To anyone who defends the GOP: Justify this. Justify how it's okay to violate doctor-patient confidentiality, to publish a woman's "age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant" to the public along with the name of her doctor, and to do so when anti-abortion violence is still prevalent to the point of murdering doctors.
'cos this? This is revolting. Small enough government to fit snugly inside a woman's uterus indeed.
I support this legislation. We need to keep our women in line. If we don't they might do things like have sex with who they want to. Everyone knows that God and Jesus have said that only a man can decide who a slutty women (which all of them become without their superior man's guidance) can engage in sex with.
And if they do that, they might do things like learn to read, pursue higher education, and GOD HELP US, develop free will.
Remember, Jesus wants women to do as men say.
Sorry, out of curiosity I try to put myself into these imbeciles' mindsets. It doesn't work. They don't seem to have minds to set, just neurological bible machines.
Hmm besides me being uncomfortable with it I don't see exactly what this is supposed to accomplish other than giving free advertisements for abortion doctors.
Seekster: Hmm besides me being uncomfortable with it I don't see exactly what this is supposed to accomplish other than giving free advertisements for abortion doctors.
I think it's pretty clear what they're trying to accomplish. They're basically doing the real-world equivalent of posting someone's personal information on /b/. They want their personal army to "take out" people they hate. The politicians (and the group supporting the bill) know that there are people like Scott Roeder out there who will put this personal information to "good use."
It's fucking disgusting. I have a hard time finding a way to define "state-sponsored terrorism" that doesn't include this bill. Just when I thought anti-abortion advocates couldn't sink any lower, they have to go and pull this crap. I hope the state gets sued hard enough to knock these fuckers into the stratosphere, because anyone who thinks this is a good idea deserves it.
Seekster: Hmm besides me being uncomfortable with it I don't see exactly what this is supposed to accomplish other than giving free advertisements for abortion doctors.
The purpose is to name and shame those who have abortions so social pressure is brought upon them. This is in the hope that the numbers of abortions decrease... for... what reasons oh whatever could the reasons be oh I wonder... Religious reasons... there should be a separation between Religion and State... but no...
Unless that is the goal then there is no sense to this at all... its a monstorous piece of legislation that will do much damage until overturned by the Supreme Court >.>
Seekster: Hmm besides me being uncomfortable with it I don't see exactly what this is supposed to accomplish other than giving free advertisements for abortion doctors.
I think it's pretty clear what they're trying to accomplish. They're basically doing the real-world equivalent of posting someone's personal information on /b/. They want their personal army to "take out" people they hate. The politicians (and the group supporting the bill) know that there are people like Scott Roeder out there who will put this personal information to "good use."
It's fucking disgusting. I have a hard time finding a way to define "state-sponsored terrorism" that doesn't include this bill. Just when I thought anti-abortion advocates couldn't sink any lower, they have to go and pull this crap. I hope the state gets sued hard enough to knock these fuckers into the stratosphere, because anyone who thinks this is a good idea deserves it.
This. The right wing lost the legal battle on abortion, so now they move on to the second line of defense; using the people and society to ban something that's legal. This bill is just an attempt to outlaw abortions without actually outlawing it. Calling this "state-sponsored terrorism" is probably the most accurate way to describe it.
Seekster: Hmm besides me being uncomfortable with it I don't see exactly what this is supposed to accomplish other than giving free advertisements for abortion doctors.
I think it's pretty clear what they're trying to accomplish. They're basically doing the real-world equivalent of posting someone's personal information on /b/. They want their personal army to "take out" people they hate. The politicians (and the group supporting the bill) know that there are people like Scott Roeder out there who will put this personal information to "good use."
It's fucking disgusting. I have a hard time finding a way to define "state-sponsored terrorism" that doesn't include this bill. Just when I thought anti-abortion advocates couldn't sink any lower, they have to go and pull this crap. I hope the state gets sued hard enough to knock these fuckers into the stratosphere, because anyone who thinks this is a good idea deserves it.
