Friday, June 1, 2012

Constitutional Right to Abort a Baby Because It's Female, But Not To Buy a 20 oz Soda.

Two big stories this week- one carried by the mainstream media- one blatantly and irresponsibly ignored-

First Mayor Bloomberg moves to ban 20 oz sodas.  To go into the stupidity of this law is useless. I don't even drink soda, I think soda is toxic, and I still think this is a new level of stupid.

Second- the big story this week that no one heard, networks decided this wasn't terribly newsworthy, as opposed to the 20 oz soda- the House tried to pass a bill prohibiting gender selective abortions- and it got shot down.  This wasn't some trick to ban abortions- it was to ban killing female babies prior to birth strictly because they are female.  This was on the cusp of some videos being released showing Planned Parenthood advising women on how to abort their babies if they are indeed female. Aside from this being absolutely appalling, my tax dollars are funding this.  Oh, and President Obama supports taxpayer funding of gender specific abortions


This my liberal friends is why conservatives want to de-fund planned parenthood.  Not to deny women mammograms, nor deny rape and incest victims abortions,  but because each morning I wake up and go to work, and a chunk of the money I earn funds late-term abortions and gender specific abortions. 

Granted, gender specific abortions are not currently running rampant- however there is substantial evidence  that they are indeed occurring, how many baby girls need to die before we as a country decide we are not going to engage in eugenics? If just one baby girl is killed because she's a girl- and we paid for it- isn't that enough? 

 In what world does a 20 oz soda get more media coverage than a tax payer funded institution facilitating female gendercide? In what world is it not o.k. to put 20oz of soda in my mouth, but it is o.k. to kill he female baby growing within me strictly because it's female?  This is the United States of America the far left has created for us, and it's our new reality. 

34 comments:

Ben and Kimberly McEvoy said...

always good to hear from you, but this news is going to leave a knot in my stomach all day.

might have to make some calls to my elected officials. I sure can't believe they would sell 20 oz of soda, that's a crime. However, partial, gender specific abortion thats not news, its just what happens. JUST SICKENING.

Robin said...

This is terrible. In my undergraduate work I did a report on rhetoric in the pro life-pro choice camps and it was horrifying way back then. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that this is happening now.

This is the reason I don't even watch the news anymore.

Thanks Kory!

Jess said...

This makes me sick to my stomach. Thanks for putting it out there.

goddessdivine said...

Seriously!! And when you put the two of these things side by side it really shows the wackiness of this country.

Alice said...

This is really disturbing- it makes me especially sad, because I would have LOVED a girl, and I didn't get one.

I get why defunding planned parenthood because of things like this seems like a good idea, but you're looking at one video that is obviously made to paint the worst picture possible. I'm not saying that what happened here isn't a big deal, because it is, I just don't believe that it's as widespread of a problem as the video makes it sound.

The House tried to pass this, and it got shot down IN the house, or it got shot down by the Senate? If the House shot it down, I think there has to be more to it than party politics.

Alice said...

"Oh, and President Obama supports taxpayer funding of gender specific abortions"

Reading the link, that's not the impression I was left with.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention though. I hadn't heard anything about it.

cropfoto said...

This makes my soul hurt.

Steve said...

Wish you would post more!

Love how you blast 'mainstream media', yet ABCNews seems to be the one that you are using to try and support the Obama angle.

This Prenatal law is silly. Any woman would just have to pick (or not pick, since you don't NEED a reason) something besides gender or race for the abortion. This is like those silly anti-Sharia laws. Making laws to prevent something that isn't even needed policed! And how would the govt (who would be responsible here) police the results? Would there be a govt form that says 'Are you having your abortion b/c of the gender of your baby? Check Yes or No.' and then go around reading the forms? haha. Silliness. The bill didn't even carry completely down party lines, thus one reason it failed.

In all honestly, I feel obesity is WAAAAAY more detrimental to the future of our country than the current abortion laws. Besides, don't go to NYC if you want a 20 oz soda, simple enough. Soda is worse for your body than pot, so at least the laws are going in the right direction.

This is kind of one of those things like when Conservatives love to say to Liberals, "If you want the US to be like Europe, move to Europe." For these two laws I'd say to Conservatives, "If you want the US to be more like Saudi Arabia, move to Saudi Arabia."

Salt H2O said...

