Jump to content

Womens Health Protection Act. The End Of State Abortion Restrictions


skews13
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/13/womens-health-protection-act/

 

 

 

Richard-Blumen.png

 

Congressional Democrats who are pro-choice are fighting back against state restrictions with the Women’s Health Protection Act.
Image: WestConn

 

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) announced at a news conference on Wednesday that he will introduce the Women’s Health Protection Act in the Senate. The action is being undertaken by pro-choice members in both houses of Congress. According to a prior press release from the senator’s office, the law’s intent is to “protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion.”

 

The Women’s Health Protection Act is aimed at states like Texas and Wisconsin that try to “curtail reproductive health services for women.” It is at the state level that a fierce battle is being fought by Republicans who, in the words of Sen. Blumenthal, have passed a “cascading increase of measures” to put obstacles in the way of women’s rights.

In two years, states have passed 192 restrictions

The protection for women lies in the act’s prohibition against “laws that impose burdensome requirements on access to women’s health such as requiring doctors to perform tests and procedures that doctors deemed unnecessary in their professional opinion.” According to the bill’s sponsors, states enacted 92 restrictions on abortions and on access to women’s reproductive services in 2011 alone. Since then, another 100 have been passed by state legislatures. As Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) said at the news conference, “Without access, the right to abortion is meaningless.”

 

The initiative by Democrats is a welcome response to the unremitting GOP assault on women’s right to choose and to retain control over their own bodies. In what would appear to be a stroke of genius, the title of the legislation, the “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013″, co-opts the language in the title of ‘model legislation’ formulated by the anti-choice law firm and advocacy group, Americans United For Life. The title on their anti-choice proposal is the same as the Democrats’ except for the phrase “(Abortion Clinic Regulations)” added on the end.

The Women’s Health Protection Act takes back control of the discussion

Asserting control over the rhetoric is a move that is long overdue. Pro-choice lawmakers and advocates can’t afford to let the opposition use definitions that are insults to women in the fight over reproductive rights.

 

The most obvious example is the use of the term ‘pro-life’ to describe the conservative position. The term is a lie and a manipulation. Conservatives aren’t ‘pro’ anything positive in this struggle. They are ‘anti-choice’ and, as they’ve proven over and over again, anti-woman. The idea that GOP legislation protects women’s health is also an obvious lie.

 

The primary sponsors of the Women’s Health Protection Act are U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Baldwin (D.-Wisc.), and Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.) in the Senate. In the House, sponsors are U.S. Representatives Judy Chu (D-Cal.), Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) and Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) Note the preponderance of women on this list. The increasing numbers of female legislators, as well as their visibility, are vital to winning the struggle for equal rights.

Citizens ‘standing strong’ will win the fight

The six primary sponsors all spoke at Wednesday’s press conference. They added that the bill already has 29 co-sponsors in the Senate and 53 in the House. Sen. Blumenthal said, “We will win this fight”, maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually. The reason is a growing movement of citizen activists across the country who are “standing strong” to oppose the GOP’s insertion of conservative politicians between women and their doctors.

 

The bill will no doubt pass the Senate, but has little chance of passage in the GOP-dominated House of Representatives. What it will do is force the GOP to debate and defend their anti-woman stance as the country heads into 2014′s mid-term elections. Their actions and justifications are so transparent that this should only serve to further mobilize the electorate. With the swearing-in of a different Congress, post-election, Sen. Blumenthal’s statement can become fact. “We will win this fight.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Do these protections extend to unborn women, or just those who have managed not to be aborted?

Of course moron, a unborn woman is is free to get an abortion if she likes, we won't have any discrimination in this thing, and anytime you find a woman that is ugly and stupid enough to marry you, there is a clause that will give her 75% off on abortions, it's called the prevention of idiot offspring discount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/13/womens-health-protection-act/

 

 

 

Richard-Blumen.png

 

Congressional Democrats who are pro-choice are fighting back against state restrictions with the Women’s Health Protection Act.

Image: WestConn

 

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) announced at a news conference on Wednesday that he will introduce the Women’s Health Protection Act in the Senate. The action is being undertaken by pro-choice members in both houses of Congress. According to a prior press release from the senator’s office, the law’s intent is to “protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion.”

 

The Women’s Health Protection Act is aimed at states like Texas and Wisconsin that try to “curtail reproductive health services for women.” It is at the state level that a fierce battle is being fought by Republicans who, in the words of Sen. Blumenthal, have passed a “cascading increase of measures” to put obstacles in the way of women’s rights.

