Abortion bill clears Round 1 (prohibit almost all abortions starting 20 weeks after fertilization)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Paul Hammel

LINCOLN -- Nebraska lawmakers moved the state back into the spotlight of the national debate over abortion on Wednesday night.

On a 38-5 vote, senators advanced a bill that would set a "bright line" when abortions could no longer be performed in the state.

Legislative Bill 1103, which was advanced to the second round of debate, would prohibit almost all abortions starting 20 weeks after fertilization — a point selected because that's when some experts believe a fetus begins to feel pain.

The bill, introduced by Speaker of the Legislature Sen. Mike Flood and 22 co-sponsors, is sure to spark a new legal battle over abortion rights that could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. That's where a Nebraska case over the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions ended up in 2007, with the high court upholding the ban.

Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20100330/NEWS01/100339961#abortion-bill-clears-round-1

[rasputin1952]

1. These people are idiots...

Every election cycle they bring this up, it's the worst ploy to get voters out they have come up with.

I argue w/these clowns all of the time, the have a DP here, but squeal about the "sanctity of life". NE also has one of th eworst records for taking care of a child/mother after they have been "brought to term". Once the baby is born, if the mother needs help o the child needs care, they just get a bare minimum of assistance. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[Ineeda]

3. They're not pro-life

they're only pro-fetus. Screw after-birth life.

[iamjoy]

5. In Light of Debate Over Health Care Reform

I have a question for people who don't feel it's the government's job to help people get health care, but call themselves "Pro-Life." Let's forget about the unborn for a moment and consider those who may need artificial means to sustain their life. I guess in particular I am thinking of Terry Schiavo. The people who are "Pro-Life" do not think that feeding tube should have been removed. Yet many of these same people are against government funded health care (except their own, of course). So, if Schiavo's family had been broke and no longer able to pay for her Medical care, would it have been okay then to remove the feeding tube and put her on the street to die?

[jmowreader]

14. No, it would not have been

They would prefer the feeding tube remain and Michael be saddled with bills there's no possible way he could have repaid.

[tonysam]

51. He didn't. Medicaid footed the bill. n/t

[Mad_Dem_X]

6. Yep, exactly right.

Once the kid comes out, it's on its own. "Pro-fetus," indeed.

[ananda]

7. Actually, it's pretend "pro life" or pro fetus.

In reality, it's anti-pregnant woman, pro slavery for women.

Authoritarian males want to own women's bodies.

[NJCher]

8. yes, that's it

There's a strong desire to punish unmarried women who have sex.

I've traveled the backroads of Nebraska and there are plenty of homemade billboards that are most gruesome in their display of blood dripping from fetuses. What on earth makes people think this would be a convincing message?


Cher

[thecrow]

17. Guess they'll have to fornicate with married women now....

yeah! there's a thought!

[patrice]

10. Pro-Slavery! Keep them dumb (by de-financing Education) & dependent (by means of WTO).

[mac56]

16. They love the babies until they're born.

[axollot]

39. I wouldnt call them pro-fetus but pro-sexual repression n/t

[Ineeda]

41. Yup, that, too. n/t

[patrice]

61. Right On!! We need to say that as publicly as possible, over and over and over.

They are not Pro-Life.

..........................................

What they are is Pro-Death.

[Demeter]

2. Of Course, a Woman's Pain Is Immaterial

Whether it's physical, mental, or economic. :sarcasm:

[patrice]

11. AND anything else that she might have had to contribute to "Us" is worthless, only slaves, uh babies

are of any use to U.S.

It really is possible that this stuff is fueled by one of the oldest fears there is: Fear of Competition for the resources that come from Jobs. Men fear the work that women can/will do will far outclass theirs.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[damyank913]

4. Do not lose sight of the source of this type of legislation.

These ppl are primarily advancing a religious agenda. Their ultimate goal is to turn the US into a christian theocracy. We need to vote the zealots out.

[patrice]

9. I don't understand why they get a Conscientious Objection for their Tax Dollars that could pay for

Abortions and I don't get one for my Conscientious Objection to War.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

13. Children are their parents' slaves. Bring on Octo-Mom.

:sarcasm:

[lobodons]

15. How many abortions occur after the 5th month?

Not many I would assume. This is just a red herring. I know, foot in the door, but in reality, without a risk to the mother clause, it will be struck down.

