From thinkprogress.org:

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that Rep. Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin (R-MO) and GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan both cosponsored the bill that introduced America to the despicable term “forcible rape.” As it turns out, this may only be the second most sweeping attack on reproductive freedom that both men partnered on. Ryan and Akin also cosponsored a federal personhood bill, the Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009, which declares that a fertilized egg is entitled to the exact same legal rights as a human being:

 

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

Lest there be any doubt, this bill is unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power to overrule Roe v. Wade by an ordinary statue, only a constitutional amendment could serve that purpose. Moreover, even if Roe were overruled by the Supreme Court, Ryan and Akin’s bill still attempts to redefine who “the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution” applies to. Again, changing the meaning of the Constitution can only be done through an amendment, not through an ordinary Act of Congress.

So what’s the problem if this law cannot be passed?  Actually it can, but a series of events would have to take place first.  Legislators like Akins and Ryan would have all the pieces to the puzzle in place to outlaw abortion IF Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

Bills like this don’t just stop at abortion.  All contraception except barrier contraception would be illegal because fertilization is biologically the moment egg and sperm unite.  Conception is medically when a fertilized ovum implants in the uterine wall.  Fertilization laws go much further and intentionally so.  Don’t think it is an accident.  Part of the goal is to not only make abortion illegal but also most forms of modern contraception.

Paul Ryan has now been forced to walk this one back and is part of the team that accepts rape as a exception that allows abortion.  However, the above shows his new found position is purely a make-over to get elected.  He is just as extremist as Rick Santorum.

I find everything to do with the Personhood Bill offensive and un American.  The fact that fertilized eggs would have the same rights that sentient beings have is just absurd.  Too bad these politicians and “base” feel that they have the right to ram their religious views down our throats.  These are troubling times.

Even more troubling is  we are ignoring the needs of the country to fight about abortion.  How incredibly stupid.

70 Thoughts to “Don’t be mislead….Ryan and Akins want to redefine rape and pass a personhood act”

  1. SlowpokeRodriguez

    And it is big of you for forgive bear for the mistake. She (couldn’t possibly be a man) fired first in post 43, so I feel no need to forgive screw-ups.

    1. Women never call themselves Bear. Geez pokie. they probably never call themselves pokie either.Bear is a man.

    2. What are you talking about? @Slow? Do you even know?

  2. @Moon-howler
    I was around a few decades ago. I’m 50 years old.

    I did. But its in the thread with middleman. Less married people. More out of wedlock births. More dependency on government. A lessening of self-reliance. More regulations. A demonization of success. Things like that.

    1. I remember how old you are…@ Cargo. However I doubt very seriously if you could be very aware of things that happened in the 60’s and 70’s. I think I am saying you dind’t have adult perspective, any more than I had adult perspective during the Eisenhower years.

  3. SlowpokeRodriguez

    Moon-howler :
    Women never call themselves Bear. Geez pokie. they probably never call themselves pokie either.Bear is a man.

    Oh, I see.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)

  4. @Moon-howler
    You would be mistaken.

    I remember some things, but I am also a student of history. But, I’m curious, how do you determine that the 60’s and 70’s were more liberal than today?

  5. @SlowpokeRodriguez

    Are you just learning that one, Pokie? Old news. Are you volunteering to be our go-to guy on all LGBT terminology?

    Sorry, but our Bear is a straight guy. Is that the latest political bully pulpit? Let’s call all the people we disagree with “gay?’ You have tried it on Starry and on Bear.

  6. Bear

    @SlowpokeRodriguez
    In spite of your vituperative ignorance I did learn something from you today(I never knew that Bear was a gay term) You certainlly are a wealth of information! The article is correct that my nickname was a result of my appearence (I would make one ugly woman)

  7. @Cargosquid

    I was around a few decades ago. I’m 50 years old.

    I did. But its in the thread with middleman. Less married people. More out of wedlock births. More dependency on government. A lessening of self-reliance. More regulations. A demonization of success. Things like that.

    Let’s start with the math–you didn’t turn adult until 1980. I don’t believe kids see things through adult eyes…because they are kids. By the 1980’s there was definitely a reversal of some of the more liberal ideas that grew out of the 60’s and 70’s.

    Let’s define what we consider “liberal issue” before we go off for that trip down memory lane.

    I feel that much of what happened in the 60s and 70 was reactive and loud. by the 80s things were calming down and there was considerable backlash to much of the social change that had gone on in previous decades. People were no longer naming their children after pychedelic drugs. There was backlash against some of the great society programs and also against affirmative action. Reagan was probably elected because of this feeling.

    I am not sure I would judge liberalness by number of married people. Do you mean people getting married or being married? Much of the shift in marriage is economic. When you were a kid, a woman was automatically part of her husband’s credit rating. That no longer exists. Men and women have their own credit rating. More people have children today outside of the marriage paradigm. Is that liberal or is it because people my parent’s age didn’t run out and get divorced just to have kids? Is not being married a sign of being liberal?

    More dependency on govenrment–I am not sure I think this is true. I
    think there was more welfare then. There are more people now so proportion that out. Give me more examples. I am thinking of things like traffic lights, fixing pot holes, libraries, snow removal, as items where we rely on government. Hurricane alerts, tsunami and tornado alerts yes, we do rely more on those. I will give you that. I see that as an improvement.

    More regulation–Well, there was regulation, then Reagan did away with regulation. Business regulation that is. Environmental regulations are probably more now. There will probably be even more 20 years from now. Unless things are taken away, there is a cumulative effect.

    On the other hand, look at all the social regulations we have now. Ultra sounds, clinic regulations, family planning services–all these new regulations are a result of conservative legislation.

    demonizing of success –I think that is so bogus. Maybe how we view success has changed. I think we still admire people who are successful as long as those folks aren’t stepping on the little guy to get successful. I think there is more of a demand for those make large salaries to pay their fair share. All records indicate that the rich today pay less in taxes than they did 40-50 years ago. That is resented. Success isn’t measured just in money. I think we still applaud excellence. More people watched the Olympics this past year than ever in history. People love sports teams in general. Those are definitely signs of success. Authors and sports hero perhaps get a little more positive attention than fat cats on wall street.

    Politically teachers and other government workers have been demonized by reight wing politics. Cops have higher esteem as does the military.

  8. Bear

    Moon, I’m considerablely older than you or Cargo, but I don’t recall any government programs, of course I was more interested in racing cars and trying to impress girls.
    I do remember help was more of a community thing. Donating clothes, inviting people to stay at our house after a tragedy. The infrastructure seemed to be better….repaired roads and plowed snow. There seemed to be a lot of rules like you couldn’t register a car unless you had insurance.It was the days of Eisenhower when he was building roads across th US
    In retrospect that would count as a big government program.

  9. Second Alamo

    As far as demonizing success goes, the problem is that success has been portrayed as only possible if the little guy has been abused. If you’re rich, then you must have screwed someone or some group along the way, right? I’ve not heard any top government officials come out and praise those who are financially successful, only berate them as though they are not being fair for some ridiculous reason. If they live by the rules the government set, then it’s the government that’s not being fair, period! It’s the blame all others game that O is sooooo good at.

Comments are closed.