LOL No there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison. It is more likely they mean to shame people out of having an abortion. Still we do this sort of thing with child molesters. I do not think it is either appropriate or useful to post the name of those who get an abortion like this. It is appropriate but not useful to post the names of doctors. In fact posting doctors like this may have the opposite effect of providing free advertisement.
Its silly yes but you far overplay your hand when you call it state sponsored terrorism.
Benth08x: I live in Tennessee, and unfortunately the general response to this will be something similar to "Good. They should be ashamed of themselves anyway."
Well yes they should feel ashamed of themselves but I dont think this is the right way to go about shaming them.
Fuck you so hard, Tennessee. You have taken Texas' "worst state ever" throne. I'm going to write a Axis Powers Hetalia fan fic where you get raped by Germany because of this.
Thank you for illustrating my point. Out of morbid curiosity, what is the "right" way to shame them?
Well for something like abortion trying to publically shame them just turns them into victims that activists groups will coddle. Something like an ultrasound law (which I assume they have already in Tennessee if they are going this far) is better because it privately shames them. In other words, their neighbors may not know what they did, but they will. They will carry the image of their child on that screen with them for the rest of their life. God willing this will dissuade them from having another abortion.
Since the Supreme Court's mistake violated the State's 10th Amendment right to decide the issue of abortion for themselves the states have little recourse but to find creative ways to either ban some abortions (partial-birth abortions which I think most anyone can agree should be banned) and restrict other kinds of abortions and furthermore to make it extremely difficult to obtain an abortion. On top of that find ways to dissuade people from getting them. Obviously though these things are up to each individual state. One state has no business questioning the state laws of its neighbor in this regard.
I do not agree with this law but if the people of Tennessee want it then they should have it. Personally I think that this law goes too far and will likely be struck down in court but if the people want it then they can take their chances.
Seekster: Well yes they should feel ashamed of themselves but I dont think this is the right way to go about shaming them.
So you think other people's private lives are your business? That you have the right to shame and intimidate people because they chose not to walk the same path of life as you did?
Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly91cGxvYWQud2lraW1lZGlhLm9yZy93aWtpcGVkaWEvY29tbW9ucy9jL2M5L0p1ZGVuc3Rlcm5fSk1XLmpwZyIgYWx0PSJpbWFnZSIvPjwvcD4=
Seekster: God willing this will dissuade them from having another abortion.
Why is it your business?
(partial-birth abortions which I think most anyone can agree should be banned)
Yes, we should totally ban a medical procedure that was done almost exclusively to save the life of a woman whose pregnancy was killing her.
One state has no business questioning the state laws of its neighbor in this regard.
That's a cheap sentiment. If it was turned over to the states, anti-choice activists would just petition for a national ban. You all seem to believe it's your business to police other people's bodies and make them fall in lock step with you.
Let me ask you: What are your thoughts on family planning?
Seekster: Well yes they should feel ashamed of themselves but I dont think this is the right way to go about shaming them.
So you think other people's private lives are your business? That you have the right to shame and intimidate people because they chose not to walk the same path of life as you did?
When they are seeking to have their unborn baby killed yes the state does then have an interest in the safety of that child. There is of course disagreement over when exactly that is but there does come a point where the safety of the child supersedes the right to privacy (which by the way according to Roe v Wade is the privacy of the doctor not the mother).
There is no "right to shame". If people think you deserve shame they will shame you if they can. What I think people should be ashamed of others disagree and what others think people should be ashamed of I disagree.
Godavari: I think it's pretty clear what they're trying to accomplish. They're basically doing the real-world equivalent of posting someone's personal information on /b/. They want their personal army to "take out" people they hate. The politicians (and the group supporting the bill) know that there are people like Scott Roeder out there who will put this personal information to "good use."
It's fucking disgusting. I have a hard time finding a way to define "state-sponsored terrorism" that doesn't include this bill. Just when I thought anti-abortion advocates couldn't sink any lower, they have to go and pull this crap. I hope the state gets sued hard enough to knock these fuckers into the stratosphere, because anyone who thinks this is a good idea deserves it.