[BlueIris]

18. Not the point. nt

[uppityperson]

29. Article says NO abortions in NE after 20 wks anyway...

But opponents of the measure, now known as the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," called it a "problem in search of a solution" because there were no reported abortions in Nebraska after 20 weeks during the past year.

Lincoln Sen. Danielle Conrad, who led the opposition to LB 1103, said the bill was more about setting a new legal precedent, and putting politics ahead of a doctor's opinion.

"This legislation ... is about pushing the envelope to eviscerate the rights of women," Conrad said.

She and other opponents claimed the bill also didn't have broad enough exceptions to protect a woman's health, particularly their mental health.

[Renew Deal]

19. Most DUers agree

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7826895&mesg_id=7826895

[Omaha Steve]

21. The poll won't let me vote

And I never saw the poll until now.

[uppityperson]

30. No, Duers who voted in that poll. That is all you can infer from a poll.

[ixion]

22. *sigh* always makes me sad to see crap like this coming from my home town

and it reminds me why I moved. :(

[h9socialist]

23. Pro-Choice America better start getting more vocal!

This is a classic case of a group of old men and thoughtless bastards not knowing or caring about the damage and injustice they cause. If women cannot control their own reproductive function, then second class citizenship is established, personal freedom is a joke, and the ability to produce children will be used against women for generations to come. I support NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and urge the rest of my progressive comrades to do the same.

[Brickbat]

24. Aaaaand how do they determine date of fertilization?

<crickets>

[uppityperson]

31. Do an ultrasound of the fetus, fetal development can give a pretty good idea

of when it was.

chirp

[Brickbat]

33. The problem with "20 weeks and that's it!11!!!!!" is that "pretty good idea" just doesn't cut it.

[uppityperson]

34. I agree. what with no abortions being done in NE this late, this is ONLY meant to go to SCOTUS

to try and turn over or chip away at Roe v Wade.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

25. On a 38-5 vote, senators (MEN) advanced a bill t..... n/t

[superconnected]

26. 20 weeks is about 4 months. That sounds reasonable to me.

What I'm against is that it bans nearly all abortions afterwords. I think they should have exception for medical issues and I do believe the woman should have the right to decide not to have the child if it is deformed, mentally impaired or if it has a disease or condition that requires constant medical help. There should be lot's of exceptions.

[fleabert]

44. 20 weeks after fertilization is 22 weeks pregnant, odd, I know, but true.

and 'months pregnant' is based on 4 week average per month. so 22 weeks pregnant is 5 and a half months along

really, pregnancy is 10 months, 40 weeks. a woman is in her ninth month at 36 weeks and her due date is at the 40 week point, but that is an estimate with birth occuring 2 weeks before up to 2 weeks after.

ps- I am 18 weeks pregnant, and I am staunchly pro-choice.

pps- it's all calculated from the last menstrual period, day one to be specific. from that date most women ovulate 14 days later, and the egg remains fertile for 24-36 hours after that. Since sperm can survive anywhere from 1-3 days after insemination, it makes it difficult to determine fertilization date from ovulation and sexual activity alone. The only way to know exact fertilization is with Assisted Reproductive Techniques, which are new, so we have been using LMP for a very long time to calculate weeks pg. (ultrasound is also relatively new, and often not exact in measuring fertilization, but it can give an idea if the woman has no idea when her LMP was, or if she was irregular)

TMI?

[superconnected]

50. Not tmi at all. Excellent information!

[uppityperson]

27. k&r, thank you for continuing to keep up on posting this shit. "some believe". Chip, chip, chip

ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"LB 1103 would chip away at a key provision of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973 by redefining when states could ban abortions."

[uppityperson]

28. Abortions after 20 wks are NOT DONE in NE, more....

But opponents of the measure, now known as the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," called it a "problem in search of a solution" because there were no reported abortions in Nebraska after 20 weeks during the past year.

Lincoln Sen. Danielle Conrad, who led the opposition to LB 1103, said the bill was more about setting a new legal precedent, and putting politics ahead of a doctor's opinion.

