View Single Post
Old 04-28-2008, 06:04 PM   #1 (permalink)
OKgrannie
Block Captain
 
OKgrannie's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 412
Country:
Points: 6,158, Level: 51
Points: 6,158, Level: 51 Points: 6,158, Level: 51 Points: 6,158, Level: 51
Level up: 4%, 192 Points needed
Level up: 4% Level up: 4% Level up: 4%
Activity: 2%
Activity: 2% Activity: 2% Activity: 2%
OKgrannie is offline
Reply With Quote
New in Missouri: the crime of "coercion."
Is it constitutional?

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...protects-women
"The Missouri House has approved House Bill 1831, which "changes the laws regarding the consent requirements for obtaining an abortion and creates the crime of coercing an abortion." As a Missouri native my initial reaction was to ask what this bill was in response to. I haven't noticed a flood of news stories about coerced abortions here and pro-choice is the antithesis of coercion. But, true to form, this bill is not in response to a rash of complaints by women who have been coerced into an abortion. Rather, House Bill 1831 (Senate Bill 105 is about devaluing the intelligence of women and questioning our ability to make decisions about our medical care.

In the mythical Missouri represented in House Bill 1831, women are fragile gullible creatures that need to be protected from manipulative forces that seek for us to have an abortion we don't really want to have. Under the provisions of the bill a man who asks his partner to have an abortion is guilty of coercion even if his partner was not actually pregnant and never actually had an abortion. A business would be guilty of coercion simply for threatening to reduce a pregnant employees pay and/or cut that employee's benefits. Oh but wait, it gets better! A business would also be guilty of coercion for threatening to terminate the employment of a pregnant employee.

Under House Bill 1831 schools would risk prosecution for coercion simply by threatening to revoke a pregnant woman's scholarship. Terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape would be considered coercion and physicians would face a felony charge for performing that abortion"


And a perceptive comment:
"what I find objectionable about this bill
is its one-sideness. It purports to protect women from being coerced into an abortion, but not women who might be coerced into going to term with an unwanted pregnancy. As the supporters of this bill aren't intersted in the latter, it is obvious their concern for women is bogus.

Submitted by ruthless on April 28, 2008 - 10:03am."
The greatest danger to liberty lurks in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

--Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to OKgrannie For This Useful Post:
AlicornsPrayer (04-28-2008), forester814 (04-28-2008), highway80west (04-29-2008), OnTheLeft (05-31-2008), Sharon den Adel (04-29-2008)
Sponsored Links