LOL No there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison. It is more likely they mean to shame people out of having an abortion. Still we do this sort of thing with child molesters. I do not think it is either appropriate or useful to post the name of those who get an abortion like this. It is appropriate but not useful to post the names of doctors. In fact posting doctors like this may have the opposite effect of providing free advertisement.
Its silly yes but you far overplay your hand when you call it state sponsored terrorism.
Dictionary.com: Terrorism noun 1 the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Seems to describe it perfectly well. The state is using threats (of publishing personal medical information) to intimidate or coerce (the law is completely unnecessary; its only purpose is to intimidate people) its citizens for political purposes. You say "there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison." For some, such as Scott Roeder (whom I mentioned above), that is an acceptable consequence. Your bias shows when you call this "free advertisement." That's something a high school bully would say; it's a post-hoc justification for a law that is unambiguously clear in its intent. Stop, drop, and think for a minute Seekster. What the hell is this law if not a threat of harm?
Seekster: God willing this will dissuade them from having another abortion.
Why is it your business?
(partial-birth abortions which I think most anyone can agree should be banned)
Yes, we should totally ban a medical procedure that was done almost exclusively to save the life of a woman whose pregnancy was killing her.
One state has no business questioning the state laws of its neighbor in this regard.
That's a cheap sentiment. If it was turned over to the states, anti-choice activists would just petition for a national ban. You all seem to believe it's your business to police other people's bodies and make them fall in lock step with you.
Let me ask you: What are your thoughts on family planning?
Its the state's business. The state has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn baby. Exactly when this interest begins is open to debate legally at least.
Well yes in the rare cases (very rare mind you) when a mother's life is in danger then an abortion could be considered as a last resort. Obviously though that is up to the mother herself. I treat abortion like I treat the death penalty. Keep the capacity for it but only consider its use it in worst case scenarios.
Depends on what kind of family planning we are talking about, its a rather broad term.
Godavari: I think it's pretty clear what they're trying to accomplish. They're basically doing the real-world equivalent of posting someone's personal information on /b/. They want their personal army to "take out" people they hate. The politicians (and the group supporting the bill) know that there are people like Scott Roeder out there who will put this personal information to "good use."
It's fucking disgusting. I have a hard time finding a way to define "state-sponsored terrorism" that doesn't include this bill. Just when I thought anti-abortion advocates couldn't sink any lower, they have to go and pull this crap. I hope the state gets sued hard enough to knock these fuckers into the stratosphere, because anyone who thinks this is a good idea deserves it.
LOL No there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison. It is more likely they mean to shame people out of having an abortion. Still we do this sort of thing with child molesters. I do not think it is either appropriate or useful to post the name of those who get an abortion like this. It is appropriate but not useful to post the names of doctors. In fact posting doctors like this may have the opposite effect of providing free advertisement.
Its silly yes but you far overplay your hand when you call it state sponsored terrorism.
Dictionary.com: Terrorism noun 1 the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Seems to describe it perfectly well. The state is using threats (of publishing personal medical information) to intimidate or coerce (the law is completely unnecessary; its only purpose is to intimidate people) its citizens for political purposes. You say "there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison." For some, such as Scott Roeder (whom I mentioned above), that is an acceptable consequence. Your bias shows when you call this "free advertisement." That's something a high school bully would say; it's a post-hoc justification for a law that is unambiguously clear in its intent. Stop, drop, and think for a minute Seekster. What the hell is this law if not a threat of harm?
Because if you go out and kill someone that is murder and the state will arrest you for that. Besides this is about shaming people (again don't agree with their methods but I understand the goal) nobody is advocating violence here.
Well, alright, I've got some more... Now, going through an abortion is traumatic as it is already. Noone goes through it with a giggle, it isn't something anyone does lighthearted. The fact that "shaming" in any form is considered a valid addition to that traumatic experience whatsoever is revolting.