"This legislation ... is about pushing the envelope to eviscerate the rights of women," Conrad said.

She and other opponents claimed the bill also didn't have broad enough exceptions to protect a woman's health, particularly their mental health.

[kestrel91316]

32. Roe v Wade says no restrictions on access through the end of the second trimester.

NE legislators need remedial math and reading comprehension.

[colinmom71]

43. Actually, that's not entirely accurate...

Roe V. Wade allows for state proscription or interference in second trimester abortions where the aim of the legislation is to restrict procedures that have been found to be more medically harmful than beneficial to the pregnant woman or where the health and safety of pregnant women needs protection (ie. - regulations concerning medically safe environments in which to provide abortion services, such as requiring board certified physicians and certain types of out-patient surgical clinics). In other words, Roe V. Wade says the state does have a legitimate interest in crafting legislation limiting abortion in the second trimester *solely* in order to protect a woman's health...

Roe v. Wade did not allow for the potentiality of the fetus being viable as reason for the state to determine abortion restrictions until the third trimester, as many of us know. Fetal potential is not considered a legitimate state interest during the second trimester or before fetal viability, as subsequent decisions would later rule.

But yes, Nebraska is just setting themselves up for another expensive legal challenge with this particular anti-abortion law attempt.

[alp227]

35. "Fetus feeling pain"? How do you know? God crying

When I saw that phrase, I immediately thought: junk science. Just like the abortion/breast cancer link hoax.

[Warpy]

36. "Some experts?" Religious nuts, maybe

because the most recent work available has shown that the brain structures responsible for receiving pain signals and interpreting them don't develop until the last month of pregnancy.

Legislators should be disqualified from making any sort of medical determination because they lack the education and obviously they lack the research skill and reading comprehension to fill in the huge gaps.

I guess women with ectopic pregnancies will just have to suck it up and die.

[Crunchy Frog]

59. The last month of pregnancy? You mean they don't feel pain until they're at 36 weeks?

I'm just asking because my babies were born at just after 33 weeks, and they always acted as though they could feel and respond to pain. I know the NICU was also very concerned about the pain issue.

One of my babies had to have a chest tube put in when he was 1 1/2 days old and he was kept heavily doped up with Morphine while he had it, "for the pain". He still spent two full days crying inconsolably after he got the chest tube out and came off of the ventilator.

I know that until quite recently they used to pay no attention at all to preemie pain and did even the most complex and invasive surgeries on them with no anesthesia at all, only a paralytic agent. It is now widely acknowledged by the neonatal community that even the earliest preemies feel pain and are adversely affected by it, and they do their best to control it.

Are you saying that this is wrong? Are they going to go back to ignoring pain in the NICU because it doesn't really exist?

[Warpy]

62. Do you honestly think infants could withstand what must be

a truly horrific process called birth if they had fully functioning pain centers? Infants would be born in severe shock after being that harshly compressed for that many hours.

That doesn't mean there isn't avoidance of noxious stimuli, much of it through the spinal cord loop. It just means it's not registering as pain.

[Crunchy Frog]

63. They're physiologically adapted through evolution to go through birth

not through surgery. Anyway, you said it was 36 weeks that they didn't feel pain, not full term when most births happen. And no, I don't think that the process of birth must necessarily be painful. A sensation of being squeezed and compressed, but not necessarily pain. Certainly not in the way that being sliced into with a knife would be painful.

Are you honestly suggesting that my baby didn't feel pain from the chest tube and didn't need the Morphine? Do you think it was wrong of them to start acknowledging and trying to control pain in the NICU and during neonatal procedures?

Frankly, on the basis of what you're saying, I'm glad you were not a nurse in my babies' NICU.

[FarrenH]

37. At 4 months

a fetus has a CNS and the myelin sheaths around nerve cells begin to develop, IIRC allowing the transmission of signal without "crossed wires" (myelin sheaths are like the plastic around wire for nerves). So it is eminently reasonable from a scientific perspective to say there is a reasonable likelihood of pain as we understand it being possible from that point. I raise this because I realise many on this board are going to parse this from a purely political standpoint, as evidenced in some posts above, and run the risk of behaving just like many right wingers by attacking the science without bothering to understand the details.

