This practically made me cry. How could this ever be okay?
[Image: An illustration is labeled as a “partial birth abortion”. It shows a person performing an intact dilation and extraction, which is described at the bottom of the image: “The surgeon pulls the fetus into the breech position. He forced scissors into the skull, removes them and inserts a suction catheter through which he suctions out the skull contents.”]
I’m going to tell you a story that my tenth grade biology teacher told me.
So, my teacher had a friend. She was happily married, a Christian, and pregnant. She and her husband were extremely excited about the pregnancy and they couldn’t wait to be parents. She was pretty far along - probably about 7 month in. She went to get a check-up, and her doctor checked out the fetus. Well, it turns out her fetus had hydrochephalus. In this particular case, the fetus’s head had not and would not form enough to even hold the brain inside the skull. If the woman continued the pregnancy, she would give birth to a dead baby, and that’s if it didn’t die in utero and possibly cause sepsis before she had the opportunity to give birth.
So, and this was before the “partial birth abortion ban” was enacted (not when the story was told, but when it took place), the woman opted to get an intact dilation and extraction procedure (since that’s the proper medical term, “partial birth abortion” is a made up term and has no medical relevance).
Do you know what that allowed her to do? What that allows a lot of uterus-bearers in the same predicament to do?
She was able to hold her dead, intact fetus and mourn for it.
Now, she would have to get a procedure that literally rips the fetus apart, since apparently anti-choicers looking for a means to chip away at Roe v Wade think that this is a better alternative to the described procedure above. As the law currently stands, it is now impossible for people like the woman I described to have their fetuses aborted intact so that they can hold them like they wanted to. It is impossible for women like the one I described to have a body to mourn over.
So good job. Because you’re too ignorant to actually know why uterus-bearers get late-term abortion, specifically intact D & X procedures, you’ve essentially made it much harder for those that are experiencing the difficult choice to end a wanted pregnancy to mourn and move on.
But hey, go ahead and continue to consider yourself compassionate. I guess ignorance really is bliss, especially when you can hold up illustrations of medical procedures you don’t understand and hide behind them as if they have any meaning in the face of the reality that you refuse to acknowledge.
Well now…I did not know that.
My blog is a zero dollar blog, thank you very much Mrs. Feinstein.
But seriously, who the hell do politicians think they are trying to dictate who is granted nature’s rights?
Is this real? I needs a source. And of source confirms she needs a noose.
Yeah she really said this. I did a write-up a while back about the ‘Free Flow of Information Act’ (catchy, isn’t it? who could possibly vote against that…) which made headlines around the same time Eric Holder suggested that we needed to enact media ‘shield’ laws (in the wake of the AP and Fox news reporters being prosecuted).
Here are a few excerpts:
“This bill is described as a reporter shield law — I believe it should be applied to real reporters,” Feinstein said last week. “The current version of the bill would grant a special privilege to people who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications.”
The Feinstein-Durbin proposed amendment would narrowly define journalists as “a salaried agent” of a media company. Feinstein also reportedly said that the bill shouldn’t apply to WikiLeaks or “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $5 and starts a blog.”
Despite the feel-good adjective “shield”, the legislation is notoriously pro-State. Currently AP and Fox news reporters are facing charges on the Espionage Act of 1917. Frankly, the reporters conduct does not measure up to the “imminent lawless action” standard of measuring inflammatory speech against the first amendment outlined in Brandenburg v. Ohio. From USA Today:
Journalists associations and others have criticized the Obama administration for the Justice Department seizure of phone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press, part of an investigation into national security news leaks.
The reason the administration and Eric Holder want this media “shield” law to pass is so that they can include exceptions to judicial process and legal recourse by saying the magic words, “national security.” They want to draw out a legal exception for their current actions against AP and Fox which are egregiously unconstitutional.
And my personal favorite Feinstein moment:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to “real reporters” and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.
"I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she said.
Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a “covered journalist” as someone who gathers and reports news for “an entity or service that disseminates news and information.” The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any “legitimate news-gathering activities.”
Term limits, guys. Term limits. You want these fucking clowns gone? Fifty-, sixty- and seventy-year politicians? Term limits. No longer than eight-years. Same as the president.
You want to get rid of cunts like this and keep them from running around spewing bullshitisms? Term. fucking. limits.