Jim DeMint's Newest Abortion Ban: Discussing It Online
I'm still scratching my head over why Jim DeMint is even the tiniest bit concerned about women discussing -- yes, talking about -- abortion with their health professionals. But DeMint is not only concerned, he's going to do something about it, which is why he introduced a bill banning it.
Via Think Progress:
Now Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the most die-hard anti-choice lawmakers, has jumped on the bandwagon by sneaking a radical anti-abortion amendment onto a completely unrelated piece of legislation. DeMint’s amendment would ban women and their doctors from discussing abortion over the Internet:
Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman’s health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care.
Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said DeMint is essentially mandating “an abortion-only version of Skype.” She points out that a woman with high-risk pregnancy talking to her doctor through video conferencing would have to somehow switch to a separate communications system if abortion came up at all. “It is impractical, ridiculous, and, most importantly, bad for women in rural or remote areas who would not be able to discuss the full set of options with their doctor,” Keenan said.
Basically, if this stupid bill were to actually have a prayer of passing, which it doesn't, women could not use ordinary online channels to communicate with their doctor about their reproductive health. To me that raises all kinds of problems. Who owns the Internet? Who owns the pipes? If a woman communicated via her iPhone to her doctor's iPhone, how would the government have any right to know what they discussed, given that AT&T, Verizon and soon, Sprint, own that air? Moreover, how does a small government conservative reconcile this with big government insertion into women's lives?
I realize that Big Government attitudes arise around the abortion debate from social conservatives, but the construction of this particular measure exceeds even the usual lunatic levels. Is DeMint just wasting time with this bill, or does he plan to use it as some kind of leverage to do other harm to women?
I wonder if DeMint has read The Handmaid's Tale. It would explain his vision for the world he wants to live in.
I'd say there's a pretty strong argument that this is protected speech, and his law would come from Congress.
Does he really not understand the First, or is this just showboating to impress his medieval-minded friends?
Imagine that! Flushing a bunch of cells, like lancing a boil! Would the same as murder!
A lot of people like to casually throw around the phrase "violation of my free speech rights," but this piece of legislative bovine feces is a textbook example of the kind of thing for which the First was designed to prevent. The arrogance of this man to think that it would ever have a prayer (no pun intended) of withstanding a constitutional challenge is beyond the ability of a rational mind to comprehend.
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
Meant to reply to the first post. My bad. :-(
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
What concerns me most about this isn't the woman talking with the doctor. It's republicans (or anyone, for that matter) taking control of what happens on the internet.
Just like creationism in schools and a myriad of other topics, republicans just aren't going to give up.
Frankly, I think law makers should be charged with a crime any time they introduce any legislation that obviously is un-Constitutional. First, it costs a lot of tax-payer money whether or not it's passed. Then it costs a lot more money if it is passed over the many years it takes to get to the Supreme Court and over-ruled. Lastly, if the bill is passed there is always harm to someone which is why it was un-Constitutional in the first place.
Doctor:
"Thank you patient XXXXXX for your inquiry.
I'morrysay, utbay I’myay otnay allowedyay otay iscussday aththatyay overyay emailay aboutthat withyouway.
Now, about that seed planted by your male friend in your ‘trachea,’ we have several options we can discuss it you come and visit me. Let me assure first everyone who may be reading our e-mail exchanges that none of these options will entail the physical removal of the seed. Now, I’m not necessarily advocating the advice of one of my fellow Doctors who famoustly wrote “A Tree Grows in Your Larynx,” but we can discuss what your choices are when you come in.”
How long before it’s this:
Woman: Honey, it’s out Anniversary! Don’t forget to stop off at the drugstore and pick-up some Saran Wrap.
Man: Saran Wrap? That are we going to do on our Anniversary, wrap f*cking sandwiches?
Woman: No, I think we can think of something else to wrap!
Man: OH!
When will the Right ever grow up?
Never.