Honestly, what on earth is wrong with the GOP? Do they honestly believe that people go through something like an abortion by texting "babby dead now, lulz, omw 2 lunchmeeting!" and getting on with their day? I just can't for the life of me fathom how they think making the experience even more devastating by heaping cartloads of guilt on those involved will help anyone or make the world better in any bloody way.
captcha: good night. I think I'm being told something...
LOL No there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison.
You do know that quite a few people have proven that they are willing to spend a good deal of time in prison in order to murder doctors that provide abortions, right?
I think "terrorism" is a pretty accurate term for people who murder doctors for political reasons.
LOL No there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison.
You do know that quite a few people have proven that they are willing to spend a good deal of time in prison in order to murder doctors that provide abortions, right?
I think "terrorism" is a pretty accurate term for people who murder doctors for political reasons.
If that were the case they would be in the news a lot more. I read the news daily from a number of sources and I can't remember the last time I heard of an abortion doctor being murdered or a clinic being bombed.
You are DRASTICALLY overstating your case. Also once again, nothing in this law encourages people to go out and kill people. Do you know right now you can go out and find where sex offenders live? Nobody is going out and killing sex offenders right and left. There is no rational reason to believe that if this law goes into effect people will start murdering people who get abortions right and left either.
Dictionary.com: Terrorism noun 1 the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Seems to describe it perfectly well. The state is using threats (of publishing personal medical information) to intimidate or coerce (the law is completely unnecessary; its only purpose is to intimidate people) its citizens for political purposes. You say "there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison." For some, such as Scott Roeder (whom I mentioned above), that is an acceptable consequence. Your bias shows when you call this "free advertisement." That's something a high school bully would say; it's a post-hoc justification for a law that is unambiguously clear in its intent. Stop, drop, and think for a minute Seekster. What the hell is this law if not a threat of harm?
Because if you go out and kill someone that is murder and the state will arrest you for that. Besides this is about shaming people (again don't agree with their methods but I understand the goal) nobody is advocating violence here.
Nobody says they are advocating violence, but why would they? The bill just does it for them by providing trigger-happy "activists" (who we already know exists in not-insignificant numbers) with all the information they need to make a judgement about who's going on The List. If this was about shame, there would be no need to include "age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant." If it was about shame, they'd only need her name. They included her location and information about her family. It's not built for shame; it's built for, at best, harassment. At worst, it's taking out a hit.
So now the GOP is going to publish ready-to-use execution lists for pro-life terrorists, while another state has actually legalisalised terrorism so long as it's aimed against people who need abortions or provide them?
The US is descending into anarchy, it's as simple as that.
Seems to describe it perfectly well. The state is using threats (of publishing personal medical information) to intimidate or coerce (the law is completely unnecessary; its only purpose is to intimidate people) its citizens for political purposes. You say "there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison." For some, such as Scott Roeder (whom I mentioned above), that is an acceptable consequence. Your bias shows when you call this "free advertisement." That's something a high school bully would say; it's a post-hoc justification for a law that is unambiguously clear in its intent. Stop, drop, and think for a minute Seekster. What the hell is this law if not a threat of harm?
Because if you go out and kill someone that is murder and the state will arrest you for that. Besides this is about shaming people (again don't agree with their methods but I understand the goal) nobody is advocating violence here.
Nobody says they are advocating violence, but why would they? The bill just does it for them by providing trigger-happy "activists" (who we already know exists in not-insignificant numbers) with all the information they need to make a judgement about who's going on The List. If this was about shame, there would be no need to include "age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant." If it was about shame, they'd only need her name. They included her location and information about her family. It's not built for shame; it's built for, at best, harassment. At worst, it's taking out a hit.
Now you are just being paranoid. If a trigger-happy activist really wanted to kill an abortion doctor all he needs to do is look them up online and he can find out where there clinic is.
Honestly what you are doing here is worse than the kind of logic Rush Limbaugh has been known to employ.
