What is your hang up with this poster? She already said she is a woman. And given that gender wasn't especially relevant to the argument she is making, it makes you sound like a man hater. |
This bill apparently passed the VA House. It has had first, second, and third readings. I don't know how many readings are required in Virginia, but I can't imagine it's more than three. So, the bill probably goes to the Senate now. A good source for the legislative status is here:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+sum+HB1 The bill was amended to make clear that birth control is still permitted. But, it is still a very draconian bill. |
Unbelievable.
It's too bad I'm too old and really done having kids, or I would absolutely do the HOV lane thing that the PP mentioned. In fact I think every pregnant woman who's against this nonsense should drive by herself in the HOV lane during the entire length of her pregnancy and then appeal the ticket. |
Oh and if you're going out to eat with your spouse you should make sure to ask the waiter for a table for 3.
Also, if you have sex while pregnant, does the law make you guilty of indecent exposure in front of a minor or some such thing? If you have a glass of wine before finding out that you're pregnant, are you guilty of serving alcohol to someone under 21? |
The waiter will be required to administer a forced ultrasound on you before serving. |
Will every naturally occuring miscarriage result in a murder investigation? Is the legal drinking/voting age going to be lowered by 40 weeks? Can a woman be charged with child abuse if she eats sushi while pregnant? F-ing hell, Virginia -- please get your shit together. |
This bill scares the bejesus out of me! I can only hope it will not pass the senate. |
While the "personhood" bill is horrible, the state-sanctioned rape bill is even worse (i.e. forced transvaginal ultrasound for women who pursue abortion). |
To your first part: no, contraception does not cause abortion - but lots of anti choicers believe it does. So while this ridiculous amendment does not now target contraception, per Jeff's post above, it probably leaves the door open to that later. We really need to get Bobby McD and that dimwit Cucinelli (or, as I call him, "the Cooch") out of office. They practice terrible governmental overreach, all the way into our uteruses. |
You just made me laugh out loud. I *heart* you! |
I'm confused - I thought the amendment was defeated? |
Wow, hating on Mississippi are you? When you all are compaing a fetus to pancake batter? |
Click on the link. There was a substitute bill that was defeated, but the amendment passed: 02/13/12 House: Motion to pass by Amendment by Delegate Watts agreed to (64-Y 34-N) On the page listing amendments (of which there is only one listed), it says this: (HB1) AMENDMENT(S) PROPOSED BY THE HOUSE DEL. WATTS [Passed by] 1. After line 26, introduced insert § 8. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful contraception. Emphasis added by me. |
Thanks Jeff. I looked at that before I posted and saw the amendment - but for the life of me I can't find a mention anywhere in the press about the amendment passing. Contrarily, all I can find are references such as this one - saying a contraception amendment was not considered: "Del. Vivian Watts, D-Fairfax, proposed an amendment declaring that nothing in the bill would be construed to affect legal contraception. She said many forms of birth control work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, so those types of contraception could run afoul of Marshall's bill. The House voted 64-34 to not consider Watts' amendment." That's why I'm confused. I just want to be sure I understand. |
Concerning the confusion about the amendment, I think the problem is the phrase "pass by", which I understand to mean "table", i.e. not consider. Using the word "pass" certainly invites confusion when in fact the vote defeated the amendment. |