It violates free speech and it also violates the prior restraint provision, which specifically proscribes any law which attempts to do what De Mint is attempting. This guy should not be allowed to serve in Congress if he so so ignorant.
I have a $1,000 in my pocket right now for whoever is running against him, and I'm sure I know many others who'll also pony up! Abortions have saved me a fortune since 1965. Between me and my son we've paid for over 15 abortions. Far, far cheaper than what the little brats would have cost! I had to threaten to throw out my girlfriend in '68 if she didn't get one! As she didn't have a place to go, and it was 19'F outside, she saw the logic fairly quickly:)
for your son?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I hear it's all the rage.
Ok, you sound like a really classy person.
" "
This amendment is so ridiculous that the president wouldn't even have to bother threatening a veto if passed along with a must pass bill (like his jobs bill). He could just do a "GWB" and add a signing statement that since that provision is unconstitutional he considers it null and void and directs the government to consider any attempt to enforce it a violation doctor-patient privilege and the first amendment.
This constipated asshole needs to pull the corncob out of his ass and actually do something positive and worthwhile for the people.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
Watch your language! Don't you realize how many live cells might be killed in the process of him pulling that corncob out of his constipated asshole?
Protect the ass-cells! They're people too.
Don't you realize how many live brain cells might be killed in the process of him pulling that corncob out of his constipated asshole?
Now it's fixed.
Much better.
Unbelievable.
These assholes want to punish women for having sex and want to prevent early abortions, but what they end up doing is threatening the lives and health and future fertility of women with wanted pregnancies that go bad.
When do women get to be people?
These religious fanatics simply won't give up until they return women to a status level not seen since the Dark Ages. It is all about male dominance - after all don't they think that god is a white haired "man" in the sky who controls every little thing?
Sickening, and dangerous...
A republican feels nothing about conning 18 year olds into getting murdered in needless wars, but no abortions or stem cell goings on with them.
This is a concrete threat to treament. In some rural areas, women speak with doctors over a video link before RU 486 is prescrbed. This broadly worded ban is intended to take away access to RU-486.
I would have to see the amendment to be sure but I think it could have a very interesting side effect. If two anti abortion, pardon me, pro-life, activists were communicating over the about abortion and one was a woman and the other was a doctor????? The mind just boggles.
OBSESSED with denying womens rights are opposed to doing his JOB...Providing JOBS FOR THE NATIONS UNEMPLOYED..
It should be pointed out that they will not pay to care for or educate the children born and more than likely they will jail them or execute them in the South!
Small minded obsessive incompetent!
Robert Duvall was so good in that movie, I absolutely could not bring myself to watch him in anything for several years. I finally watched Second Hand Lions and that fixed it for me, lol!
FB
FB
99%
If DeMint proposed a bill to jam a crucifix up every woman's vag, every Republican and several Democrats would vote in favor.
Follow this link.
Yes. Like that.
Michele Bachmann would of course adopt the design for vaginal ultrasound as well.
The putrid, sweaty stench of rejection and desperation coming off of these perverts is stinking up the whole nation. I do not see how people can overlook their vulgarity as if it's perfectly normal to obsess over women's reproductive organs and claim entitlement to a woman's body even as she objects. This country is infected. Sick. Rotting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tm-1yRZtQg&fe...
Pathetic old fuck.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
+1
me-oww!
Let's unpack this....Republicans are in no way an organization which really wants 'Small Government'. What they really mean by that is they don't want the rich to have to pay for any of the things they really want government to do. Republicans in no way support individual freedom. Case in point right here.
Republicans lie, the MSM swallows the line hook, line & sinker then parrots Republican lines. When someone calls out Republicans or the MSM for lying, both then fall back on acting like that person is crazy and try to ignore (and try to get everyone else to ignore) them.
This is a surprise?
A lot of us have been saying the same thing for years. Republicans overtly want the government to do their bidding and will increase it to any size they can to make that happen.
