gotsnowgotslush
skates like Eck
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Posts
- 25,720
Their most cynical move yet- the Republicans use the racism issue and the sexism issue, to force a woman to give up on having an abortion.
Male lawmakers are attempting to pass laws that would allow a man to sue a woman for refusing to carry his child to term, or a woman's parents
to file an injunction to keep their teenage daughter pregnant. But not only are lawmakers trying to write laws that would make a woman's
uterus subject to the approval of her parents or partner, they're trying to do it under the guise of "civil rights."
A law-
that would theoretically allow a male partner or an underage woman's parents to file an injunction that would force a woman to remain pregnant
by charging her with being motivated to abort by the fetus's race or sex, regardless of whether that's what actually motivated the woman.
(Protect the fetus- against racism or sexism!)
While a woman's parents and partner are suing to keep her pregnant and the legal matter of whether or not she is racist against her own fetus
sorts itself out, termination becomes ever more costly and ever more complicated.
(Delay the abortion until it is too late to abort the fetus?)
(Delay the abortion until it is too late to have an affordable abortion?)
If a woman defies a legal injunction and gets an abortion anyway, or has an abortion without telling her parents or partner,
and they later find out-
Under this law, a woman can be sued for having an abortion.
Under this law, an underage woman's father could theoretically sue his own daughter's doctors for emotional damage
caused by having a sex or race-based abortion and depriving him of a grandbaby.
(2) CIVIL ACTION BY RELATIVES- The father of an unborn child who is the subject of an abortion performed or attempted in violation of subsection (a), or a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman is an unemancipated minor, may in a civil action against any person who engaged in the violation, obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
`(3) APPROPRIATE RELIEF- Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—
`(A) objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, including loss of companionship and support, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
`(B) punitive damages.
`(4) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF-
`(A) IN GENERAL- A qualified plaintiff may in a civil action obtain injunctive relief to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this section.
`(B) DEFINITION- In this paragraph the term `qualified plaintiff' means—
`(i) a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted in violation of this section;
`(ii) any person who is the spouse or parent of a woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this section; or
`(iii) the Attorney General.
[Bill Text H.R. 3541.IH]
Fighting over the title for the bill-
The Democrats and the Republicans had an argument-
The Republicans wanted to use deceptive and misleading words-
Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-discrimination Act of 2011
Do you think that Susan B. Anthony would have supported taking rights away from a woman?
Do you think that Frederick Douglass would have supported a woman losing her right to choose?
(No they would not have, on pain of death. They spent their lives fighting for people's rights.)
The Democrats wanted to put a clear warning label on it- they chose Ronald Reagan and Tea Party
The Ronald Reagan Impose Your Beliefs on a Woman's Womb Act
The Tea Party Determines What Rights a Woman Has Act."
A compromise was reached- Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act
What would this this mean for minority women?
Transcript found here- (also the story)
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/va...t_franks_race_gender_abortion_bill_prenda.php
Male lawmakers are attempting to pass laws that would allow a man to sue a woman for refusing to carry his child to term, or a woman's parents
to file an injunction to keep their teenage daughter pregnant. But not only are lawmakers trying to write laws that would make a woman's
uterus subject to the approval of her parents or partner, they're trying to do it under the guise of "civil rights."
A law-
that would theoretically allow a male partner or an underage woman's parents to file an injunction that would force a woman to remain pregnant
by charging her with being motivated to abort by the fetus's race or sex, regardless of whether that's what actually motivated the woman.
(Protect the fetus- against racism or sexism!)
While a woman's parents and partner are suing to keep her pregnant and the legal matter of whether or not she is racist against her own fetus
sorts itself out, termination becomes ever more costly and ever more complicated.
(Delay the abortion until it is too late to abort the fetus?)
(Delay the abortion until it is too late to have an affordable abortion?)
If a woman defies a legal injunction and gets an abortion anyway, or has an abortion without telling her parents or partner,
and they later find out-
Under this law, a woman can be sued for having an abortion.
Under this law, an underage woman's father could theoretically sue his own daughter's doctors for emotional damage
caused by having a sex or race-based abortion and depriving him of a grandbaby.
(2) CIVIL ACTION BY RELATIVES- The father of an unborn child who is the subject of an abortion performed or attempted in violation of subsection (a), or a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman is an unemancipated minor, may in a civil action against any person who engaged in the violation, obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
`(3) APPROPRIATE RELIEF- Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—
`(A) objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, including loss of companionship and support, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
`(B) punitive damages.
`(4) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF-
`(A) IN GENERAL- A qualified plaintiff may in a civil action obtain injunctive relief to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this section.
`(B) DEFINITION- In this paragraph the term `qualified plaintiff' means—
`(i) a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted in violation of this section;
`(ii) any person who is the spouse or parent of a woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this section; or
`(iii) the Attorney General.
[Bill Text H.R. 3541.IH]
Fighting over the title for the bill-
The Democrats and the Republicans had an argument-
The Republicans wanted to use deceptive and misleading words-
Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-discrimination Act of 2011
Do you think that Susan B. Anthony would have supported taking rights away from a woman?
Do you think that Frederick Douglass would have supported a woman losing her right to choose?
(No they would not have, on pain of death. They spent their lives fighting for people's rights.)
The Democrats wanted to put a clear warning label on it- they chose Ronald Reagan and Tea Party
The Ronald Reagan Impose Your Beliefs on a Woman's Womb Act
The Tea Party Determines What Rights a Woman Has Act."
A compromise was reached- Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act
What would this this mean for minority women?
Transcript found here- (also the story)
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/va...t_franks_race_gender_abortion_bill_prenda.php
