Interesting our debate now on Rep. Bob Nonini's HB 654A making it unlawful to coerce a woman to have an abortion but leaving it lawful to coerce and threaten a woman with violence to force her not to have an abortion. Do the sponsors think it is OK to threaten a woman to force her to have a baby she feels unable to bear? Do the sponsors want to protect their right to coerce women for this purpose? Nonini said this was about protecting women, about our safety and our rights. I would have to say I doubt that. This bill is about politics and religion, not about women.
Only two men voted with the 9 women who voted no.
Oh for the love of...
Figures.
How much more of a sexist statement and unconstitutional (not even the 14th and right to privacy...how about the 1st and a right to freedom of religion?) statement is that?
Posted by: Heather in SFBay | March 25, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Did anyone challenge the supporters of this bill to actually be honest about why they were pushing it so hard?
It is all about gradual challenges to the right of choice, about making it just a little more difficult to get an abortion once that choice is made. And every single supporter of this offal knows it, they just won't admit it in public.
Liars, every single one of them.
Posted by: Binkyboy | March 27, 2008 at 08:32 AM
Right. If they were really against abortion, they'd be pushing for an increase in birth control availability.
Posted by: slfisher | March 30, 2008 at 12:34 AM