In two years, states have passed 192 restrictions

The protection for women lies in the act’s prohibition against “laws that impose burdensome requirements on access to women’s health such as requiring doctors to perform tests and procedures that doctors deemed unnecessary in their professional opinion.” According to the bill’s sponsors, states enacted 92 restrictions on abortions and on access to women’s reproductive services in 2011 alone. Since then, another 100 have been passed by state legislatures. As Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) said at the news conference, “Without access, the right to abortion is meaningless.”

 

The initiative by Democrats is a welcome response to the unremitting GOP assault on women’s right to choose and to retain control over their own bodies. In what would appear to be a stroke of genius, the title of the legislation, the “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013″, co-opts the language in the title of ‘model legislation’ formulated by the anti-choice law firm and advocacy group, Americans United For Life. The title on their anti-choice proposal is the same as the Democrats’ except for the phrase “(Abortion Clinic Regulations)” added on the end.

The Women’s Health Protection Act takes back control of the discussion

Asserting control over the rhetoric is a move that is long overdue. Pro-choice lawmakers and advocates can’t afford to let the opposition use definitions that are insults to women in the fight over reproductive rights.

 

The most obvious example is the use of the term ‘pro-life’ to describe the conservative position. The term is a lie and a manipulation. Conservatives aren’t ‘pro’ anything positive in this struggle. They are ‘anti-choice’ and, as they’ve proven over and over again, anti-woman. The idea that GOP legislation protects women’s health is also an obvious lie.

 

The primary sponsors of the Women’s Health Protection Act are U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Baldwin (D.-Wisc.), and Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.) in the Senate. In the House, sponsors are U.S. Representatives Judy Chu (D-Cal.), Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) and Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) Note the preponderance of women on this list. The increasing numbers of female legislators, as well as their visibility, are vital to winning the struggle for equal rights.

Citizens ‘standing strong’ will win the fight

The six primary sponsors all spoke at Wednesday’s press conference. They added that the bill already has 29 co-sponsors in the Senate and 53 in the House. Sen. Blumenthal said, “We will win this fight”, maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually. The reason is a growing movement of citizen activists across the country who are “standing strong” to oppose the GOP’s insertion of conservative politicians between women and their doctors.

 

The bill will no doubt pass the Senate, but has little chance of passage in the GOP-dominated House of Representatives. What it will do is force the GOP to debate and defend their anti-woman stance as the country heads into 2014′s mid-term elections. Their actions and justifications are so transparent that this should only serve to further mobilize the electorate. With the swearing-in of a different Congress, post-election, Sen. Blumenthal’s statement can become fact. “We will win this fight.”

 

It won't work. Essentially, they are trying to pass a bill that says the exact same thing as Roe v Wade. It would be nice to overturn the state option to control the last trimester, but it won't pass the house, and Republican's would just ignore it just like they ignore Roe v Wade.

 

 

Of course moron, a unborn woman is is free to get an abortion if she likes, we won't have any discrimination in this thing, and anytime you find a woman that is ugly and stupid enough to marry you, there is a clause that will give her 75% off on abortions, it's called the prevention of idiot offspring discount.

 

 

Golfboy ought to abort himself right now to save us the trouble later on. Or maybe we could just cut his d1ck off. Hey, Golfboy, put it there, pal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't work. Essentially, they are trying to pass a bill that says the exact same thing as Roe v Wade. It would be nice to overturn the state option to control the last trimester, but it won't pass the house, and Republican's would just ignore it just like they ignore Roe v Wade.

 

 

 

 

Golfboy ought to abort himself right now to save us the trouble later on. Or maybe we could just cut his d1ck off. Hey, Golfboy, put it there, pal!

Yeah, but like it was stated in the article, eventually it will pass, but for now it is something to beat them over the head with before the elections next year. When you force Republicans to debate abortion issues, they lose every time. They actually believe the debate will be about Obamacare next year. Boy are they in for a rude awakening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but like it was stated in the article, eventually it will pass, but for now it is something to beat them over the head with before the elections next year. When you force Republicans to debate abortion issues, they lose every time. They actually believe the debate will be about Obamacare next year. Boy are they in for a rude awakening.

If Obamacare could just start doing better, we could do that. They will gnash their teeth about us killing babies, but the vast majority of the country still has a brain. It would help us with the thoughtful independents. We should also trot out immigration some more. That's more of a win/win than abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Obamacare could just start doing better, we could do that. They will gnash their teeth about us killing babies, but the vast majority of the country still has a brain. It would help us with the thoughtful independents. We should also trot out immigration some more. That's more of a win/win than abortion.

That will also be on the itinerary. Abortion, immigration, voting rights. The trifecta that will sink the Republicans. The way it just sunk them in Virginia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another kumbaya thread that will soon find its way to oblivion.

