Should WE Incorporate Our Uteri?

[FayeforCure]

Have you heard about the uterus rebellion?

It started this past week in the Florida House of Representatives when Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, suggested during a floor debate that his wife ought to incorporate her uterus.

If women's wombs were businesses, Republicans would have no interest in regulating them, Randolph was saying.

Mark Pafford, D-West Palm Beach, thought his colleague was making a serious point.

"They don't want to regulate business, but they've come up with 18 abortion bills this session," Pafford said.

Wow, and we can't call this a Republican war on Women?

The Republican House leadership responded by admonishing Randolph for his language and banning the word "uterus" from being spoken from the floor.

I recommend, in an abundance of caution, that all state representatives should refrain from driving Volvos until this can be sorted out.

And where this leaves the word "prostate" is unclear, but it's fair to say that all medical terms for mommy parts - especially "fallopian" - are hereby placed on the naughty list until further notice.

Muted Democrat 'Defender of Freedom'

Banning "uterus" might prove to be a tough task for state lawmakers who continue to dream up new ways to regulate it. They'll probably have to authorize "baby garage" or some other acceptable substitute so they can continue to shrink government until it's small enough to slip under the bedroom door.

Of course that pesky ACLU has to also chime in on the Freedoms of our uteri!!

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union has already weighed in, giving Randolph its "Defender of Freedom" award for using his wife's uterus in a sentence. The group also admonished Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park.

"When the speaker applies direct pressure on the content of what elected representatives can say in debate on the House floor, it freezes free speech and handcuffs democracy," said Danielle Prendergast, the ACLU's Florida director of public policy.

And so the 'The Uterati' rebellion begins:

Pafford said state Democrats are so outnumbered in the 120-member House that they barely have a voice as it is.

"We're down to only 39 members," he said. "The other day one of us was criticized for using Gov. Scott, his wife and Solantic in the same sentence. Now we can't say 'uterus'?"

As news of the word ban spread, a social-media-driven rebellion began.

A uterus Facebook page was created, and it didn't take long for Randolph's wife, Susannah Lindberg Randolph, to chime in.

"We should start a powerful, secret society known from this day forth as: The Uterati," she wrote.

She followed it up with another post about her uterus forming a political action committee and leadership fund called "U-Pac."

"Who's in?" she wrote. "It's time to bring power back to the uterus."

Don't you think it's about time the uteri incorporate?

Women's groups have been smarting from the renewed emphasis on abortion bills and sustained attacks against Planned Parenthood this year. So this uterus rebellion has fallen on some fertile ground.

As one Facebook poster put it: "My uterus may be old, but it can still get hysterical when it needs to!!"

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cerabino-florida-house-gops-uterus-ban-a-free-1369799.html

You can join the Uterus facebook page here:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Uterus/140276642709436

Mind your own business!

[buckethead]

Let's allow women to sell their babies.

Kill two birds with one stone. Less abortions, less Uterine regulation.

Then the big bang of society: PROFIT!

Babies Inc.

I'd better register that as a URL so I can cash in from the ground level.

[Clem1029]

Wow...I'm trying to figure out if you're serious here Faye. Anything to keep being able to murder children by the millions, eh?

[Dog Walker]

Don't let the legislature know that we all have uvulas!  They will ban that word too; the jerks!

[FayeforCure]

Thanks buckethead and Dog Walker.

Here is more interesting stuff related to the explosion of Anti-women bills:

Behind the abortion laws: A disturbing portrait of women emerges


Women sure are impulsive, lying, vulnerable and childlike creatures, aren't they? That's the conclusion I'd draw, if my understanding of women were based solely on anti-abortion bills.

These bills are pending and passing at a disturbing pace in multiple states. They don't just reflect the nation's chronic and understandable ambivalence about abortion. They also paint a shockingly negative portrait of women.

Here are a few key messages gleaned from the latest bills and anti-abortion advocacy:

* Women are impulsive. Half of states now require women to undergo a waiting period before obtaining an abortion. Usually the waiting period is one day. South Dakota just passed a three-day waiting period, the longest in the nation. The implication is that, without a government-mandated waiting period, women would dash into abortion clinics without first weighing the gravity of their decision.

* Women are prone to lying. Last week, the Indiana House passed a measure that would forbid most abortions after 20 weeks. A version of it is expected to pass into law. Opponents tried to carve out an exception for victims of rape or incest, as well as for women whose lives are threatened by medical complications. However, the bill's sponsor fended off the amendment by attacking it as a "giant loophole" that women would use to get abortions by pretending they were raped.

* Women need things explained to them. A bill recently passed by the Texas House would require doctors to describe the fetus in some detail to all abortion-seeking patients, including victims of rape and incest. The bill allows women to close their eyes and cover their ears. (It doesn't specify whether women are permitted to say, "La-la-la, I can't hear you.")

Also, South Dakota now requires women seeking abortions -- including rape victims -- to undergo "counseling" at crisis pregnancy centers staffed by abortion opponents. At least seven states make doctors emphasize the negative psychological impacts of abortion. At least five states require doctors to warn women that abortions can cause breast cancer; Indiana may soon join the list.