Steve,
Did you know about the gender selective abortion bill prior to reading this post? The transcripts from the press briefing is the only thing you can find in the mainstream media covering this story, as opposed to soda. If I wasn't active on twitter- I never would have known this was happening.

I'm curious as to how you feel about the abortion policy in China?

Banning gender selective abortions is sending a message- similar to the message homosexuals want in labeling their civil unions marriage. Gay marriage isn't about the ability to have rights, (in a good number of states they already have all those marriage rights with out the marriage lable) it's about the word legitimizing their union- it's about the word marriage. While yes, women could and would easily get around this law- by labeling it as illegal it sends the message that this is not a socially acceptable practice in the United States.

I could see how a liberal would think obesity is a greater threat than abortion- the majority of aborted babies are indeed lower income, black and abortion has had a positive impact on crime rates. 80% of down syndrom babies are killed prior to birth, so that relieves that drain on society. Eugenics had always been strong with liberals.

But seriously Steve, if I want the freedom to buy a 20 oz Soda, or to prohibit killing baby girls based on gender- I should move to Saudi Arabia? Steve, I know I haven't blogged in a long time, but I do remember you being slightly more rational than this.

Salt H2O said...

Alice- The house needed a 2/3 vote, and came up 30 votes short.

In addition the Carney said that the bill would force physicians to find the motive, which was completely untrue- the bill stated if a physician knowingly gave an abortion based on gender then they would be prosecuted. There was no where that put responsibility on the physician to determine motive.

Steve said...

Well, maybe I am just out of practice in responding to your posts! :)

My point was that just like conservatives think liberals should move to "liberal europe" (which is mostly a stereotype), I'm just saying that maybe conservatives should practice what they preach and if they want to live in a more conservative society than the US is (such as outlawing ALL abortions for any reason, like many believe) than maybe they should move to a more conservative country. And yes, you can buy 20 oz sodas throughout the middle east and abortion is illegal.

As for China, yes, I am against abortion based on their gender laws, as I would be here in the US. But your assumption that only low income individuals use abortions, I think that is a stereotype. Most middle-class women I know under the age of 35 either have had one themselves or at least have a friend that has had one. I'm not suggesting this social demographic is the majority or even a majority of women using these services, but to think it is only a certain type of woman that has abortions is a myth.

Besides, IF you really want to cut down on abortions, then you should expand other services offered women (and men) concerning proper sex education (not abstinence only), other medical services (such as ones currently offered by Planned Parenthood), and other medically available options such as the morning after pill instead of allowing pharmacists to provide a disservice to customers.

Alice said...

I have a hard time imagining that gender selective abortions are a huge thing in the us. Not to say they don't happen, but I don't see it as a huge problem that needs its own law, besides, as Steve pointed out, how would anyone know the woman's reason for getting an abortion.

I prefer laws that support women and educate them, and provide resources, as a means of abortion reduction. Abortion seems like a terrible thing to me, but making access to them more difficult without providing those other things seems just as bad.

Alice said...

I reread my comment and wanted to clarify,my first paragraph, what I was getting at was that if there's really no way to determine motive, then this bill is nothing but a partisan game/message bill. I especially dislike those.

Salt H2O said...

Steve- if you're against China's gender based abortion policies- what is the issue with outlawing gender based abortion in the united states? Either we as a country are going to say 'Yes, this practice is acceptable' or 'No, this practice is not acceptable'.

As to what demographics have been impacted the greatest by legalized abortion- we'll get into that argument in another post.

Alice- Why in the state of California would homosexuals who enjoy all the rights of a marriage, with out the marriage label- want it to be called marriage? No additional rights come- isn't that just a partisan game to get the general public to further embrace homosexuality? By outlawing gender based abortions we as a society are saying this practice is not tolerated.

Girls are being killed because they are girls- not sure how many times that needs to happen here before we say this is not acceptable. Women's rights apparently include the right to kill other females because they are female. Planned parenthood states that they will help women seek gender based abortions so yes- there is something of a need of a law in this regard.

I'm not talking about outlawing abortion-that ship has long sailed. But for the love of Pete- are we so barbaric that we will not even have a law that states you can not kill your baby based on gender?

Alice said...

The comparison to same sex marriage isn't a good one. I don't know the specifics in CA, but I do know that to get even a portion of the same "rights", couples have to jump through all sorts of hoops that married people don't have to go through. I don't see the connection.

