{EAV_BLOG_VER:c5a647f92fc5c3b9}
Ohio cheap labor conservative Republicans scored a direct hit against women today by getting the most restrictive anti-abortion bill passed today. House douchebag leader Matt Huffman (R-Lima) pulled the reason to pass it out of his large lumpy ass and it made me wonder how can men tell a woman what to do with their body but look out if you demand someone get health insurance or make any comments about what people should eat.
Today, the Ohio House approved three anti-abortion efforts, including the nation’s most radical anti-abortion bill. Known as the “heartbeat bill,” the legislation prohibits a woman from seeking an abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as early as “six to seven weeks into pregnancy.”
On the state house floor today, state Rep. Matt Huffman decided that the “heartbeat bill” is a “significant step” in the history of civil rights in all of western civilization. Declaring a fetus to be “a person,” Huffman likened lawmakers who oppose the bill to slave owners who would eventually see the errors of their ways.
Ohio GOP Lawmaker Compares Opponents Of Nation’s Most Radical Anti-Abortion Bill To Slave Owners
I am just at a loss for words and it makes me so ticked off that the voters of my state elected these people to office.
I’ve read about the time before Roe v Wade and I’ve talked to women who lived in that time and nothing I’ve read or heard says those were good times or better times.
Pretty soon birth control will be outlawed and then we go back to those days of the bloody hanger in the back alleys.
That’s progress? Oh and where are the jobs?
Doug–
The Republicans have not, despite how it looks, declared war on women's contraceptive rights. I know the facts looked stacked against them, We note that it is all Republican controlled legislatures and governors passing these laws (not ramming them through–they are sensitive to the issues). Full debate has been the order of the day (like the Michigan Republican speaker of the House instantly declaring "immediate" effect on a bill and slamming the gavel). I know it looks like these "restrictive abortion laws" occurred within the last 2 years of the radical Republican take over in many of the states. But you would be entirely mistaken. It is not that Republicans wish to "get rid of abortion," said a Republican lawmaker in Louisiana–but we insist on "safeguards."
Contrary to the facts Doug, this "attack" on women's rights is all an illusion. It is equivalent to Republicans declaring war on "caterpillars," says Reince Priebus.
They can call it safeguards if they want but 11 abortion bills in one session of the Ohio legislature and the focus on controlling women's health care decisions while speaking out of their behinds about the individual mandate being an abridgement of freedom won't save them on election day. I have a family of strong women and many are far more conservative than I and they are pissed at the GOP attacking them and their rights that many fought to established. It is bad for the GOP
Women should be pissed off at the GOP for attacking womens' rights. My article was tongue and cheek with all the negative evidence pointed right at the Republicans. They keep telling us "not to worry." As Rachel Maddow said–"own the attacks or stop doing it."
George DeMarse
Okay good I wasn't sure because your other comment was reasonable so I was worried. Thanks for the comments and the concern
George is right.The GOP has a blantant plan of attacking womens rights,and need to just come clean.They are trying to turn back the clock on any number of female issues.Why any women would vote for these asswipes is beyound imagination.
I would like to know why any would too…
Speaking again of attacks by the Republicans on womens' rights–let me add the following.
I said my piece above by disproving the Republican defense that "there is no war on women–it's all a ploy by the Democrats." Now the Repubicans have changed their story. According to the Civitas website, a right wing think tank in North Carolina, it's not about a Republican "war on women" at all–it's about " freedom of religion." They passed these laws because they are "Christians; " and, by gum, everybody else had better be Christian too. Nice try, but we live in the 21st Century; not the 17th. To discriminate against women's health care (mostly poor women) we are just "discriminating against women," period. We can't discriminate based on religious views, any more than we can discriminate against any other group based on religious views. In the 21st Century, religion clashes with other rights, and religion should not win–neither should the Republicans.
The Sage of Wake Forest