 

Ain't gonna happen so why even start a thread about it.

You said the samething last year. How did that work out for you again? Did you not pay attention to the election in Virginia this year, and the exit polling on what the voters main concerns were? Let me help you out again. Abortion, immigration, voting rights. The three issues that are going to cost Republicans dearly next year. Just like it did this year. It will come in the form of three questions during the first debate in the Presidential campaign.

 

Mr. Republican candidate, do you support the women's health protection act?

 

Mr. Republican candidate, do you support comprehensive immigration reform?

 

Mr. Republican candidate, do you support the voting rights act?

 

My prediction is the Democrats to pick up 20 House seats, 2 more Senate seats, and a landslide victory by Hillary Clinton.

 

Now since you are so confident on your position, by all means please make your prediction right now, and we'll compare notes next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am generally opposed to abortion ... but I think the campaign against them should be conducted by individuals and private non-profits and churches. People & organizations need to reach out & help women considering abortion find alternatives that honor the sanctity of the life they carry within them.

 

However, I don't want government laws that force women determined to get an abortion to seek out dangerous back-alley practitioners either. It's ultimately a matter to be decided by a woman, her doctor, her conscience, and her God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am generally opposed to abortion ... but I think the campaign against them should be conducted by individuals and private non-profits and churches. People & organizations need to reach out & help women considering abortion find alternatives that honor the sanctity of the life they carry within them.

 

However, I don't want government laws that force women determined to get an abortion to seek out dangerous back-alley practitioners either. It's ultimately a matter to be decided by a woman, her doctor, her conscience, and her God.

I leave the abortion thing to the woman, being a dude I have never had the need for an abortion, so why the hell should it be any of my business. This sounds more like a control thing with the cons, it's one of those them bit'ches gonna' do what I tell em type thing. Their war on women will follow them straight to the ballot box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I leave the abortion thing to the woman, being a dude I have never had the need for an abortion, so why the hell should it be any of my business. This sounds more like a control thing with the cons, it's one of those them bit'ches gonna' do what I tell em type thing. Their war on women will follow them straight to the ballot box.

You've never been murdered either, so why restrict people's choice to commit murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONs still don't think people are watching closely.

 

They say they are for less intrusive government, then turn around and use the power of Government to set limits and controls on freedoms and liberties based on religious idealism.

 

That Taliban Quiz is accurate on more than just the stuff shown on the ground.

 

Republicans long for a Religious Theocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've never been murdered either, so why restrict people's choice to commit murder?

Who said that I was against murder moron, but I have a policy, you kill em, you bury em. I don't like shovel work. If you just want to talk stupid dude, I'll play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women already have the right to seek an abortion. I support that. This bill, on the surface, other than being a waste of time, isn't really a pain in the ass. But from a consitutional stand point where in the constitution is congress granted the power to get involved in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women already have the right to seek an abortion. I support that. This bill, on the surface, other than being a waste of time, isn't really a pain in the ass. But from a consitutional stand point where in the constitution is congress granted the power to get involved in this?

 

To prevent states from violating women's rights and defying the purpose and intent of the law by putting so many intentionally targeted restrictions in place that abortion, while legal, is essentially unavailable.

 

Although these unconstitutional tricks are usually buttressed by nauseatingly sanctimonious posturing about religion and morality, it is simply the last gasp effort of the old guard to get women back under control where they belong.

 

It's a losing battle, but it certainly helps wake the country up to the cons' anti-American, misogynistic, malicious and dishonest culture of corruption, so I'm all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I don't want government laws that force women determined to get an abortion to seek out dangerous back-alley practitioners either. It's ultimately a matter to be decided by a woman, her doctor, her conscience, and her God.

So, if a woman decides she no longer wants her 3 year old child, should she be allowed to abortion him?

Is that a decision that should be left to he woman, her doctor, her conscience and her God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To prevent states from violating women's rights and defying the purpose and intent of the law by putting so many intentionally targeted restrictions in place that abortion, while legal, is essentially unavailable.

 

Although these unconstitutional tricks are usually buttressed by nauseatingly sanctimonious posturing about religion and morality, it is simply the last gasp effort of the old guard to get women back under control where they belong.

 

It's a losing battle, but it certainly helps wake the country up to the cons' anti-American, misogynistic, malicious and dishonest culture of corruption, so I'm all for it.

Ok, I can live with that.

 

Now, you just work on who pays for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I can live with that.

 

Now, you just work on who pays for it.

 

 

Don't have to - the government doesn't pay for it.

 

Question - do you think you'll EVER stop shouting this lie about tax money paying for abortions, or do you just love it far too much to grow some integrity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...