And the MSM reports whatever republicans say as fact rather than a quote. And since they either do no research on the truth or they aren't allowed to print it the end result is republican talking points get reported as fact rather than just something a republican said that may have no actual basis in reality.
"Republicans are in no way an organization which really wants 'Small Government'. What they really mean by that is they don't want the rich to have to pay for any of the things they really want government to do."
FB
FB
99%
to kindness.
FB
FB
99%
Shhh...no talking about it on the internets....abstinance only people!
F'n Theocons....
please have a fatal accident? Soon? Drowning in his own bullshit would be appropriate.
"No one ever said these people were logically consistent."
- watchdog -
@ cunning linguist: That's an insult -- to Neanderthals. As to drowning in his own bullshit, probably not possible. Native environment, don'cha know.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
- Albert Einstein
are two descriptors that come to mind when considering the likes of DeMint and his ilk.
Sometimes I think that if the truth be known, we'd discover that many more of these creeps had illicit affairs, and that their wives and girlfriends and mistresses have done the dirty deed....had abortions.
He and the rest of the so-called 'Christian Right' are so thoroughly not either:
- not Christian -as the Jesus, Savior of the Universe they claim to revere and follow preached love and peace and 'socialism', not hate and violence; and,
- they are not Right, certainly not in the so-called 'conservative' sense, which seeks to end all regulations to 'shrink and drown government' and get 'government out of our lives' , nor in the sense of being in any way correct about personal issues that affect women in particular, and the human race in general. They been correct about so few issues over the past 3 decades it's disgusting.
These are small-minded boys who are greedy for nothing but power, be that political, wealth, or dominion over all.
How nice it would be to actually have folks in the Congress who understand the Constitution and the oaths they took upon entering office.!! DeMint and the rest should be busy 'serving the needs' of ALL the People... not interfering in the personal affairs of Americans.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
I wish we could abort you
DeMinto, as his predecessors before him, is trying to seal his legacy as a good Klan soldier... He knows nothing else - just hate... that's how he was raised.. that's what he believes... that's what he spews... that what he represents.. rational folks will just ignore him and swat him away like the little gnat he is..
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
Included because DeMint doesn't seem to remember this part of the Constitution. I mean, Congress only read it outloud less than a year ago.
and I'll have it wherever I want.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" remember that one, you slimebucket? You fuckwits are always banging on an on about the constitution, getting it wrong most of the time. Did you know there was something about Free Speech in there? There are also privacy issues involved, a fourth amendment rule, and recently enacted HPPA regs that make it even more illegal for anyone to know WHAT I discuss with a medical person, w/o my permission, in writing.
How dare this sonofabitch thinks it's up to him to tell me who I can talk to over the internet and about what I can talk about.
me-oww!
But that's not what this is about. I dont' agree with DEMINT but at least get your story straight.
"The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman’s health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care."
As for a whole different network to discuss abortion on, WHY? Why is the govt's business how where and with whom I discuss abortion?
me-oww!
The government is paying for it. So technically DEMINT has a case. He's a douche. But he still has a case because no federal money can go towards abortion.
How many different ways can you say unconstitutional.
From Wikipedia:
"After the beginning of the earnest agitation of the Northern abolitionists against the institution of slavery about 1831, petitions of various kinds poured into the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate praying for the abolition or the restriction of that institution. These were generally presented by John Quincy Adams, who as a member of Congress identified himself particularly with the struggle against any Congressional abridgment of the right of petition.[3] It was Adams who ultimately repealed the rule, by authoring a resolution for repeal, and assembling the coalition necessary to pass it.[4]
The pro-slavery forces responded with a series of gag rules that automatically "tabled" all such petitions, preventing them from being read or discussed. The House passed the Pinckney Resolutions on May 26, 1836, the third of which was known from the beginning as the "gag rule" and passed with a vote of 117 to 68 (The first stated that Congress had no constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the states and the second that it "ought not" do so in the District of Columbia.)