Seekster: When they are seeking to have their unborn baby killed yes the state does then have an interest in the safety of that child.
I'm not asking about the state. I'm asking why you think it's your business. You say you don't approve of shaming, but you'll stand by and let this happen anyway. There's a video floating around YouTube of a man chewing out a pair of anti-abortion protesters while his wife is inside a clinic getting an abortion because the fetus is going to be stillborn and the procedure is the best way to avoid complications that could endanger her health. He says to these two protesters, "You're just making people feel worse on what is already the worst day of their lives." You think it's okay to take a traumatic experience that no one wants to go through and make it worse for them just so you can feel morally superior for a fleeting second?
There is no "right to shame".
Then why don't you oppose this bill? Because that's exactly what it is. It's intimidation.
Seekster: Its the state's business. The state has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn baby. Exactly when this interest begins is open to debate legally at least.
And the answer is to intimidate people until you get your way?
Well yes in the rare cases (very rare mind you) when a mother's life is in danger then an abortion could be considered as a last resort. Obviously though that is up to the mother herself. I treat abortion like I treat the death penalty. Keep the capacity for it but only consider its use it in worst case scenarios.
Then why are you in favor of banning the procedure, thus taking away that choice and option?
Ironically, we are on opposite sides here as I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
Depends on what kind of family planning we are talking about, its a rather broad term.
Any kind. Planned Parenthood, secular education, whatever.
Seekster: Because if you go out and kill someone that is murder and the state will arrest you for that. Besides this is about shaming people (again don't agree with their methods but I understand the goal) nobody is advocating violence here.
You don't have to advocate violence. Just make room for it.
I hate drawing this parallel because of the sheer number of people who misuse it, but authoritarian figures like Mussolini were notorious for publishing the private information of their political enemies. They never called for violence, but there was always someone willing to pull the trigger metaphorically or literally. In this way, they were able to silence dissent through fear. Not all were murdered, a lot of them were harrassed, stalked, intimidated, threatened, their property vandalized and destroyed. Anti-abortion advocates have engaged in that sort of behavior many times in the past. What makes you think they're going to stop now?
LOL No there will be no taking out unless someone wants to spend a good deal of time in prison.
You do know that quite a few people have proven that they are willing to spend a good deal of time in prison in order to murder doctors that provide abortions, right?
I think "terrorism" is a pretty accurate term for people who murder doctors for political reasons.
If that were the case they would be in the news a lot more. I read the news daily from a number of sources and I can't remember the last time I heard of an abortion doctor being murdered or a clinic being bombed.
There was a firebombing of an planned parenthood clinic in Florida only a few months ago, in the beginning on January of this year.
It's not THAT common, no, but it doesn't have to be for terrorism to be effective in scaring people into changing their behavior. I mean, when was the last successful Islamic attack on America? That's one reason why terrorism like this is so effective; even an occasional successful attack helps create an environment of fear.
Also once again, nothing in this law encourages people to go out and kill people.
No, but I'm sure it scares the hell out of doctors who preform these procedures, and everyone who works with them.
Did you see those posters that anti-abortion group put out with the names and faces of doctors and a bulls-eye across them? There's a long pattern of that kind of threatening behavior on the part of the most extreme anti-abortion groups, and this feels like it feeds right into that.
Seekster: When they are seeking to have their unborn baby killed yes the state does then have an interest in the safety of that child.
I'm not asking about the state. I'm asking why you think it's your business. You say you don't approve of shaming, but you'll stand by and let this happen anyway. There's a video floating around YouTube of a man chewing out a pair of anti-abortion protesters while his wife is inside a clinic getting an abortion because the fetus is going to be stillborn and the procedure is the best way to avoid complications that could endanger her health. He says to these two protesters, "You're just making people feel worse on what is already the worst day of their lives." You think it's okay to take a traumatic experience that no one wants to go through and make it worse for them just so you can feel morally superior for a fleeting second?
