More Children! Less Health Care!

Another softball, Matt (2.00 / 2)

"why the hell do conservatives think that compelled birth coupled with no assistance to low-income families to provide the basics like health care and food is a great idea for the little ones they're bringing into the world"

They think it makes it more likely that they'll grow up to be republicans. Everybody knows that low income families have a greater proportion of illiterate kids. And well, illiterate adults... vote republican.

---

by: JC @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 16:46:33 PM UTC

Not certain I agree with the comment, (0.00 / 0)

But I sure as hell don't agree with syd that you're trolling.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 23:03:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Protest (4.00 / 1)

I should probably post this in a diary, but ...

I must once again protest the Senate vote for SB46 being characterized as "a measure to massively restrict abortion rights".  That is one of its functions, but not its form.  It is a proposed amendment that would give the state the right and obligation to control any pregnant actor within the populace.  If passed, which I still dare say it won't, it gives legal control of the actions of pregnant women directly to the state as what they carry in their uteri would be a matter of compelling state interest.  That goes well beyond restricting abortion rights. It is a statement of ownership of every zygote/fetus/unborn baby.  The state would own those, and by default, the actions of the woman who carries said.  Because the fetus is classified as an object of compelling Montana state interest, travel; of pregnant woman could (and by implication should) be reviewed to make certain she is not traveling out of state for an abortion.  Her behavior could be reviewed at any point to protect the state's interest.  This is not slippery slope stuff here.  This is what is stated right in the very proposed amendment.

The real slippery slope is this (and no, I am not a fan of such arguments).  Once we have begun inserting into the Constitution a list of things that are of compelling state interest, any control function is possible, as long as it is pleasing to the majority of voters.  Because children could be of compelling state interest, the diets could be monitored and controlled.  Home schooling could be expanded or restricted or abolished.  Failure to comply on the part of parents could result in the state repossessing the object of their interest.  I'll be the first to say that sounds far-fetched, but it is entirely possible (and probable) when we begin establishing objects, people or medical conditions which nullify our basic rights based on "state interest".

SB48 is not an anti-abortion bill.  It is a property/slavery bill, nothing more or less.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 20:58:52 PM UTC

It is something more... (0.00 / 0)

It is a coldly calculated attempt to get a wedge issue on the 2010 ballot. If this bill gets there, then the republicans will have succeeded.

The goal of this legislation (tongue in cheek aside), is to motivate a large turnout of disaffected moral minority voters who otherwise have no reason to turn out for the '10 elections. It's a GOTV bill, plain and simple. Gives the republicans something to jump up and down about, and ignore the real policy and budget issues that will be facing us.

And that pleases Denny Rehberg, who will face a stiff challenge for once, and for republican Legislators who will inevitably see some challenges from progressive Montanans.

A turnout vote for no abortions = a gimme vote for Republicans. Plain and simple.

---

by: JC @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 22:35:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's wingnut gravy, JC (0.00 / 0)

But it doesn't change the nature of the bill.

In a rational society, we would tar and feather the slavers who posit such things for political gain.  Calculated?  For certain.  Evil?  Without a doubt.  It truly saddens me that so many will argue about media bias and political maneuvering, and yet we find it so hard to actually confront a true horror and threat to freedom when it is proposed.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 23:00:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess I have to deal with my cynicism (0.00 / 0)

before I can confront the reality. Yes, it is easier to stand back and say, "what stupid f*cks" than look at the logic and inanity of this bill. Easier to hope it just doesn't make it out of the leg, than meet it head on. But I guess that's what the republicans want us to do.

I'll chuck my cynics wig for a bit, and dig into it. Thanks for the gut check.

---

by: JC @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 02:49:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]