Women (still) are not livestock

[demmiblue]

Source: ACLU of Illinois


Chicago – In an effort to deny women in Illinois access to safe and effective medical care, leaders of the movement to bar access to reproductive health care, including contraceptives, are introducing a bill on women’s health care through the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee. The measure, House Bill 4117 sponsored by Representative Thomas Morrison, may be heard by that Committee as early as Tuesday afternoon, February 21st. The bill, drafted by a group of well-known, anti-abortion activists committed to shutting down all facilities providing safe and effective reproductive health care to women, creates excessive and unnecessary regulations on health care facilities that do not increase health and safety for women.

<snip>

The Illinois House rejected a measure similar to House Bill 4117 last year after a lengthy debate on the floor of the House. During the course of that debate, opponents of the legislation made clear that Illinois already enforces vigorous regulations on all health care facilities in the State – including women’s health care clinics. Given the State’s current economic challenges, legislators also were unwilling to adopt this medically unnecessary regulatory scheme drafted by politicians, not physicians, that would cost the State more money to oversee.

Again this year, the proponents of this legislation have chosen to hold the hearing for the bill in the Agricultural and Conservation Committee, a body without any expertise in public health care. Indeed, last year the Committee heard debates over muskrats and hunting before considering this measure.

“We heard the debate in the Agricultural Committee last year,” added Connell. “Those legislators know a lot about livestock, crops and salt licks. They do not know women’s health.”

http://www.aclu-il.org/women-still-are-not-livestock/

And then there is this:

The second bill — House Bill 4085 – would force all Illinois women seeking abortion, regardless of individual health circumstances, to view an ultrasound of the fetus or sign a statement documenting the reasons for her refusal. Imagine how traumatic viewing this ultrasound could be for some women, particularly those terminating for health reasons or because of rape or incest, and if they refuse to view the ultrasound, having to justify their decision in a written statement! The bill also increases costs for women seeking essential health care and increases the cost of regulation for a state agency already financially strapped.

http://www.aclu-il.org/hands-off-womens-health/

*emphasis is mine.

[niyad]

1. these woman-hating bastards need to be thrown out of office

[kestrel91316]

3. They need a lot more than that done to them.

[niyad]

8. oh, I can think of quite a few. . .

[demmiblue]

9. They sure do.

It amazes me that any woman would vote for these arseholes.

[GardeningGal]

2. Women need to quit having sex with any person that tries to limit their access to BC or abortion.

[Tallulah]

4. there was a time

when any woman on birth control got it taken away if you were on it for 3 years. And guess what ? You got pregnant whether you wanted to or not.

Damn doctor made THAT stupid ass decision for you. Why the hell not, he didn't have to pay for it.

[Zalatix]

10. Please tell me that wasn't the U.S.

seriously, there were laws like that somewhere?

[niyad]

11. unfortunately, yes--until griswold v connecticut, there was even a law that married couples

could not practice contraception

. . .

The Right To Choose: A Fundamental Liberty

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business. That right, which is part of the right to privacy, encompasses decisions about parenthood, including a woman's right to decide for herself whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy, as well as the right to use contraception, freedom from forced sterilization and freedom from employment discrimination based on childbearing capacity.

As early as 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects personal decisions regarding marriage and the family from governmental intrusion. In 1965, the Court ruled that a state cannot prohibit a married couple from practicing contraception. In 1972, it extended the right to use birth control to all people, married or single. And in its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the Constitution's protections of privacy as a fundamental right encompass a woman's decision to have an abortion.

The Roe decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, led to a dramatic improvement in the lives and health of women. Before Roe, women experiencing unwanted or crisis pregnancies faced the perils and indignities of selfinduced abortion, backalley abortion, or forced childbirth. Today, Roe protects the right of women to make life choices in keeping with their conscience or religious beliefs, consistent with American tradition. And by relieving American women of the burden of unwanted pregnancies, Roe has permitted them to pursue economic opportunities on a more equal basis with men.

The movement to newly restrict reproductive choice is, therefore, not only an attack on personal autonomy but also on the principle of equality for women, and it is a grave threat to all Americans' cherished right to privacy, bodily integrity and religious liberty.

. . . .

http://www.aclufl.org/take_action/download_resources/info_papers/15.cfm



there was also a charming little rule known as the "rule of 120"--meaning, that, when a woman wanted to get her tubes tied, unless her age times the number of children she had equalled or exceeded 120, a doctor would not do it.

[Zalatix]

12. Sheesh,,,

[niyad]

7. the lysistrata solution. I would suggest no sex period (which would annoy a lot of people, and

maybe get them to speak up, but that doesn't quite seem fair to the ones on our side)

[tech_smythe]

5. It amazes me sometimes that we're living in the year 2012

and not 1912.
do these idiots have no sense of reality?!
The world has moved past such.. bullshit!

the sooner these misogynist bigots die off the better we'll all be!

This can't seriously pass can it?

[Solly Mack]

6. Fuckers

I could say more...but it wouldn't be as nice.