The cancer claim is false, according to the National Cancer Institute, but no matter: The idea is to scare women with inaccurate or skewed data about their medical frailty. The overarching assumption is that women need lots of warnings, because they can't be trusted to think beyond their latest boyfriend or understand the lifetime impact of a single decision.

* Women of color need extra scrutiny. The governor of Arizona signed a bill last week that forbids abortions related to the mother's unhappiness with her fetus' race or gender. Incredibly, the bill is called the "Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011." Meanwhile, an anti-abortion billboard campaign in Chicago uses pictures of President Obama to urge women not to abort "our next possible leader."

While it's true that African American and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than white women, this difference is linked to poverty and the lack of access to effective contraception. It is quite a novel concept to hint that we'd have more African American leaders by now -- if only black women didn't get so darn many abortions.

I won't delve into all of the other state and federal legislation that would prohibit insurance coverage for abortions, limit the places where abortions can be legally performed and otherwise make abortions more costly and embarrassing. I won't belabor the Republican presidential contender who, last week, blamed Social Security's woes on women getting abortions (when they should be producing more babies to support the older generation).

I'll just point out that nearly 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester and fully 95 percent take place during the first 15 weeks. The women who seek them cite a variety of common reasons, including an unsupportive partner and insufficient income to provide a good home. All available research suggests that women rarely make this difficult and private decision lightly.

Yet the composite picture of women found in today's abortion bills suggests a far inferior being, one needing protection from her own rash decisions. This is an ancient stereotype about women, wrapped in a hundred new packages that, at least sometimes, aren't about abortion at all.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/susan_nielsen/index.ssf/2011/04/behind_the_abortion_laws_from.html#cmpid=v2mode_be_smoref_face

Oh, yeah, and they forgot to mention that we have a Social Security crisis, because of all the abortions! Too many old people, and not enough young ones to care for them!!!!

Abortions hurting Social Security?
by Opinion Staff

Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum, the former Republican U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who is running for president in 2012, blames Social Security problems at least in part on America’s “abortion culture.”

Answering questions on a New Hampshire radio talk show, Mr. Santorum said, “A third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion. We are depopulating this country, and we’re seeing the birth rate is below replacement rate for the first time in history.”

According to Mr. Santorum, if not for abortion many more children would be born. Those children would join the workforce, providing a better ratio of workers to retirees. And that, he said, would help solve Social Security’s funding problem.

In the past, the 76-year-old retirement program always has taken in each year more than in pays out. That’s changing, in part because the Baby Boom generation is starting to retire, and in part because the recession has forced many people to retire earlier than they ordinarily would have.

The Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive issues, says there are about 1.2 million abortions each year in America. It puts the abortion rate at about 22.4 percent, not the one-third Mr. Santorum cited. (While with good FREE PREVENTATIVE contraception, it is ONLY 10% in other western nations!!)
.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Randall K. O’Bannon, director of education and research for the National Right to Life, supported Mr. Santorum’s connection between abortions and Social Security payments.

“The loss of 53 million innocent lives is tragedy enough,” Mr. O’Bannon said, referring to the number of abortions since 1973. “But in allowing this to happen, we have also brought serious social and economic consequences on ourselves, not only depriving ourselves of the energy, the industry, and the ideas of those we have aborted, but also eliminating a significant portion of the tax base that funds government programs like Social Security and Medicare. You can’t lose 53 million lives and not expect it to have a serious economic impact.”

Ted Miller, a spokesman for NARAL Pro-Choice America, a Washington-based advocacy group, criticized Mr. Santorum.

“No matter what the topic, the former senator always finds a way to attack a woman’s right to choose. He was outside the mainstream of public opinion when he was in office, and his latest comments prove he still is as a private citizen,” Mr. Miller said.

What do you think? Is abortion causing a Social Security shortfall? Take our poll.

http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/opinionzone/2011/04/04/abortions-hurting-social-security/

[FayeforCure]

Let's allow women to sell their babies.

Kill two birds with one stone. Less abortions, less Uterine regulation.

Then the big bang of society: PROFIT!

Babies Inc.

I'd better register that as a URL so I can cash in from the ground level.

We won't even let women sell their eggs for stem cell research like parthogenesis. Yet sperm donation banks have long paid men for their sperm!!

[NotNow]

This entire discussion just sickens me.  I pray for some reasonable solution.

Faye, nothing is free.  What you are really asking for is taxpayer funded contraception.  I'm not totally opposed to the idea, I just want to be honest.  At least the discussion is where it belongs, at the state level.

I wish that I could offer some palatable solution.  But I don't think that it exists.

[Dog Walker]

Wow...I'm trying to figure out if you're serious here Faye. Anything to keep being able to murder children by the millions, eh?

A fetus is not yet a baby or a child.  Words have meanings.

[NotNow]

[Shudders]  DW, with all due respect, the poor little dead bodies look the same.

[Clem1029]

Wow...I'm trying to figure out if you're serious here Faye. Anything to keep being able to murder children by the millions, eh?

