Walker Would Ban Abortions For Rape Incest
[su_publirb]
Scott Walker is taking an extreme position on abortion.
…in the Wisconsin state legislature have introduced legislation banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The bill is expected to get a vote in the next few weeks, before the state’s biennial budget passes. But unlike a federal bill on the issue, this legislation doesn’t include an exception allowing abortions for victims of rape or incest.
The governor plans to sign the legislation, Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Walker’s office, emailed…
The legislation’s lack of exceptions for women seeking abortions could make it tougher for Aalker to defend to a more moderate audience.
The absence of the exemptions differentiates it from the 20-week abortion ban that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 13, which makes exceptions for rape and incest.
[su_facebook]
[su_center_ad]
Suzanne McFly May 28th, 2015 at 6:09 pm
If someone rapes him, he will gain empathy. Not condoning this action, just pointing out a possible solution to deal with closed minds.
SummerRing May 28th, 2015 at 9:54 pm
His rational is that the unborn is being punished for the actions of another. That is the rational the courts used to make the male victims pay child support. I wonder if your close mind would open if it were later found out that you were conceived that way and your mother decided to keep you since it’s not your fault how you were conceived
whatthe46 May 28th, 2015 at 10:04 pm
his opinion is just that. his opinion. and its none of his damn business as it’s none of yours! and you cannot equate the two, abortion to child support. my opinion of you is that you are an asshole, i rationalized that by your faulty speaking points.
frambley1 May 28th, 2015 at 10:16 pm
There is actually a term for ‘unborn being’, as you put it. Its fetus. Fetus is the term that should be used. You used a term that’s only function is to illicit an emotional response. That doesn’t help arrive at a rational opinion on this subject. Laws should be based on rationality, not emotion.
johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:14 am
Aren’t laws designed to govern the behavior of people? Aren’t people emotional beings?
Suzanne McFly May 29th, 2015 at 8:57 am
Funny how you point fingers claiming I have a closed mind. Do you know what a rape victim goes through? And you are okay with that person being revictimized again because she has to give birth to that bastards child? You should think before you type, unless you like the taste of your toes.
johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:11 am
So you think people who you disagree with should be raped? Should women who you disagree with be raped?
Suzanne McFly May 29th, 2015 at 8:59 am
Went right over your head, pretty sure your used to that though.
johnnybizzoy May 30th, 2015 at 5:09 am
No, I think I got it. You dislike Scott Walker, and you would like to see him raped.
—
See – this is why, a long time ago, I shed all my own feelings about partisan loyalty to either party. It just brings out the worst in people. These false narratives about group-identity…why would people want to trade their own souls so cheaply for all that empty bullsh_t?
Chris May 28th, 2015 at 7:48 pm
Hard to believe that once upon a time, some Republicans backed abortion as a personal right.
Anomaly 100 May 28th, 2015 at 9:30 pm
There’s too much GOP in our vaginas.
whatthe46 May 28th, 2015 at 11:23 pm
who is the GOP that condones abortion, but had his wife abort 2 and his mistress abort 1?
Anomaly 100 May 29th, 2015 at 8:21 am
Scott Desjarlais, a tea party Republican.
whatthe46 May 29th, 2015 at 10:05 am
thanks girlfriend.
johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:10 am
should the government have the power to force people to have their children vaccinated? Should schools be allowed to deny the admission of children to public schools, whose parents refuse various vaccinations?
Gindy51 May 29th, 2015 at 7:00 am
Yes, mainly because it harms other people and is not something that hurts an individual (get jenny McCarthy out of your head, fool.)
johnnybizzoy May 30th, 2015 at 4:54 am
Jenny McCarthy hasn’t been in my head since 1994.
—
So you don’t think any vaccines have harmed anyone ever?
—
http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/zero-u-s-measles-deaths-in-10-years-but-over-100-measles-vaccine-deaths-reported/
—
http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/
—-
And these days doctors are pressuring new mothers to give their babies up to 40 different vaccinations within the first 18 months of life. Is that really necessary? How in the world did the human race ever survive this far, without giving babies 40 different vaccines? I mean – probably there are some standard ones that people should take – but how much power are we going to give the government to force us to gamble with our health and take possibly dangerous vaccines, just because statistically they tell us it will lead to fewer cases of HPV or measles? Shouldn’t people be allowed to decide for themselves about SOME of the dozens of vaccines that the government wants to force them to take?
OldLefty May 29th, 2015 at 8:09 am
Very few think that government should have the power to force people to have their children vaccinated.
They DO have the right and the obligation to set the standards for public health.
johnnybizzoy May 30th, 2015 at 4:57 am
well doesn’t that come down to the government:
A) forcing parents by law to send their children to public school if they can’t afford private or home school, and
B) mandating that their children get vaccinated in order to attend public school?
