And that's all that needs to be said about either of them.
23 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Mark, Todd Akin is a moron. - I agree 1000%
Kerry Gauthier is a moron. - I Don't know who that is, so I can't comment.
And that's all that needs to be said about either of them. - Not by a long shot. Turns out that Congressman Akin has co-sponsored a bill with Congressman Ryan (he is the GOP candidate who isrunning for the office of Vice President) that seeks to redefine / qualify the word rape categorically. Forcible rape and...they really don't say. Unforcible? Cooperative? You're a wordsmith. Perhaps you have some suggestions. My guess is that people are going to be asking: Congressman Ryan, what is the difference between forcible rape and legitimate rape? What is the opposite of forcible rape? You did sponsor a bill that draws a distinction between forcibel rape and those other "rapes". Can you plese explain the differences, and how you and Congressman Akin came to these conclusions.
Guess what Mark? These are completely legitimate (no pun intended) questions.
Republicans are pro-rape?!! Holy cow, I'd better vote for the people who kill babies and are destroying the country's economic future!
Good grief, you people are desperate. Mr. D. makes a simple straightforward condemnation of two pols: one who said something stupid and one who actually did something appalling. And you're not satisfied.
For the record, this is the big, scary bill that's all about rape. I'm not seeing anything about rape at all. Is this the wrong bill? Or is this just more of the usual libel and fear-mongering from Democrats?
Since it's short, I'll include the text here. (sorry for the formatting.)
A BILL To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:07 Jan 12, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H212.IH H212 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS 2 •HR 212 IH 1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sanctity of Human 3 Life Act’’. 4 SEC. 2. DECLARATION. 5 In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, includ6 ing Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Con7 stitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Con8 gress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amend9 ment to the Constitution of the United States— 10 (1) the Congress declares that— 11 (A) the right to life guaranteed by the 12 Constitution is vested in each human being, and 13 is the paramount and most fundamental right 14 of a person; and 15 (B) the life of each human being begins 16 with fertilization, cloning, or its functional 17 equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function 18 or disability, defect, stage of biological develop19 ment, or condition of dependency, at which time 20 every human being shall have all the legal and 21 constitutional attributes and privileges of 22 personhood; and 23 (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, 24 each State, the District of Columbia, and all United 25 States territories have the authority to protect the
1 lives of all human beings residing in its respective 2 jurisdictions.
3 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 4 For purposes of this Act: 5 (1) FERTILIZATION.—The term ‘‘fertilization’’ 6 means the process of a human spermatozoan pene7 trating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to cre8 ate a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, 9 which is a new unique human being. 10 (2) CLONING.—The term ‘‘cloning’’ means the 11 process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that 12 combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a so13 matic cell to make a human embryo. 14 (3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING.—The terms 15 ‘‘human’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include each and 16 every member of the species homo sapiens at all 17 stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of de18 velopment, created by the process of fertilization, 19 cloning, or its functional equivalent.
I have to go to my aunt's funeral today, so you'll forgive me if I'm not especially interested in going all Bertrand Russell with you. Why don't you read the bill and tell us all what it says and then we'll decide if we need to be as excited about it as you appear to be.
I'll also assume that the questions you direct to Congressman Ryan are rhetorical for our purposes, unless you instruct us otherwise.
Pickelsworth, you have jumped the shark. Please show where I said anything even remotely resembling "Republicans are pro-rape." And try to make sense this time.
You are the one who got out the rape brush and started some gentle brushstrokes on Paul Ryan. Either you've got some evidence that supports that or you don't. Is there some other bill than H.R. 212 to which you are referring? Because if that's the one, it doesn't mention rape. Please inform.
This was an amendment to the Hyde Act that tried to redefine rape as "forcible" rape vs nonforcible?.
And why were these guys so interested in re-defining rape? Because the Hyde Amendment prevents all funding to abortion, EXCEPT in the case of rape, incest, or the Mother's health. So a woman would have to prove that she was "forcibly raped" in order to qualify for that exception. So much for victim's rights.
You can try to walk back Akin's statement, but the record speaks for itself. All Akin did was say, in an inartful manner, what he, and Ryan, and many other Republicans (and a handful of Democrats too) have been trying to get written into law for several years. And today, Steve King of Iowa announced that that he had never heard of a victim of incest getting pregnant. (Here in Chicago, we call that doubling down on stupid). The overall picture of the GOP and your VP nominee is looking pretty ugly. Romney is faced with a big gender gap. And I don't see how he closes that with Rep. Paul Ryan on the ticket, given his positions and history of extreme anti-women policies.
‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. ‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Strawman. No one is trying to walk back anything. This post is a condemnation of what Akin said. I've not said a single word to that effect either.
Yep. I don't blame Rich for wanting to talk about Akin -- it's a much more congenial subject matter for a Democrat than economic numbers are. Eventually Akin will be gone, but the Obama economic record will remain.
What is so interesting is how Ricj is more disgusted and offended by somepne whose statements are idiocy rather than one who actually committed disgusting acts that are criminal. I guess when you have Barney Frank among your denisons, the sexaul activity with boys bar has to be lowered. After all when you live in the world of end justifies the means hypocrisy, and thing goes. The old Chicago Way, eh Rich!
In Rich's defense, I think he does play devil's advocate at least a little on some of these things. I don't think that he really believes the end justifies the means. He does like his side to win, though.
Picklesworth, yes. That is my evidence. What more evidence do you need. The GOP needs to modify a law that has been in effect for over 2 decades with 1 word..."forcible." Why? I think you know why. I know an awful lot of women know why. I know, too, that suddenly, Paul Ryan doesn't want to talk about it. And that he suddenly has a new mantra: Rape is rape. Interesting. Don't you think?
Gino..."unless its a democrat".
And that is why Gauthier is gone...in one day...and Akin isn't;)
KRod, Long time no hear. I see you are still eating paint chips. Great comments!
Anonymous, I agreed with Mark regarding Gauthier. How can you possibly know which story I find to be more offensive? Furthermore, you say that Akin is "somepne whose statements are idiocy." Well, we can agree on that, but MY POINT is that his idiocy is part of your party's plank. Hell, it's in the platform. And Akin's transgression is that he got off the GOP script and explained it a little too honestly. Which is why listening to all of you condemn your party platform and confess to collective idiocy is so damn enjoyable. (That Ryan called Akin and asked him to fall on a sword for saying something that they both believe is a goddam riot.)
Rich: actually, i was refering to another democrat who maintained a long career after taking a 17yr old boy as a sex partner. early 80's i think??? the fisrt openly gay congressman, i think.
Party platforms aren't carved on stone tablets. But you know that. Enjoy this week while you can -- it's going to get a lot worse for Mr. Obama soon. And I think you know that, too.
You have no idea how I feel about specific issues. I'm most definitely pro life (and consistently against the death penalty as well). The issue of rape is most definitely a difficult issue, but it's using an exception to justify a rule. How as a Catholic do you balance the pro choice stance of the democratic party when this position clearly is not consistent with church teachings?
You and I both know that the use of Akin and his comments is part of a bigger mantra to try to win the election by saying that the Republican Party is going to take away women's rights. I'm not sure what motivates Akin, but he's got to step aside.
In the end abortion is an issue, but it's not the issue for this election. It's the economy, and the fact your Chicago corrpupt candidate wants to engage in social engineering creating a socialist government that restricts the rights of citizens, with complete exemptions for those who have paid him off. Sounds a lot like a communist country where the masses pay, but members of the "Party" do not.
Seriously? You're not just kidding? Holding something in reserve? I'll go ahead and assume that you've got an ace up your sleeve because there's no way you would make such a serious charge on such flimsy (to be very charitable) evidence.
What more evidence do you need. The GOP needs to modify a law that has been in effect for over 2 decades with 1 word..."forcible." Why? I think you know why. I know an awful lot of women know why.
I reread that statement. Okay, I'll bite. What do you think the change in definitions is about? I have a guess, but I'd like to hear yours first.
23 comments:
Mark,
Todd Akin is a moron.
- I agree 1000%
Kerry Gauthier is a moron.
- I Don't know who that is, so I can't comment.
And that's all that needs to be said about either of them.
- Not by a long shot. Turns out that Congressman Akin has co-sponsored a bill with Congressman Ryan (he is the GOP candidate who isrunning for the office of Vice President) that seeks to redefine / qualify the word rape categorically. Forcible rape and...they really don't say. Unforcible? Cooperative? You're a wordsmith. Perhaps you have some suggestions. My guess is that people are going to be asking: Congressman Ryan, what is the difference between forcible rape and legitimate rape? What is the opposite of forcible rape? You did sponsor a bill that draws a distinction between forcibel rape and those other "rapes". Can you plese explain the differences, and how you and Congressman Akin came to these conclusions.