A fetus is not yet a baby or a child.  Words have meanings.

Words do have meanings...unfortunately, you cheapen the words when you make a statement like that. As uncomfortable as it is, from the immediate moment of conception, it is "alive' by every basic scientific definition (as in, it meets all the criteria science attributes to something that we call "life"), and it is, without a doubt, genetically human. Simply put, it is "human life." Thus, you have to completely redefine what words mean in order to accommodate the pro-abortion worldview. I'm just labeling things as they exist...you're removing the meaning of words in order to fit a predetermined belief.

[buckethead]

Wow...I'm trying to figure out if you're serious here Faye. Anything to keep being able to murder children by the millions, eh?

A fetus is not yet a baby or a child.  Words have meanings.

Words do have meanings...unfortunately, you cheapen the words when you make a statement like that. As uncomfortable as it is, from the immediate moment of conception, it is "alive' by every basic scientific definition (as in, it meets all the criteria science attributes to something that we call "life"), and it is, without a doubt, genetically human. Simply put, it is "human life." Thus, you have to completely redefine what words mean in order to accommodate the pro-abortion worldview. I'm just labeling things as they exist...you're removing the meaning of words in order to fit a predetermined belief.

Everything living is alive... even a clump of cells. To argue that any abortion is murder is to argue a religious dogma not based in fact.

I agree that the point of birth is too late to be aborting babies aside from extreme cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

As others have correctly pointed out, third trimester abortions are quite rare,  and most of those are precisely due to extreme circumstances.

I would like to see the law err on the side of the unborn citizen, but within the first trimester, even into the second, abortion should remain an option for all women, based solely upon their own discretion.

Is there a clear cut point where we post-partum humans can determine at what point each fetus becomes a human  en utero? Not really. (unless you are willing to allow elected officials use their own religious dogma as a means of arbitrarily establishing such)

[Clem1029]

Wow...I'm trying to figure out if you're serious here Faye. Anything to keep being able to murder children by the millions, eh?

A fetus is not yet a baby or a child.  Words have meanings.

Words do have meanings...unfortunately, you cheapen the words when you make a statement like that. As uncomfortable as it is, from the immediate moment of conception, it is "alive' by every basic scientific definition (as in, it meets all the criteria science attributes to something that we call "life"), and it is, without a doubt, genetically human. Simply put, it is "human life." Thus, you have to completely redefine what words mean in order to accommodate the pro-abortion worldview. I'm just labeling things as they exist...you're removing the meaning of words in order to fit a predetermined belief.

Everything living is alive... even a clump of cells. To argue that any abortion is murder is to argue a religious dogma not based in fact.

I agree that the point of birth is too late to be aborting babies aside from extreme cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

As others have correctly pointed out, third trimester abortions are quite rare,  and most of those are precisely due to extreme circumstances.

I would like to see the law err on the side of the unborn citizen, but within the first trimester, even into the second, abortion should remain an option for all women, based solely upon their own discretion.

Is there a clear cut point where we post-partum humans can determine at what point each fetus becomes a human  en utero? Not really. (unless you are willing to allow elected officials use their own religious dogma as a means of arbitrarily establishing such)

In no way, shape or form is this founded on a "religious dogma." At least, no more or less than the opposing view is based on a nebulous "dogma" of it's own.

Scientifically, at the moment of conception, that "clump of cells" is human, and is alive. So science has clearly answered the question of when "human life" begins. At that point, it's a philosophical exercise - is there a difference between "human life" and a "person"? How is that determined? By a difference of location of about 6 inches? Or is a "person a person no matter how small?" This is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. As such, you can't arbitrarily exclude any given philosophy just because it's uncomfortable. It should be subject to the standard tests of logic. And every. single. time. this is engaged in honestly, the conclusion has to be in favor of being a human being at conception. It's only when an individual approaches the question with a predetermined end (i.e., "how can I justify being able to kill this life?") can the argument seem to go in the other direction.

[buckethead]

That's SCIENCE!

Scientifically, that clump of cells is a clump of cells. Yup... if Houston gives the rundown and all systems are go, it's alive too!

Human? Not so much.

If it's any consolation, my wife vehemently disagrees with my take, and considers me a heretic in this matter.

[Clem1029]

That's SCIENCE!

Scientifically, that clump of cells is a clump of cells. Yup... if Houston gives the rundown and all systems are go, it's alive too!

Human? Not so much.

If it's any consolation, my wife vehemently disagrees with my take, and considers me a heretic in this matter.

Wait...I think you're the first person I've ever encountered that takes issue with the "human" rather than the "life" side of the equation. How is it not human? At the moment of conception, that "clump of cells" possesses the entirety of a human's genetic code. Genetically it's human...so if it's not human (even though it is genetically) what is it?

And it's cool to want to throw the science side out of it...I just go that route since everyone usually wants to believe that science is "objective." Since we're not going that route, do you propose a different objective standard to determine "human" and "life?" Or do you just want to have the entire discussion on philosophical grounds and eschew any pretense of objectivity?

[buckethead]

Before a loaf of bread is bread, it's dough.

Hope this helps.