So how is that not forcing people to have their children get vaccinated?
OldLefty May 31st, 2015 at 1:31 pm
well doesn’t that come down to the government:
A) forcing parents by law to send their children to public school if they can’t afford private or home school, and
____________
Sorry, don’t buy it, when it is a public health risk.
In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upholding the right of states to compel vaccination.
The Court held that a health regulation requiring small pox vaccination was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power that did not violate the liberty rights of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Anomaly 100 May 29th, 2015 at 8:19 am
Hello apples, I see you’ve met oranges.
alpacadaddy May 29th, 2015 at 1:26 pm
I agree, and it’s always the paisty old white guys… I do believe it’s a chronic case of “Uterine Envy”!
Anomaly 100 May 29th, 2015 at 1:28 pm
There’s only so much room up there.
frambley1 May 28th, 2015 at 10:37 pm
It amazes me how much effort and energy these people spend trying to distract people from their actual beliefs and actions. This would not be an issue if Governor Walker was just up front and honest about the type of oppressiveness he favors in our government. Their beliefs are so out of touch with mainstream US America. And if everyone knew that, then they would have no chance of even being considered as viable candidates.
Obewon May 29th, 2015 at 12:31 am
Scott Walker says he’s ‘proud’ of forcing ultrasounds and childmom-births on to rape and incest victims, impregnated by child molesters like Josh Dugar.
Koch brother favorites Scott Walker / Josh Dugar’16~
whatthe46 May 29th, 2015 at 1:42 am
excuse me while i throw up a FK’N gen!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fahvel May 29th, 2015 at 2:56 am
public castration seems appropriate here.
johnnybizzoy May 29th, 2015 at 3:15 am
would you enjoy watching that? Should we force children to watch these public castrations?
William May 29th, 2015 at 9:28 am
I think it’s pretty much time for the right to just STFU about their “values” and the things that bring about their indignation.
Bunya May 29th, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Yes. I would enjoy watching Scott Walker get castrated. Although, in his case, it would be useless since he’s already turned his testicles over to the Koch Brothers.
johnnybizzoy May 30th, 2015 at 5:22 am
oh snap!
Jimmy Fleck May 29th, 2015 at 12:29 pm
This would only affect abortions that would occur after 20 weeks. If the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest wouldn’t most people have already aborted the child before 20 weeks? If the woman has made it to 20 weeks that is 1/2 of a full term pregnancy and just a few weeks away from full viability for the child.
arc99 May 29th, 2015 at 2:25 pm
But after the child is born, if the mother requires assistance to provide food, shelter, health insurance or day care, she is on her own.
That is why in my opinion, those who call themselves “pro life” fail miserably at living up to that description. Pro life means you are just as ardent in making sure children have everything they need after they are born, as you are insisting that the mother bring them to term.
Jimmy Fleck May 29th, 2015 at 2:36 pm
So better to just kill them early? If a mother’s circumstances change after the child is born and she suddenly can no longer provide food, shelter, etc. for the child would a post birth abortion be an option then?
Bunya May 29th, 2015 at 3:00 pm
“So better to just kill them early?”
.
In your opinion, how soon after birth should babies be killed? Immediately following birth? Or maybe you prefer to wait until they’re in their late teens and we send them off to die in an unnecessary war for profit? That would be the best option, because then they’re no longer considered “killed” babies. They would then become victims of “collateral damage”.
Jimmy Fleck May 29th, 2015 at 3:35 pm
Bunya – I am not the one arguing that it is better to kill a baby before it is born. What does a future war have to do with abortion now? You just assume I am in favor of going to war so therefore abortion is ok. That is a ridiculous assumption on your part.
Bunya June 1st, 2015 at 10:05 am
My point is that many “pro-life” people have no problem when it comes to sending our young off to die in wars. They salute them and they thank them for their service. When that same person comes home in a flag draped coffin, the “pro-lifers” say things like, “That’s too bad. Isn’t it a shame, he/she died so young?”. Do you think they care that the grieving mother, father and siblings are suffering? I think not. They care only that they convinced this woman to give birth, that she raised and grew to love the child, and that she is now suffering, viewing the untimely death of her offspring.
.
These same people who demand that women give birth, reward them when they agree to, by giving them a small blanket or a stuffed animal and sending her on her way. Their work is done. It’s a nice gesture, but a blanket isn’t going to feed a baby. A toy isn’t going to pay for clothing and shelter.
.
The “pro-lifers” love the woman, until she needs help supporting the child she was coerced to birth, and she’s forced to go on welfare. Then she becomes nothing but a welfare queen, sucking off the government teat.
.
Sure, “pro-lifers” love the fetus, but not so much the child.