My own conversion to a pro-choice position from a very Catholic position some 20 years ago was premised on biological facts about development. I came to realise that one simply can't call a bundle of cells no more complex than an insect's brain (in the first few weeks of development) "human" in the same legal sense as a born child, and that Catholic ideas about when the soul entered the body were actually a matter of theological dispute as late as Aquinas, beyond which there are serious problems with the idea of a soul entering the body at conception (for instance, there is a process of late twinning when an embryo actually splits into two embryos after several weeks, and the theology doesn't account for this at all).

The issue of theological problems with souls doesn't matter to me now as I eventually abandoned faith altogether, but even then I realised that a common code of ethics that embraced believers of different faiths as well as non-believers must be premised on items of scientific agreement, like the nature of the consciousness of the embryo/fetus, else any statute would be an imposition of particular articles of faith, as opposed to an endorsement of universal humanitarian principles.

In any event I don't like the way some people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction and start attacking the scientific component of this above, simply because other motives may be involved in passing the bill. It makes liberals and leftists look as much like anti-science-that-doesn't-suit-them partisan drones as the fundy right-wingers they criticise.

I realise there are philosophical reasons why abortion might be justifiable beyond the point where a fetus has something that coulde arguably be called "human consciousness", Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" being the most compelling I have read (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm) but this post isn't endorsing or attacking a position past that point, just encouraging a less knee-jerk response.

ETA: And I have to get this in because there are only a few things I can boast to non-South Africans about being better here :) Reproductive rights, along with sexual orientation, are protected by our consitution here in SA, to the extent that the government will assist teenagers in getting abortions without parental notification, to ensure that they are shielded from undue pressure in making what is considered a sacrosanct choice even for minors.

[uppityperson]

38. You claim "knee jerk reaction" and "anti-science" then talk "human consciousness" being a factor.

Speaking on non-parental notification, did you see the thread last wk in LBN about WA's minor's right to privacy regarding abortions?

[FarrenH]

40. "You claim 'knee jerk reaction' and 'anti-science' then talk 'human consciousness' being a factor."

You say that as if it implies something significant? Whatever it is, I'm afraid I don't get the implication. "Human consciousness", while contentious, is a subject of scientific and philosophical enquiry and the phrase describes a quality that is uncontroversial in science and philosophy. It could be expressed as: "the quality of qualia that distinguishes the experience of being of human form from all other living and non-living experiences". The contentious aspect is mainly what attributes that quality breaks down into. And this is a very reasonable starting point for humanitarian ethics, which is among the pillars of secular law. I have several books on the topic and I can assure you they are written by respected scientists and philosophers who do use the phrase as a term of art.

And no, I haven't seen that thread but I'll take a look.

[uppityperson]

42. Throwing "human consciousness" into the abortion discussion is a sign of emotionalizing

rather "knee jerk" reaction indeed. It is also anti-science as it cannot, or has not, been proven that human consciousness enters a human, a fetus, an embryo, a fertilized egg, at any point, yet has been used to say abortions should be banned, are a sin, are murder, etc.

Here in WA we have some decent laws.

[FarrenH]

46. My reasoning is wrong because it uses a scientific term of art

the use of which you think is a signature trait of emotional argument? Before, even the substance of the reasoning is considered? Kind of like "Hitler was a vegetarian too, you know"?

As far as the rest of your response goes, it is exceedingly clear you neither understood my first nor my second post, as I nowhere claimed that it "enters" the body, nor meant to even imply that. Let me try again. The phrase "human consciousness" is not merely whatever item of folk wisdom thing you think it is, but a term of art in both science and philosophy. It is uncontroversial inasmuch as it refers to a kind of qualia, or the unique internal experience of being something, in this case a member of the human species. A quality we are presumed, without controversy among scholars, to have. It is also a fundamental premise of humanitarian ethics and by extension secular law, without which both would be senseless. Its existence no more needs to be proven than the existence of feelings, such as your own apparently dented pride here.