Planned parenthood doesn't state they will help women seek gender based abortions. One employee did- although the clip you posted was heavily edited- the full version shows the employee also talking about adoption.

It's not about being barbaric, it's about not passing message laws that don't actually solve the problem they're addressing, while making people think that our government is acting on these tough issues, when they're not actually doing anything at all.

Salt H2O said...

Alice-
1- The connection is that one law (marriage) is simply a statement of social acceptance the other law (not allow gender based abortions) is a statement of social rejection. Neither would do anything dramatic legally to change the way life is lead however it impacts how we as a society view these practices.

2- “no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois).”

3- If we won't outlaw gender base abortions- then the only alternative is to permit them, which makes us no different from China. Either we outlaw gender based abortions- or they are legal. You say keep them legal.

Alice said...

I disagree that allowing same sex marriage wouldn't change the every day lives of homosexual families.

Planned Parenthood isn't there to tell people what their motives have to be, period. They're there to provide services (all sorts of services, not just abortions, my friend said that a huge portion of referrals for adoption casework at her workplace (LDSFS) come from planned parenthood).

I say, stop fooling around with bills that make people think we're doing something. If we want to stop abortions, address the reasons why women seek them, until we put our money where our mouth is, I'm not impressed with message bills. If you think that means I support gender selective abortions, that's your choice. I'm still not convinced that there are a rash of women going out and getting gender selective abortions in this country. I think your clip was designed to get a rise out of people, over a non issue.

Steve said...

So, in other words, it isn't ok for the govt to tax us, offer more affordable healthcare to those that WANT it, better education alternatives, and more equality to the approximate 10% of our population that want civil unions so that they can enjoy the same "marriage" benefits as heterosexual partners; yet it IS ok for the govt to regulate the "motives" for a perfectly legal medical practice and outlaw or create disincentives on harmful goods for public safety?!?! This is a slippery slope! The more you regulate any activity, the more you have to define terms and create more loopholes that, like our tax system shows, are impossible to close and enforce. Creating laws to encourage social consciousness is not only impractical and an abuse of the law, it is impractical; and honestly, Congress has nothing better to do right now?!?!?

Salt H2O said...

My point with homosexual marriage was this- in California civil unions enjoy all the same rights as marriages- there is no legal difference- the fight was over the word marriage and whether our society was going to accept homosexuals with the word marriage- with out the word marriage nothing legally changed. For some reason a symbolic word like marriage is important to liberals, however outlawing genderside is a waste of time.

Given the number of job creation bills the House has sent to the Senate and are currently stalled on Harry Reid's desk- and given that the House has passed a budget but the Senate has not for what- over 900 days now? Nope, I don't think the House has anything else to do.

Yet you support a law that bans 20 oz sodas? Like we can't go out and buy 2 10 oz sodas? Like you can't get a refill? It didn't ban extra large shakes nor extra large frappicinos- what's the point in banning a 20 oz soda if you can still easily consume 20 oz? Seriously, there's nothing more important going on in the state of New York?

This debate boils down to is either you think gender based abortions should be legal in this country- or illegal. You say keep gendercide legal- but make a 20 oz soda illegal.

Steve said...

Well, we all, as always, can find fault with the bills either house in Congress passes and the ones the House have provided to the Senate show arrogance and would turn us into Japan circa 1996.

If the House really wanted to create a law that would be for the benefit of our society going forward that affects each and everyone of us reading this (instead of fighting 20th century social norms 15 years too late), they would finally put an end to SOPA for once and for all and stop trying to sell designated public domain frequency spectrum (All your WiFi belong to us!) for their own gain.

Steve said...

Sorry, link didn't go through for the selling of the WiFi spectrum.

Just goes to show that the House cares more about lining their own pockets and not the greater good of society.

Salt H2O said...

I don't support the majority of what any of our congressmen do- I think the country as a whole would be better if they were all wiped out and replaced, you won't find me blindly defending along party lines.

Unlike some who will defend anything their party does no matter how obviously inane and pointless (cough, cough 20 oz sodas, cough)

Steve said...

Ha! Actually, this is one of my pet projects! I have always supported fat taxes, food labels that are more readable/accurate, calorie listings in menus, etc. We as a country are too f'n fat and it is a detriment to not only our society, but also economically as it directly contributes to the rise in healthcare costs and lost productivity due to health related issues. I also support charging fat people more for airline seats. I actually hope for a Hunger Games/Logan's Run type future, except with fat people!