Guess what Mark? These are completely legitimate (no pun intended) questions.
Regards,
Rich
I agrre
Republicans are pro-rape?!! Holy cow, I'd better vote for the people who kill babies and are destroying the country's economic future!
Good grief, you people are desperate. Mr. D. makes a simple straightforward condemnation of two pols: one who said something stupid and one who actually did something appalling. And you're not satisfied.
For the record, this is the big, scary bill that's all about rape. I'm not seeing anything about rape at all. Is this the wrong bill? Or is this just more of the usual libel and fear-mongering from Democrats?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf
Since it's short, I'll include the text here. (sorry for the formatting.)
A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with
fertilization.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:07 Jan 12, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H212.IH H212 tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2
•HR 212 IH
1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sanctity of Human
3 Life Act’’.
4 SEC. 2. DECLARATION.
5 In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, includ6
ing Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Con7
stitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Con8
gress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amend9
ment to the Constitution of the United States—
10 (1) the Congress declares that—
11 (A) the right to life guaranteed by the
12 Constitution is vested in each human being, and
13 is the paramount and most fundamental right
14 of a person; and
15 (B) the life of each human being begins
16 with fertilization, cloning, or its functional
17 equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function
18 or disability, defect, stage of biological develop19
ment, or condition of dependency, at which time
20 every human being shall have all the legal and
21 constitutional attributes and privileges of
22 personhood; and
23 (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress,
24 each State, the District of Columbia, and all United
25 States territories have the authority to protect the
1 lives of all human beings residing in its respective
2 jurisdictions.
3 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
4 For purposes of this Act:
5 (1) FERTILIZATION.—The term ‘‘fertilization’’
6 means the process of a human spermatozoan pene7
trating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to cre8
ate a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo,
9 which is a new unique human being.
10 (2) CLONING.—The term ‘‘cloning’’ means the
11 process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that
12 combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a so13
matic cell to make a human embryo.
14 (3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING.—The terms
15 ‘‘human’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include each and
16 every member of the species homo sapiens at all
17 stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of de18
velopment, created by the process of fertilization,
19 cloning, or its functional equivalent.
Rich,
I have to go to my aunt's funeral today, so you'll forgive me if I'm not especially interested in going all Bertrand Russell with you. Why don't you read the bill and tell us all what it says and then we'll decide if we need to be as excited about it as you appear to be.
I'll also assume that the questions you direct to Congressman Ryan are rhetorical for our purposes, unless you instruct us otherwise.
As for Kerry Gauthier, here's a little background.
Pickelsworth,
you have jumped the shark. Please show where I said anything even remotely resembling "Republicans are pro-rape." And try to make sense this time.
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
You are the one who got out the rape brush and started some gentle brushstrokes on Paul Ryan. Either you've got some evidence that supports that or you don't. Is there some other bill than H.R. 212 to which you are referring? Because if that's the one, it doesn't mention rape. Please inform.
Picklesworth,
you are citing the wrong bill.
I am referring to HR3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, Section 309.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3/text/ih
This was an amendment to the Hyde Act that tried to redefine rape as "forcible" rape vs nonforcible?.
And why were these guys so interested in re-defining rape? Because the Hyde Amendment prevents all funding to abortion, EXCEPT in the case of rape, incest, or the Mother's health. So a woman would have to prove that she was "forcibly raped" in order to qualify for that exception. So much for victim's rights.
You can try to walk back Akin's statement, but the record speaks for itself. All Akin did was say, in an inartful manner, what he, and Ryan, and many other Republicans (and a handful of Democrats too) have been trying to get written into law for several years. And today, Steve King of Iowa announced that that he had never heard of a victim of incest getting pregnant. (Here in Chicago, we call that doubling down on stupid). The overall picture of the GOP and your VP nominee is looking pretty ugly. Romney is faced with a big gender gap. And I don't see how he closes that with Rep. Paul Ryan on the ticket, given his positions and history of extreme anti-women policies.
‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--
‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Regards,
Rich
Mark,
condolences on your aunt.
And Kerry Gauthier makes it two out of three things we can agree on today.
Who says we can't agree on anything;)
Rich
BTW, you do know the old political addage: "What are the two things no politician can recover from?"
...A live boy or a dead girl.
At least no one died.
