rolanni: (storm at sea by rainbow graphics)
rolanni ([personal profile] rolanni) wrote2011-10-12 09:54 pm

Just wondering...

...how is Mississippi going to afford to enforce this amendment? I mean, Topeka, Kansas just voted to stop prosecuting domestic violence cases 'cause there isn't enough money in the budget and something had to get cut. Last I looked, Kansas was right there at 28 or 29 in state wealth and Mississippi? Was dead last.

They obviously have enough money for this crap

[identity profile] dragonet2.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 01:57 am (UTC)(link)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

She was suicidal, and lost her baby during the suicide attempt. Only to survive and she ius being prosecuted for murder.

The people in power don't give a damn about the carnage and damage they cause, they just care about promoting their evil causes and enriching their wealthy masters.

[identity profile] tuftears.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 02:03 am (UTC)(link)
Isn't the likelihood that this is mainly being pursued as an election year shenanigan?

[identity profile] rolanni.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 02:49 am (UTC)(link)
Did you read the previous entry and follow the links? Also of interest: Personhood USA.

Have fun.

[identity profile] tuftears.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 06:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Aie, I did not see the part about them trying to pass the same thing in all 50 states. >_

[identity profile] saruby.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 02:53 am (UTC)(link)
I would love to think this is just an election year thing, but this year isn't a big election year and this amendment (or variations of it) has been floating around for awhile. Colorado has voted it down TWICE already (2008 and 2010). Truthfully, it's just another attempt by those who know they know better than you to control all us poor women, who just ought to be made to pay for getting pregnant in the first place.

[identity profile] tuftears.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 06:26 pm (UTC)(link)
I would be more impressed by people who are "pro-life" if they were also committed to social services... Instead of dismissing them as examples of 'oversized government'. :P

[identity profile] brock-tn.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 02:54 pm (UTC)(link)
I've run across one group of pro-life people whom I can respect: it's a bunch of nuns in Nashville, TN. Yes, they protest against abortion. But they also show up and protest every time the state schedules an execution, and at most anti-war rallies. Because, you know, being "pro-life" to them means that it's wrong to take ANY life arbitrarily. It's nice to see an example of that sort of moral consistency, even if I disagree with their positions.
timepiece: Page of Pentacles from Tarot of the Cat Poeple Deck (Default)

[personal profile] timepiece 2011-10-14 06:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Hey, I'm consistent too. I've heard my stance described as the "kill-'em-all" stance.

Nope, just a depraved effort to enslave women completely

[identity profile] dragonet2.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 02:12 am (UTC)(link)
All the right-wing politicians would rather do this kind of thing rather than balance the budget or anything else of importance. they've proven it in Congress, the Senate and in the states.

They're all heartless bastards.

[identity profile] a-c-fiorucci.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 02:50 am (UTC)(link)
But it says right in the text of the law that no costs are to be incurred with this provision. So there's nothing to afford. Right?

/end of bitter sarcasm

[identity profile] aspidites.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 03:02 am (UTC)(link)
Personhood USA are a bunch of religious hardliners intent on foisting their beliefs onto everyone in our society, regardless of our own convictions... and this makes them different from the Taliban exactly how?

This is the sort of attack on women's basic human rights - these people want a *zygote* to have more rights than a woman!? - that really gets my blood boiling... I've gone to the Jackson Women's Health Organization webpage, signed their petition, and left a donation. Tomorrow, I call the offices of Senators Carper and Coons, and Representative Carney, to ask them why they are not discussing this on the floor of Congress.

[identity profile] kalimeg.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 04:18 am (UTC)(link)
Any man who thinks that charging a woman who miscarries with a crime is reasonable should be horsewhipped.

These men need to learn some biology first. oops, second -- they need to have a brain *first*.
Edited 2011-10-13 04:20 (UTC)

Any man who thinks that charging ....

(Anonymous) 2011-10-13 06:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Being a man ... I resent the implication that this is a male agenda being perpetrated against women. It's not, it is a nutcase agenda being perpetrated against everyone who believes in choice, by people of both genders! There are as many anti abortion female nutcases as there are male.

... I will grant you that the primary victims will be women ... but it affects us all ...

elgordo303.livejournal.com
(stupid work won't let me sign in!! )

Re: Any man who thinks that charging ....

[identity profile] cheryl feil (from livejournal.com) 2011-10-15 05:33 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree with Anonymous that this is another nutcase agenda telling OTHERS what they should or should not do. I firmly believe in the right of an individual to choose whether that individual's choice is acceptable to me. Each individual should have the right to make what seems to her/him the best choice at that time. As voters we should be vigilant about voting against these nutcase agendas limiting choices.

[identity profile] ariaflame.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 04:19 am (UTC)(link)

As I understand it the Topeka thing is a city budget fight. It isn't legal in the state to assault your domestic partner, but the city is trying to foist the costs for prosecuting the cases onto the state level rather than the city. I don't fully understand that but it is a poor thing to use for budget negotiations.

[identity profile] kalimeg.livejournal.com 2011-10-13 04:20 am (UTC)(link)
but typical....

[identity profile] brock-tn.livejournal.com 2011-10-14 03:05 pm (UTC)(link)
...how is Mississippi going to afford to enforce this amendment?

Oh, that's simple. They'll just cut expenditures on something unimportant, like health care for the indigent, or affordable housing. After all, it's well-known that poor people are only poor because they are lazy, no?

Well, exept for those unfortunates who are unemployed because some evil Latino came across the border illegally and stole his job.

But either way, coddling people of that sort by providing them with benefits only encourages them to remain poor and unemployed.

/irony