There is no "right to shame".
Then why don't you oppose this bill? Because that's exactly what it is. It's intimidation.
Seekster: Its the state's business. The state has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn baby. Exactly when this interest begins is open to debate legally at least.
And the answer is to intimidate people until you get your way?
Well yes in the rare cases (very rare mind you) when a mother's life is in danger then an abortion could be considered as a last resort. Obviously though that is up to the mother herself. I treat abortion like I treat the death penalty. Keep the capacity for it but only consider its use it in worst case scenarios.
Then why are you in favor of banning the procedure, thus taking away that choice and option?
Ironically, we are on opposite sides here as I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
Depends on what kind of family planning we are talking about, its a rather broad term.
Any kind. Planned Parenthood, secular education, whatever.
Seekster: Because if you go out and kill someone that is murder and the state will arrest you for that. Besides this is about shaming people (again don't agree with their methods but I understand the goal) nobody is advocating violence here.
You don't have to advocate violence. Just make room for it.
I hate drawing this parallel because of the sheer number of people who misuse it, but authoritarian figures like Mussolini were notorious for publishing the private information of their political enemies. They never called for violence, but there was always someone willing to pull the trigger metaphorically or literally. In this way, they were able to silence dissent through fear. Not all were murdered, a lot of them were harrassed, stalked, intimidated, threatened, their property vandalized and destroyed. Anti-abortion advocates have engaged in that sort of behavior many times in the past. What makes you think they're going to stop now?
I pay taxes...though since I don't pay taxes in Florida its not my business what they do in their state.
I do oppose this bill, just for different reasons than most of the people here.
Because banning the procedure would do far more good than harm though once banned you could then look at permitting it in certain cases.
I will not hear anymore of this nonsense about this bill somehow promoting or leading to violence. No rational basis has been shown for that. All that has been shown is the paranoia of the pro-choice crowd.
Seekster: I pay taxes...though since I don't pay taxes in Florida its not my business what they do in their state.
You pay taxes. Oh wow! Gold star for you. Does this mean the Christian Scientists can petition to ban all medicine? Because you know, they pay taxes too.
I do oppose this bill, just for different reasons than most of the people here.
Yet you still approve of letting it pass.
Because banning the procedure would do far more good than harm though once banned you could then look at permitting it in certain cases.
Prove it. Also, bans don't really work that way. A ban means it's a no-no, period.
I will not hear anymore of this nonsense about this bill somehow promoting or leading to violence. No rational basis has been shown for that. All that has been shown is the paranoia of the pro-choice crowd.
So citing historical precedent doesn't count? News to me.
Seekster: Because banning the procedure would do far more good than harm though once banned you could then look at permitting it in certain cases.
Worse off: -thousands of lives ruined -educations not finished -women who die due to complications -lifelong trauma for rape victims -children who will be in a lot of trouble because their mother can't support them -women will be injured and die as abortions quite simply go underground under unsafe conditions
Better off: -Some ignorant priests and their mindless drones are slightly less grumpy
Maybe I need to see my optometrist, but I'd say the list of worse consequences is longer and more severe than the list of people who'll be better off.
Seekster: Hmm besides me being uncomfortable with it I don't see exactly what this is supposed to accomplish other than giving free advertisements for abortion doctors.
. Dude, people fear for their lives in some areas of the USA. This is the extreme here, but women that do these abortions will be targeted by the communities they live in. Some people don't want the whole world to know about their personal business.
Or at least, that's the plan.
I was gonna drop this in the 'GOP War on Women' thread to add to the ever-growing pile of evidence for it, but decided it warranted its own thread.
Article
To anyone who defends the GOP: Justify this. Justify how it's okay to violate doctor-patient confidentiality, to publish a woman's "age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant" to the public along with the name of her doctor, and to do so when anti-abortion violence is still prevalent to the point of murdering doctors.
'cos this? This is revolting. Small enough government to fit snugly inside a woman's uterus indeed.
Edit: Alternative source too.