Regards,
Rich
You can try to walk back Akin's statement"
Strawman. No one is trying to walk back anything. This post is a condemnation of what Akin said. I've not said a single word to that effect either.
Is section 309 your evidence?
"What are the two things no politician can recover from?"
unless its a democrat.
Strawman. No one is trying to walk back anything. This post is a condemnation of what Akin said. I've not said a single word to that effect either.
Yep. I don't blame Rich for wanting to talk about Akin -- it's a much more congenial subject matter for a Democrat than economic numbers are. Eventually Akin will be gone, but the Obama economic record will remain.
Gino wins.
Rich loses.
So, if you want an abortion paid for by the federal government just call it rape?
What is so interesting is how Ricj is more disgusted and offended by somepne whose statements are idiocy rather than one who actually committed disgusting acts that are criminal. I guess when you have Barney Frank among your denisons, the sexaul activity with boys bar has to be lowered. After all when you live in the world of end justifies the means hypocrisy, and thing goes. The old Chicago Way, eh Rich!
Anon,
In Rich's defense, I think he does play devil's advocate at least a little on some of these things. I don't think that he really believes the end justifies the means. He does like his side to win, though.
Picklesworth,
yes. That is my evidence. What more evidence do you need. The GOP needs to modify a law that has been in effect for over 2 decades with 1 word..."forcible." Why? I think you know why. I know an awful lot of women know why. I know, too, that suddenly, Paul Ryan doesn't want to talk about it. And that he suddenly has a new mantra: Rape is rape. Interesting. Don't you think?
Gino..."unless its a democrat".
And that is why Gauthier is gone...in one day...and Akin isn't;)
KRod,
Long time no hear. I see you are still eating paint chips. Great comments!
Anonymous,
I agreed with Mark regarding Gauthier. How can you possibly know which story I find to be more offensive?
Furthermore, you say that Akin is "somepne whose statements are idiocy." Well, we can agree on that, but MY POINT is that his idiocy is part of your party's plank. Hell, it's in the platform. And Akin's transgression is that he got off the GOP script and explained it a little too honestly. Which is why listening to all of you condemn your party platform and confess to collective idiocy is so damn enjoyable. (That Ryan called Akin and asked him to fall on a sword for saying something that they both believe is a goddam riot.)
Regards,
Rich
Rich, your chips with salsa experience is deep.
As for the word YOU repeat, yes, you Rod Stewart it well!
Idiocy.
You're a little political but thats ok...
Mark is carvin your argument up, tryin to get through to you!!!
Rich, your chips with salsa experience is deep.
As for the word YOU repeat, yes, you Rod Stewart it well!
Idiocy.
You're a little political but thats ok...
Mark is carvin your argument up, tryin to get through to you!!!
Rich: actually, i was refering to another democrat who maintained a long career after taking a 17yr old boy as a sex partner. early 80's i think??? the fisrt openly gay congressman, i think.
Rich,
Party platforms aren't carved on stone tablets. But you know that. Enjoy this week while you can -- it's going to get a lot worse for Mr. Obama soon. And I think you know that, too.
Rich,
You have no idea how I feel about specific issues. I'm most definitely pro life (and consistently against the death penalty as well). The issue of rape is most definitely a difficult issue, but it's using an exception to justify a rule. How as a Catholic do you balance the pro choice stance of the democratic party when this position clearly is not consistent with church teachings?
You and I both know that the use of Akin and his comments is part of a bigger mantra to try to win the election by saying that the Republican Party is going to take away women's rights. I'm not sure what motivates Akin, but he's got to step aside.
In the end abortion is an issue, but it's not the issue for this election. It's the economy, and the fact your Chicago corrpupt candidate wants to engage in social engineering creating a socialist government that restricts the rights of citizens, with complete exemptions for those who have paid him off. Sounds a lot like a communist country where the masses pay, but members of the "Party" do not.
"yes. That is my evidence."
Seriously? You're not just kidding? Holding something in reserve? I'll go ahead and assume that you've got an ace up your sleeve because there's no way you would make such a serious charge on such flimsy (to be very charitable) evidence.
What more evidence do you need. The GOP needs to modify a law that has been in effect for over 2 decades with 1 word..."forcible." Why? I think you know why. I know an awful lot of women know why.
I reread that statement. Okay, I'll bite. What do you think the change in definitions is about? I have a guess, but I'd like to hear yours first.
Post a Comment