From the inception of the gag resolutions, Adams was a central figure in the opposition to the gag rules. He argued that they were a direct violation of the First Amendment right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". A majority of Northern Whigs joined the opposition. Rather than suppress anti-slavery petitions, however, the gag rules only served to offend Americans from Northern states, and dramatically increase the number of petitions.[5] The growing offense to the gag rule, as well as the Panic of 1837, may have contributed to the first Whig majority, in the 27th Congress.
Since the original gag was a resolution, not a standing House Rule, it had to be renewed every session, and Adams and others had free rein until then. In January 1837, the Pinckney Resolutions were substantially renewed, more than a month into the session. The pro-gag forces gradually succeeded in shortening the debate and tightening the gag. In December 1837, the Congress passed the Patton Resolutions, introduced by John M. Patton of Virginia. In December 1838, the Congress passed the Atherton Gag, composed by Democratic States-Rights Congressman Atherton of New Hampshire, on the first petition day of the session.
In January 1840, the House of Representatives passed the Twenty-first Rule, which greatly changed the nature of the fight - it prohibited even the reception of anti-slavery petitions and was a standing House rule. Before, the pro-slavery forces had to struggle to impose a gag before the anti-slavery forces got the floor. Now men like Adams or Slade were trying to revoke a standing rule. However, it had less support than the original Pinckney gag, passing only by 114 to 108, with substantial opposition among Northern Democrats and even some Southern Whigs, and with serious doubts about its constitutionality. Throughout the gag period, Adams' "superior talent in using and abusing parliamentary rules" and skill in baiting his enemies into making mistakes, enabled him to evade the rule. The gag was finally rescinded December 3, 1844, by a vote of 108-80, all the Northern and 4 Southern Whigs voting for repeal, along with 78% of the Northern Democrats.[6] It was John Quincy Adams who had successfully assembled the coalition that approved his resolution to repeal the rule.[4]
In the Senate in 1836, John C. Calhoun attempted to introduce a gag rule. The Senate rejected this proposal, but agreed on a method which, while technically not violating the right to petition, would achieve the same effect. If an anti-slavery petition was presented, the Senate would vote not on whether to accept the petition but on whether to consider the question of receiving the petition".
I hate having to defend Republican scumbags. This amendment, however douchey and unnecessary it might be DOES NOT ban the use of the internet or skype to discuss abortion.
What it does is establish a government subsidy/allotment/whatever-the-hell-it's-called of (as I recall) $13 million to allow doctors and patients to talk to each other over the internet during exams and so forth. That way if the specialist you need is half away cross the country you can still consult with him without having either you or him fly across the country. Personally I think it's a damn fine idea.
DEMINT (one of the scummier scumbags out there) doesn't want that technology, and by extension $13 million of the public money, to be used by the doctor and patient to discuss abortion.
Which I can understand even if i don't agree with it. But what it DOESN'T do is ban the discussion of abortion over the open internet. Based on what it sounds like in the bill itself, this would be a closed dedicated system that is used exclusively for the purpose of facilitating doctor/patient relations that just happens to run on the internet as a transport mechanism.
What you appear to be claiming is that this amendment would ban the discussion of abortion anywhere on the internet and it doesn't. It just bans it in the government sponsored 'chat room' that this bill would create.
As much as Republicans disgust me you are doing the left a disservice by hyping the wrong thing here when you cribbed this from Daily Kos (where I made this same argument yesterday because they were doing the same thing).
The text of the amendment says:
"Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486."
ie, government funds appropriated by the act can't be used to purchase RU-486.
That's it. Now Demint's speech is FULL of assholery and talk of robo-abortions. (Hey these dumbasses banned human-animal hybriding remember?). But that's not what the amendment says.
but they are okay with pushing government policies that dicate what women can say or do with their bodies. More right wing hypocrisy ?
Comments are closed on this entry