Posted on 06/01/2012 10:11:30 PM PDT by John Semmens
House Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), killing this legislation's chances for passing in the current session of Congress. The bill would've barred doctors from performing abortions for the sole purpose of preventing the birth of a child of an unwanted gender.
Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) characterized the bill as “yet another attempt to impose the shackles of the anti-choice lobby on the personal liberties of women. The Court gave women the right to terminate pregnancies in 1973. The Court didn't say women could only do it for good reasons. They don't have to give any reason. It's their right—period! Congress has no business interfering.”
Representative Judy Chu (D-Calif) called the bill “especially insulting to women of Asian descent. A cultural or personal preference for male children is an inalienable right under our Constitution. Now that we have the technology to ascertain a baby's gender in advance of its birth, it would be oppressive for the government to prevent women from using it in their pursuit of happiness—something our Constitution also guarantees.”
The legislation was similarly opposed by the White House. White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith said that “admittedly, we all know that the vast majority of those aborted for this reason will be girls. As the father of two lovely daughters, the President is hurt that any prospective parent would cruelly terminate a child based solely on the knowledge that it is female. However, a woman's right to freely choose whether to bear a child is one the he holds sacred. No law can be permitted to infringe upon this right.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/112717-2012-06-01-semi-news-a-satire-of-recent-news-june-3-2012.htm
Those who had a financial/legal interest in making abortion legal always knew it was a baby. Some elements of the language used in R v W reflects that fact.
As usual, John Semmens’ satire is so close to the reality as to be almost indistinguishable. The essence of the Democrat politicians has been perfectly captured.
Too bad mom didn’t abort SJL as an undesirable female.
Even though this is satire, it makes me wish it was legal to abort some of these dims at say trimester #200 or more.
Anything on this wretched subject always brings to my mind: Jeremiah 1:5. The proponents of any abortion are treading in deep, deep water with fire on the other side.
That's Congressss Wooooomaaaaan to you little person.
John, when I read the Judy Chu “comment” I thought “please let this be written by JS...”
Wow...your parodies ARE basically what is happening. You gotta right a novel:)
But, there is more to it.
Women in America have a lock on abortion. A man cannot demand an abortion, but a woman can. A woman can abort a baby, despite her husband's, the father's objection in almost every case.
Having a child out of wedlock has become the norm in America. Marriage is being legally & culturally rejected & debased. This leads to women having complete control of who is born & who is NOT born. With various new fertilization methods, men play a decreasing role in reproduction. With sex selection, eventually, women can completely eliminate men from the human race. Even without eliminating men entirely, our numbers could be so diminished & controlled as to make men irrelevant in politics & society. Don't need them, don't want them, & mechanical tools are more satisfying.
Another thing. Recently, state legislatures have been passing laws requiring abortive mothers to view an ultrasound of the child prior to the final decision to abort. During the viewing of the ultrasound, the subject of the sex of the child is bound to come up in conversation with the doctor. The doctor will likely tell the woman the sex of the child, if asked. So, these laws actually facilitate sex selection abortions.
As things are going guys, we are doomed.
Think about it!
Nah. The joke is on you. This is a parody, AKA: satire.
Good one John! Sad that it is so close to the reality of that murderous industry.
The article may be satire. The bill - and Paul’s vote against it - were real.
Femininazi heads exploding!
A trade will spring up with Muslim nations, who will capture and sell them Dhimmi women.
Yes, I know it's satire..I just don't find Ron Paul's vote in favor of allowing sex selective abortions in the USA a ha, ha gutbuster.
Were you unaware that in this instance Ron Paul was one of a handful of Republicans who voted against banning sex selection abortions? Another FReeper on this thread has pointed that out to you, too.
I'm against the murder of the unborn, period, but there are too many monied interests and people bent on human sacrifice (to the god of convenience) out there to completely reverse the whole shooting match in one stroke.
It wouldn’t be the first time that trade of that nature has existed between China and the Arab world.
I pray it doesn’t happen again.
I wish this was satire. LRon Paul: one of Seven GOP House members That Voted With the dems Against Banning Sex-Selective Abortions
The reality is that as long as there is abortion, and as long as there are ultrasounds (I saw one of my 5th great grandchild just yesterday, and it was clear enough to be a studio portrait), the capability of selecting the sex of the child by aborting an undesired child will persist, bill or no bill. As it stands, ‘medically necessary” does not factor in, any excuse will do.
Yes. Excellent exDemMom.
John, Thanks for the ping. Another good one.
Thanks for the ping, John. Spot on as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.