Oklahoma is at it again.
I don't know what it is about the Christian Okies that makes them so darn stupid about pushing their religiousity on others but they sure do it a lot.
They've tried, in the recent past, to get 'Ten Commandment' monuments placed on public properties dotted in towns across the state including their state capital mall; thay made a big stink about a Hundu elephant god that decorates a display at a state zoo; and now... they're trying to mess with the private rights between patient and doctor, individual and state, to expose women who opt for abortion.
Good gosh. What is it with these people?
A bill pending before the state congress has been designed to publicly display all but the individual names of the women who undergo abortion. The new law requires that women seeking abortion must answer "37 questions," all the answers of to be made publicly available over the internet. The very sound of such a notion smacks of an attempt to stigmatize a single segment of society.
Opponents to the bill make this point: Releasing enough information of the descriptive details of an abortion cases in a small towns, as this new bill calls for, could result in a great deal of finger-pointing at those who might have been involved. In a word: intimidation. That isn't very nice and it may not be constitutional.
Thank reason, that this bill is likely to be put under the microscope prior to it getting much farther along. Let's hope someone doing the looking comes to their full senses on the issue.
The author of the bill, Oklahoma State Rep. Dan Sullivan, says, "If there's something that we can do to positively impact that segment of that population [those where abortion is highest] -- and have a lowering effect on those rates -- then we want to be able to look at what policy decisions we can make..."
I have to ask, "Why?" What's so bad about opting to abort an unwanted pregnancy? ... and please don't tell me it's a question of money saving. Its a known fact that the cost to states for terminating pregnancy is far less than the cost to support a neglected or impoverished kid. And if money saving is the issue, there's a whopping $50 million being spent around the country - virtually wasted money - that has the lofty (and ludicrous) goal of convincing high school teens that abstinence is and effective birth control method. Let's get real, eh? Is there anything more idiotic than that? Perhaps someone should tell Representative Dan Sullivan.
So... let's keep and ear pressed to the ground, listening carefully. The Okie Christian herd are still un-corraled and blindly stampeding the state.
I don't know what it is about the Christian Okies that makes them so darn stupid about pushing their religiousity on others but they sure do it a lot.
They've tried, in the recent past, to get 'Ten Commandment' monuments placed on public properties dotted in towns across the state including their state capital mall; thay made a big stink about a Hundu elephant god that decorates a display at a state zoo; and now... they're trying to mess with the private rights between patient and doctor, individual and state, to expose women who opt for abortion.
Good gosh. What is it with these people?
A bill pending before the state congress has been designed to publicly display all but the individual names of the women who undergo abortion. The new law requires that women seeking abortion must answer "37 questions," all the answers of to be made publicly available over the internet. The very sound of such a notion smacks of an attempt to stigmatize a single segment of society.
Opponents to the bill make this point: Releasing enough information of the descriptive details of an abortion cases in a small towns, as this new bill calls for, could result in a great deal of finger-pointing at those who might have been involved. In a word: intimidation. That isn't very nice and it may not be constitutional.
Thank reason, that this bill is likely to be put under the microscope prior to it getting much farther along. Let's hope someone doing the looking comes to their full senses on the issue.
I have to ask, "Why?" What's so bad about opting to abort an unwanted pregnancy? ... and please don't tell me it's a question of money saving. Its a known fact that the cost to states for terminating pregnancy is far less than the cost to support a neglected or impoverished kid. And if money saving is the issue, there's a whopping $50 million being spent around the country - virtually wasted money - that has the lofty (and ludicrous) goal of convincing high school teens that abstinence is and effective birth control method. Let's get real, eh? Is there anything more idiotic than that? Perhaps someone should tell Representative Dan Sullivan.
So... let's keep and ear pressed to the ground, listening carefully. The Okie Christian herd are still un-corraled and blindly stampeding the state.
.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment