Sorry for posting about politics . . .

[dameruth]

. . . but I'm just a tad pissed off right now. I was doing a quick scan of the news headlines before logging off the work computer (trying to stay at least somewhat current) and found an article about the abortion restriction laws that look very much as if they're going to pass in Oklahoma right now

Comments

[kaffy_r]

I understand your frustration. Frankly, the clause you bolded sounds like pretty direct (or directly indirect) proof that the writers of this legislation are aware that anti-abortion doctors and activists actively lie to pregnant women and girls about everything from the "dangers" of abortion to the viability and health of the embryo/fetus, in an attempt to convince the women to be good girls and have those babies. They know that the lying doctors on their side will need protection from righteously angry scam victims.

[dameruth]

Yeah, and that's just wrong.

[kaffy_r]

Oh, aye, several different unpleasant flavors of wrong, in a big bowl of wrongness topped with crushed wrong-nuts and wrong syrup.

[firefly124]

The other prohibits pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians withhold information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancy.

What the fucking hell is this shit? That's insane!

I'm sorry, but what the hell do these lawmakers have against people with female reproductive organs?

Well, it's all Eve's fault the world is the mess that it is, so clearly, all women always should be made to pay for that. I have actually heard people try to argue something along those lines.

Supporting research into more effective contraception?

Now, that's just crazy talk. Next you'll be saying it's all right for women to enjoy sex.

[dameruth]

What the fucking hell is this shit? That's insane!

Yeah, that was my first thought.

Now, that's just crazy talk. Next you'll be saying it's all right for women to enjoy sex.

Or even -- gasp! -- have sex without being married, and without the express purpose of reproduction! Horrors! *eyeroll*

[measi]

It's disgusting, and honestly... it's all for the following two things:

to punish women for having sex, and to control women.

Because let's face it - it has NOTHING to do with "the children." They couldn't care less about the children. It's all about control. If they cared about "the children" they'd also be working toward adoption reform and better social services for these scared women that they claim they want to "save."

[dameruth]

Yeah, exactly -- I totally cannot understand how people can be so for saving zygotes, embryos and fetuses and so against helping the children who do make it into the world.

[wendymr]

WTF???

You mean it's going to be legal for doctors to lie to women? As if the first part isn't bad enough - yeah, cause of course all women need to have information rammed down their throats because they're too stupid and selfish to make the 'right' decision otherwise - but legalised lying?

I'm with measi. Punishment and control. Because clearly women shouldn't be having sex, and god forbid they enjoy it.

I hope all sensible women move out of Oklahoma and leave the men with only each other and the cattle.

[foalen]

Here Here! You know I am not really certain that the men responsible for this law would be able to tell the difference between livestock and the woman anyway since they seem to assume we are all sheep. So lets evacuate everyone and then just not tell the men. It's not like they'll realize what's happened.

[dameruth]

Heh. Now *there* would be an interesting social experiment . . . XD

[dameruth]

Yeah, I know -- I'm not *real* fast to cry "misogyny!", but in this case, I just can't manage any other interpretation of the data.

[canaana]

Wow. I'll add this to my Reasons to Be Pissed Off this week, along with the immigration crap with its scary potential for racial profiling in AZ.

Contraceptives? Gasp. The shock. The horror. I work in a Catholic hospital, and do you know, their pharmacy won't fill prescriptions for contraceptives? I can kind of understand the policy decision that the procedure for getting one's tubes tied won't be performed there, but filling a prescription for medication prescribed by your physician?

[wendymr]

That doesn't remotely surprise me - aren't we continually hearing stories about pharmacists in the US who refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception 'on grounds of conscience'?

[canaana]

I can't speak for anybody else, but the stories I've heard along those lines all date back twenty or thirty years. I thought we were making progress, but maybe I was just living under a rock I wasn't aware of. (It wouldn't be the first time).

[wendymr]

neadods has occasionally linked to contemporary examples - and, if I recall correctly, in the dying days of the GW Bush administration, legislation was brought in to solidify this 'right' of a range of medical professionals to 'follow their conscience' and deny people treatment.