have less govt.! Following their blind faith, makes them interfere with all of our personal rights, or more govt. How they even think, that gives them the right to get into our homes, marriage, sex, birth control, is stretching too far. IT is NO ones business about others rights, in their own home! The religious thumpers need to get OUT of govt. and leave us alone. They need to immediately mind their own business.


When it comes to this entire discussion, the biggest problems are widespread ignorance about the realities of life, job loss, illness, etc., and a marked tendency to demand “one size fits all” answers. With millions of young couples, circumstances vary widely. Conditions change, illness/disability occur, jobs can be lost, couples break up, etc., etc. There is NO one-size-fits-all answer, no matter how much anyone wishes to pontificate. As a nation, we need to decide if human lives have any priority. We provide abundant aid to foreign countries, ended aid to our own poor, and that’s wrong.


DH, I decided to read thru before attempting any comment, and sure enough, I am on about the same track as you. Maybe I’m really naive, but I sure can not comprehend some of these republicans’ inherently contradictory positions.

Start with what you said: don’t the Reps bleat about big government and not wanting it to micromanage or interfere in people’s every day lives? So why are they interfering not only in people’s lives but in the most personal aspects of those lives: reproductive rights and sexual orientation?

Then, the lives of embryos and fetuses, no matter how they were conceived or what viability they might not have (as in Trisomy 18), are to be preserved in all instances, but mothers’ fully birthed and grown children can be murdered in prisons by the [non-interfering] government or can be deliberately executed by being sent into harm’s way, I.e., war. I do NOT get it.

And then, these anti-women’s rights invaders…why, most of them are men! These men demand respect for their views, but they assume the right to disrespect women’s sovereignty. Spanish expression: o todos hijos o todos entenados (literally: [we’re all your] sons or all step-sons).

I honestly need someone to explain the justification of these contradictions to me.


Sex is not primarily about having children. In a perfect world no one would get pregnant from casual sex or rape. Abortion is still something that should be between a woman and her maker, not a thousand folks outside a clinic yelling and threatening. I think about the woman who actually requires an abortion at 5 mo and realize it is none of my business, but sometimes I realize a child might go through far more pain being born into a household that does not want them. I still remember a person who told me I was going to hell because I had an ectopic pregnancy terminated to save my life and yes we had already heard the heartbeat.


"WHY should only the female have to be totally in charge of this? "

Ask Mother Nature …


“Abortion is still something that should be between a woman and her maker,”