I'm sorry if you fell within the ambit of the criticism in my first post, but your response does nothing to disabuse me of the notion that the point was valid. Quite the contrary. I'd like to suggest you do a little research on the long historical pedigree of discourse around what it means to be "human" and how that intersects with inalienable rights, especially the recent debates around the Turing Test and Searle's Chinese room. Else your view does look to me like blind ideological thinking that only embraces scientific logic and facts as far as they suit your ideological preconceptions.

[uppityperson]

49. it is exceedingly clear you neither understood my first nor my second post

I did not say you "claimed that it "enters" the body", but that is how it is used for wanting to limit abortions.

"human consciousness" is "a term of art in both science and philosophy", etc. I agree that humans have consciousness, am not arguing that.

When does one have "human consciousness"? Pre-ovulation? Fertilization? Implantation? When it becomes an embryo? A fetus? Birth? Some other point? When.

You write "I realise there are philosophical reasons why abortion might be justifiable beyond the point where a fetus has something that coulde arguably be called "human consciousness". So, when is that?

[FarrenH]

52. Sorry I got snippy with you in the previous post

late, and worked 12 hours two days in a row. Also, this is of genuine philosophical interest to me (got books on neurology, ethics, AI and general philosophy on bookshelf) and I disliked being characterised as writing an "emotional" response when I'm philosophically interested and largely emotionally disengaged from the topic. I wrote a looong response, went off this screen to get a link and lost the post. Grr. I'll reply again tomorrow.

[uppityperson]

53. Sweet dreams.

[paulsby]

55. most science based people

wouldn't say consciousness "enters" a human. iirc, it was sagan (amongst others) who talked of EMERGENT qualities. consciousness is one such quality of a sufficiently complex system once it reaches a certain point.

just as color does not "enter" an object, but only becomes an emergent property once molecules are grouped together.

otoh, i did read a book that made some rather interesting claims about consciousness, essentially saying it was an illusion of sorts.

i think it's in my garage somewhere :)

[uppityperson]

64. If you wish, then simply replace "enters" with "emerges" in that post...

It is also anti-science as it cannot, or has not, been proven that human consciousness emerges (in?) a human, a fetus, an embryo, a fertilized egg, at any point, yet has been used to say abortions should be banned, are a sin, are murder, etc.

[paulsby]

65. it is clearly an area that science has not come to anything close to a conclusion on

when it emerges

clearly, consciousness and or self-awareness emerge at SOME point.

generally speaking, the legal side has relied on viability vs. consciousness to draw legal distinctions

i'm not sure what kind of experiments can be done to determine when consciousness emerges.

some ethicists (singer) claim that it should be ok to kill a baby (not a fetus, a baby) after it is born due to claims that iirc he claims it is not self aware right away, even after it is born

regardless, i have no problem with the use of "feels pain" either.

i've heard PETA and various vegetarians etc. use the argument that animals feel pain as justification for their ideology.

[uppityperson]

66. When do you think? Not "science", but you?

[paulsby]

67. i can't draw a bright line

but i would say a 7-9 month fetus most likely has something resembling consciousness and self-awareness.

i would say a 1-3 month fetus certainly does not

i base that primarily on brain development.

[fleabert]

45. 22 weeks pregnant (20 wks after fert.) is over 5 months pg. nt

[FarrenH]

47. Thanks

[colinmom71]

48. Hmm... If abortions must be further restricted because it may cause pain to the fetus...

Then I suppose that intra-uterine surgeries performed on fetuses to correct defects before birth must also be examined and potentially proscribed in order to not inflict pain upon the fetus. The medical science governing the use of anesthesia and/or analgesia on fetuses is still quite imprecise and experimental. And if infliction of pain, however potentially temporary or possible, is reason enough to proscribe abortions at a point earlier than fetal viability, then the same reasoning must govern fetal surgeries...

Also, I highly doubt the numerous medical procedures and tests that are necessary to save premature infants are not painful, so maybe those should be further examined so as not to cause unnecessary pain to a premature neonate. After all, they would still be a fetus were they not born early...

Either way, we do not base whether a medical procedure should be performed on it's potential of causing pain to the patient. It is based on whether the patient medically needs and consents to the procedure. Using the *potential* of fetal pain because *some* experts (I'm hoping these cited experts are at least doctors of peri-natal and maternal/fetal health specialties) *believe* an abortion may produce a pain response in a pre-viable fetus is troublesome and not a scientifically sound basis upon which to craft abortion laws...

