It also makes it unconstitutional. Which means that if it's appealed and goes to the Supreme Court, they will have the opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade.

For too long, too many Republican and Independent men and women ignored the dark underbelly of the Republican party.
They took too many things for granted. A lot like the union members who have been voting Repub.

they do not think of this

Extra deduction for every pregnant woman in that state.

an especially nice touch.

Oh, and it's only a "disaster" for the women of Oklahoma. Oklahoma legislation does not apply in California, or the other 48 states.

Roe v. Wade is not premised on whether an embryo is, or is not, a person.

In fact, Roe v. Wade assumed that it is.

What Roe v. Wade says is that, at the early stages of pregnancy, a woman's interest in privacy in medical decisionmaking outweighs the state's interest in preserving the life of that embryo.

This is symbolic bullshit designed to appeal to people who never bothered to read or understand what Roe v. Wade is about.

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

My memory of the exact wording of Roe v. Wade, was that (paraphrasing), "this decision makes no determination on the status of the embryo as a human person. If such status can be determined," then ... Roe v. Wade is invalidated.

Section IX of R v Wade, would seem to firmly decide against "personhood." But? There may be been some qualifications on that.

While in any case? If the legislatures (state and/or fed?) stipulate the embryo is a person? Then ... Roe vs. Wade collapses by legislative fiat?

You know, if you are going to write a "700 page blog" on the subject, it would be helpful for you to consider that the entire "personhood" argument is thoroughly irrelevant to the grounds on which Roe v. Wade was decided:

-------

The third reason is the State's interest -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. [n45] The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

....

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [p163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

---------

The entire point of Roe was that the state does have an interest in protecting "potential life", but that interest is outweighed by the right of the pregnant woman to medical privacy at the outset.

Saying "life begins at conception" does not change the basis of the decision.

It is snake oil all around, and a great fund raising vehicle.

Especially, sec. IX of Roe v. Wade seems to strongly stand against "person"hood for the embryo to be sure;
though I seem to remember an amendment or qualifier clause. (A common misreading of note 54?). While if a (state and/or fed) legislature simply stipulates the embryo is human? The matter might be settled by legislatures' override of R. v. Wade's assumption that the embryo is not a human person.

(My 700 pages by the way, were not in defense of Roe v. Wade; but were intended to offer 200 defenses, against conservative religious, Catholic arguments against abortion.)

Let's hope you are right. I'm assuming you are a lawyer, or that many very competent lawyers will soon be addressing this. With luck, successfully.

Think the dangerous qualification was cited in ACLJ Amicus brief, on their war on abortion, a few years ago: the assertion was made that Roe v. Wade suggested that some future board might establish that the embryo was a "person" after all. In which case? Roe v. Wade would be invalidated.

I'm still looking for the sources .... But? The Democratic party should CALL THEIR LAWYERS IMMEDIATELY. This bill is about to be signed into law, in Oklahoma it seems. I'm sure their legal staffs can track this down.

It is apparently not quite law yet.

Though looks quite likely. Unless public outcry - and legal advise, sanity - stop this now

There wasn't anything that was breathing or moving or expressing an opinion. It was a dense ball of slime in eggy mucus. It wasn't capable of voting. It didn't have arms or legs and it couldn't feel anything.

I was saddened to have miscarried, but it wasn't a dead baby. Thinking it is a person is preposterous.

Thankfully, such toxic views aren't welcome here, huh?

http://www.dareland.com/music/frozenembryos.mp3

Seriously - I want to bring a jug of a thousand embryos to Oklahoma and let them thaw. Here you go, find wombs for them NOW or a thousand people will DIE! MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

We cannot defeat these bastards by taking them seriously. They have already demonstrated a vastly superior ability to take stupid things seriously and we cannot hope to compete on those grounds.

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2012, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101712848

Right now, Ricky Santorum is saying that he will 1) first, legally prosecute abortion doctors.

The next step though? 2) Logically, if the embryo is a full human person, then killing one is murder. So that? Santorum is logically committed next, to prosecute doctors as ... murderers.

And then? I suppose he is also, by his own fatal logic, bound to 3) prosecute the millions of women that get abortions, as murderesses.

So next? Santorum will apparently be 4) gathering up a special group of para-military Catholic police, to round up millions of women. And 5) take them to prison, and/or execution?

6) Or maybe he will have them burned at the stake, as witches or ... Protestants? (WHose religion allows contraception and ab ortion).

Anti-abortion extremists like Santorum, and EWTN/RN, and Priests for Life, are very, very dangerous idiots. They don't really know what absurdities and horrors, would result, if anyone took them seriously.

To be sure, humor could be a potent weapon here. BUT? The joke is also lost on these guys. So we need? Both humor ... but also an occasional serious discussion of all this, point by point.