Alice said...

It's okay Kory, I think the soda ban is stupid too. (I think people should drink less soda, and I'm fine with higher taxes on them (if that money goes to health care) but a ban is kind of pointless (since, as you said, people can just buy 2 10oz drinks or get refills).

Jeri and Amy said...

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the people who fight vehemently for a woman's right to choose whether she terminates a life growing within her body, are the very ones calling for laws about what size drink she is allowed to imbibe? Either we have the sole discretion about what we do with our bodies or we don't.
Ultimately, the tax payers are funding our choices/mistakes in either scenario.*


* That is assuming that people who drink 20 oz. sodas will, of necessity, become a drain on our economy because of their medical problems... which is patently false.

Alice said...

I just heard back from my friend in CA. She's legally married to her partner, so I figured she'd be pretty up on the laws, so here's her response to "civil unions grant all the same rights as marriage..."

"No, they do not. It varies from country to country in terms of legal rights granted by civil unions. There are places, like England, where civil unions grant pretty much everything that civil marriage does, but in most places the laws which apply to civil unions and domestic partnerships have been cobbled together over the past several years and most are lacking in one way or another.

Washington State passed a law a year or so ago which stated that couples in civil unions would have all the state-level rights granted to married couples. The problem with that is that there are only a few hundred rights and protections granted at the state level. The majority of rights and protections are held at the federal level -- over 1000. And *no* gay couples, even those of us who are legally civilly married, have access to any of those rights and protections so long as DOMA is in place and being upheld."

Salt H2O said...

Alice,

That's very interesting . So if I understand correctly on a state level, it wouldn't matter if it was a marriage because the marriage has to be recognized by the federal government?

If that's true, it seems like a heck of a lot of money is being wasted on the state fight for homosexual marriage that should be focused on the federal government.

A president who is now pro-gay marriage would want to at the very least pass a law on the federal level that civil unions be recognized federally the same as marriage- if not push for gay marriage itself to be recognized through out the country.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I'm genuinely confused- If no rights come with the word marriage on a state level- why have the fight there at all?

Alice said...

If you read my friend's quote, she didn't say NO rights come at a state level, just that it's not correct to say that the rights for civil unions and marriage are the same. You are correct as far as same sex marriage on a state level not having the same rights as other marriages because the lack of federal recognition and consistency.

Steve said...

Although DOMA prevents federal (ie forces other States to recognize other state's marriages), the Federal government is actually quite supportive of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples where one is a federal employee DOES share some of the same benefits as traditional civil union couples. For instance, now the govt will recognize same sex couples for health care coverage and other dependent/family member benefits. These have been put in place by Executive Order(s) by Obama.

Salt H2O said...

A timely NYTimes article on eugenics.

Steve said...

Eh, timely but as an op-ed, doesn't provide any new info.

Just curious, are you suggesting that all of these pre-birth tests are a waste of time and if so, did you forgo them yourself? Currently they test for Down Syndrome and other genetic 'defects' and will certainly add to the list exponentially the next few years. Is there a positive test result that, in your opinion, would warrant an abortion?

Just curious.

Salt H2O said...

I see the pre-birth tests as a way to emotionally and financially prepare for the upcoming challenges. I do undergo testing for those reasons- better to know now and prepare now than know 6 months from now.

There isn't positive test result that warrants an abortion- because I don't view those with Downs as less human as those without downs, or those with disorders as less valuable than those without. I believe we're all equally human, so to kill one because of birth defects and not the other says not just something about the lack of value of that life in the womb, but the lack of value in that life in the world in which we live.

Kathy Welch said...

"There isn't positive test result that warrants an abortion- because I don't view those with Downs as less human as those without downs, or those with disorders as less valuable than those without. I believe we're all equally human, so to kill one because of birth defects and not the other says not just something about the lack of value of that life in the womb, but the lack of value in that life in the world in which we live."

Yes!

Steve said...

But I wasn't just talking Downs. There are a lot worse and more life debilitating, chronic diseases out there. On one hand, I see the ability to predict these, say severe birth defects and diseases, very soon in the future. But also, science is moving quickly (at least on those diseases where there is big money to be made; ie cancer, HIV, etc.) to find a cure or at least treatment for them, thus one doesn't know what could be possible 10-20 years in the future. I think it's a case by case thing, depending on how severe and chronic the disease would be and/or the risk to the mother.