[paulsby]

54. quibble

"Either way, we do not base whether a medical procedure should be performed on it's potential of causing pain to the patient."

that wasn't the argument made, unless you are saying the fetus is the patient, in an abortion

[colinmom71]

58. Sorry for the imprecise wording...

I meant that as patients in general during any medical procedures in general. I was trying not to get too wordy in my post above and wound up a little too vague. Sorry! :D

But no, I do not regard the fetus as a patient in an abortion procedure. However, in fetal surgeries, both the pregnant woman and the fetus are ostensibly co-patients. This type of surgery effects both entities as the woman must be surgically opened to access the fetus and the fetus is receiving a palliative surgical treatment for a certain medical ailment. Pain is not necessarily a deciding factor on whether a procedure is medically appropriate to address a medical issue. And this bill making pain a consideration is not a medically sound law.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. Hate to quibble, but that's an inaccurate use of the word "palliative"

which refers to treating pain and suffering in a terminally ill patient. Obviously not the purpose behind fetal surgery.

They don't always use anesthetic for the fetus during fetal surgery, though in my opinion they should.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

56. what about raped young girls

how can they force them to have unwanted baby.
And why in general do they want to force any woman to have a baby. I don't think I may have an abortion myself but it is a personal issue plus abortion is easy they cant prevent it, they are only going to prevent important medical care from women and abortion in a safe environment.

[chrisa]

71. They don't know.

They know absolutely nothing about abortion. You could tell these Conservatives that a million times, but they'll just throw in some psuedo-Biblical, family-values nonsense that many people unfortunately buy.

This is all comes down the misogynist idea that having a child should be punishment for having sex. Males can have all the sex they want, but a woman is filthy if she has sex (to the Bible-thumping Neo-Cons).

[defendandprotect]

57. Health or life of mother? I'm sure SC would be eager to knock out that provision...

Patriarchy is insanity --

[fascisthunter]

68. everyone state it... Nebraska treats women like second class citizens

this will be overturned in the near future. Women's health is priority, and should NEVER be dictated by beliefs or dogma.

[newspeak]

69. the great emphasis on calling a fetus a baby

started with the anti-abortion conservatives in the eighties. And, reading some of their essays back then, some are against contraceptives, too. I remember what my professor said, "If they outlaw abortion, they will eventually go after contraceptives." Now, do I value the well-being of my daughter over a fetus--do I value her? There is nothing pro-life about this movement. Many in this movement are pro-war, and would willingly kill someone else's child--many are pro-capital punishment. Hitler outlawed abortion-Hitler created the breeding camps for the Aryan race. Does anyone think he outlawed abortion because he believed in the sanctity of life? Ceausceau (sp) of Romania outlawed abortion and made it mandatory that women have at least five babies, hence; all of the orphanages found in Romania. Does any one really think he did it because he believed in the sanctity of life?

The fetus is used by some of these people to push an agenda. Now what could that agenda be? In the eighties, writers like Bailey, Liddy were presenting arguments against abortion because whites in the future would be in the minority. I'm telling you that these neo-cons back in the eighties were using the word "baby" instead of "fetus" and one of their arguments was that too many "white" women were getting abortions -and gee, we need those whites because we're going to be a minority.

I believe that the fetal brain stem is developed about five months. When the brain stem is developed then pain may be felt. However, when choosing between the fetus and the mother's life, it is the mother's and family's decision--it is not the government's business on such a choice. I value the life of my daughter--not as a breeder but as a human being, who is loved and has value to society and has value to her family. These nuts have placed the value of women in a secondary position.

And as Goldwater said it is between the woman, her family, her doctor--it is not a governmental decision.

[chrisa]

70. Wealthy, balding men arguing for restricting women's rights.

Amazing. If men could get pregnant, women wouldn't even have to worry about their abortion rights, as they would be guaranteed without debate.

Stop using a 2000 year old book to guide your morals, and start using common sense.

[Odin2005]

72. Misogynist creeps!

:grr: