MI Repubs vote unanimously to criminalize choice

[UrbScotty]

On Saturday in East Lansing at their state committee meeting, the Michigan Republican Party (MIGOP) unanimously passed a resolution in support of the Citizens for Life ballot initiative. The initiative makes all abortions illegal, even in the cases of rape, incest or to save the woman’s life. The initiative also would outlaw forms of contraception as well as make those doctors involved criminals.

“By supporting the Citizens for Life ballot initiative, the radical right-wing Michigan Republican Party has moved even farther out of the Michigan mainstream,” said Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer. “The Party of Dick DeVos, Mike Cox and Terri Land unanimously voted to make criminals and murderers out of those women who choose to get an abortion because they were raped or want to save their own lives.”

Citizens for Life ballot initiative petition language reads, “A 'person', for purposes of the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, exists from the moment of conception.”

“The people of Michigan understand that the Republican Party’s extreme proposal is unjust, unfair and is one of, if not the most radical initiatives the state has ever seen,” said Brewer. “Michigan voters will overwhelmingly reject it and the Republican Party. We need to find ways to reduce abortions not make women criminals."

http://www.michigandems.com/041206prs2.html

[Terran1212]

1. Even to save WOMAN'S LIFE?!

This is by far the most sensible reason for abortion, that most agree with.

WTF?

[DaveColorado]

2. What forms of contraception would it outlaw?

That's the fundies next target if they get abortion outlawed.

[silverweb]

7. All of them, of course.

Except abstinence and the "rhythm" method.

[HockeyMom]

3. I would have been dead 24 years ago

nor would my 22 year old daughter subsequently have been born without "abortion to save a woman's life".

SICK, CRUEL PEOPLE.

[iamjoy]

11. Bet A Lot Of Women Are In The Same Boat

as you, they had to terminate one pregnancy. Because of this, they survived and gave birth to beautiful children when the time was right.

[UrbScotty]

5. Yeah - how 'pro-life,' huh? (nt)

[silverweb]

4. I hope it makes the MSM...

Front page all the way! "Citizens for Life," indeed -- what a misnomer!

Any moderate or reasonably tolerant person who votes for the fetus-over-child, pro-war, pro-execution, pro-torture, anti-Liberty, anti-Freedom, anti-Peace, anti-Family reTHUG party these days needs to have his/her head examined. Big time.

Let people see what radical nutcases are really running the GOP these days.

[darkmaestro019]

6. Where can I go to withdraw my never-given consent to be governed? nt

[valerief]

8. Life is cheap to these people. n/t

[Brigid]

9. A Ploy . . .

Several states have been working to get initiatives like this passed in order to provoke a court case that will make its way to the Supreme Court, thus giving the pro-lifers a chance to try to overturn Roe v Wade. Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

[Olney Blue]

10. It's time for the conservatives to make their push....

they know the clock is ticking on their waning power.

[marmar]

12. Michigan's a blue state...

but we've got some of the batshit craziest Republicans in the country. (Tancredo, Sensenbrenner and Santorum excepted, of course.)

[Nobody]

13. Life starts at conception? OK fine, when will they pass laws that

start the age countdown at conception for....

Getting your drivers license.

legal drinking and smoking.

voting.

getting drafted or having to register for the draft.

marriage.

legal adulthooid.

aging out of the juvenile system

legally being able to quit school

retiring

being able to be hired for certain dangerous jobs or running certain equipment on the job

Being able to work past 7PM on school nights (your mileage may vary in your state)

And how do they figure when conception takes place? Can they ever be sure? What about the 20% (or more) fertilized eggs that naturally don't implant? What about fertilized eggs left over from fertility treatments?

(on edit: oops, left out a couple important clarifying words. Sigh.)

[UrbScotty]

14. Good question (nt)

[valerief]

15. Claim as a dependent on your 1040, too. n/t

[UrbScotty]

16. Also an excellent idea (nt)

[Recursion]

17. *shrug* Life does begin at conception

At least in a biological sense.

An embryo or fetus metabolizes, and has DNA different from its mother. This is why we've lost the choice debate; we forgot what it was about.

The instant that a woman's freedom of choice became tied to the status of the fetus (that instant, I think, was Roe v. Wade), we started fighting a losing battle. When you view the issue from the perspective of the status or rights of the fetus, it's hard not to follow the anti-choice logic. A fetus is a living individual (albeit an as-yet undeveloped one) whose "host" makes a choice that ends its existence.

The instant that we start talking about "exceptions" for rape, incest, etc. we've lost, because the argument b

I think this is why there are people who are anti-choice, though I don't like that phrase. It strikes me as manipulative and dishonest like I normally expect from the right. There are some misogynists out there who just want to return to the stone age, but I don't know if that's a big part of the anti-choice movement. I think a lot of people really do simply believe that a fetus or embryo has a right to be born that outweighs the woman's liberty over her own body. That's also why there are people who don't believe in a rape exception: once you've started down this path, it doesn't particularly make sense to terminate a life because of a crime that person's father committed. "We don't kill the children of murderers," they will say, "why kill the children of rapists?".

Life begins at conception. I think so, at least. But whatever rights an embryo or fetus might have are so completely outweighed by our sovereignty over our own bodies that the government has no power to prevent any decision about our own bodies that we make, even if that decision terminates a life. Just like the state can't force someone to donate blood or marrow or anything else to save a life, even though that choice demonstrably leads to someone's death, the state can't force a woman to carry a baby to term because our sovereignty over our own bodies is a liberty second only to freedom on conscience in its importance.

I don't think moving to the center on an issue helps us. I don't think conservatives look at compromise and say, "oh ok, they're reasonable". I think they look at it and say "they're weak and lack principles". We shouldn't tiptoe around choice. We shouldn't argue about when and whether a fetus feels pain or is sentient. We should say very plainly that whether or not life begins at conception, from that point until birth a woman's liberty over her body is absolute.

[Nobody]

18. I disagree about the exceptions part

When the anti-choicers make exceptions for rape, incest, life of mother or any other reason, they've basically stated that there are acceptable reasons to abort. Therefore, abortion is OK. As long as they agree with the reasons for that abortion.

But here's the problem: They do not nor will they ever know just why any given woman aborts. They do not get access to police records, doctors' diagnoses, or any other records that total strangers wouldn't get access to.

Once the antis start talking about exceptions, that's when we can tell them to assume that everyone is aborting for acceptable reasons and that it's none of their business why.

If you do the El Salvador thing and throw women into prison because they've had an ectopic pregnancy terminated, the true agenda surfaces: Women aren't fully human, women are just incubators and health is not important.

It's compassion. Women are already here, living, breathing, contributing to society. That ectopic pregnancy, that blastocyst caused by a rape is NOT more important than her well-being. Period.

If you go the route of compassion and ackowledging that women are true and full human beings, then the anti's arguments fall to the ground. Why should they have to be satisfied that the reason for having a legal procedure done are reasons they'd accept? Are they going to take on the responsibility? No. Are they going to place their own bodies at risk? No. Will they be liable if the woman dies in childbirth? No.

No one but those who are directly involved get a vote. No one but the woman gets the final decision.