Thursday, March 18, 2010

About this Complete Bullshit About My Uterus

"It is the public policy of the state of Missouri that the life of each human being begins at conception, and that unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."

Say what?  The state of Missouri is going to take a philosophical position on the question of when life begins?  Viability of a human being?  The existence of a human soul?  Say the hell what????

House Bills Nos. 46 and 434, sponsored by Bryan Pratt and Cynthia Davis, would include language that says just that.  Additionally, it would criminalize something called "coercive abortion."  This odd concept apparently involves family members, employers, partners, and physicians ganging up on pregnant women and trying to talk them into getting abortions.  It is so rampant, apparently, that we need a law against it.

This foot-in-the-door crap is just another way to try to chip away at my reproductive freedom and privacy that is guaranteed by the Roe v. Wade decision.  These folks would have you believe that women need some "unbiased" informed consent.  So the "unbiased" information needs to include, in addition to the quasi-religious philosophical statement above, the following:

The physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional has presented the woman, in person, printed materials provided by the department or an informational video provided by the department, which describes the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from conception to full term, including color photographs or images of the developing unborn child at two-week gestational increments. Such descriptions shall include information about brain and heart functions, the presence of external members and internal organs during the applicable stages of development and information on when the unborn child is viable.

and this:

The physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional shall provide the woman with the opportunity to view an active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible. The woman shall be provided with a geographically indexed list maintained by the department of health and senior services of health care providers, facilities, and clinics that perform ultrasounds, including those that offer ultrasound services free of charge. Such materials shall provide contact information for each provider, facility, or clinic including telephone numbers and, if available, web site addresses. Should the woman decide to obtain an ultrasound from a provider, facility, or clinic other than the abortion facility, the woman shall be offered a reasonable time to obtain the ultrasound examination before the date and time set for performing or inducing an abortion. The person conducting the ultrasound shall ensure that the active ultrasound image is of a quality consistent with standard medical practice in the community, contains the dimensions of the unborn child, and accurately portrays the presence of external members and internal organs, if present or viewable, of the unborn child. The auscultation of fetal heart tone must also be of a quality consistent with standard medical practice in the community

and this:
Prior to an abortion being performed or induced on an unborn child of twenty-two weeks of gestational age or older, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional has presented the woman, in person, printed materials provided by the department or an informational video provided by the department that offers information on the possibility of the abortion causing pain to the unborn child. This information shall include, but not be limited to the following:

(a) At least by twenty-two weeks of gestational age, the unborn child possesses all the anatomical structures, including pain receptors, spinal cord, nerve tracts, thalamus, and cortex, that are necessary in order to feel pain;
(b) A description of the actual steps in the abortion procedure to be performed or induced, and at which steps the abortion procedure could be painful to the unborn child;
(c) There is evidence that by twenty-two weeks of gestational age, unborn children seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner that in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain;
(d) Anesthesia is given to unborn children who are twenty-two weeks or more gestational age who undergo prenatal surgery;
(e) Anesthesia is given to premature children who are twenty-two weeks or more gestational age who undergo surgery;
(f) Anesthesia or an analgesic is available in order to minimize or alleviate the pain to the unborn child;

There's more.  If you want to read the full text of the bill, click here.

When you're at your physician's office and done with this freak-show of a guilt-trip of "unbiased" information,  then the bill would have you wait 24 hours, pondering all of this, which you have been provided in writing.  Also, posted all over the physician's office, in large writing, are the signs reminding you what felonious behaviors your partner, family members, or friends may have engaged in by talking to you about having an abortion. 

Am I the only person who isn't getting an "unbiased" feeling from this piece of legislation?  Additionally, Senator Tom Dempsey, of St. Peters, MO, wants to require doctors to ask women their specific reason for seeking an abortion.  He thinks this information would be "helpful" to policymakers.  This is a separate but related gem of legislative stupidity.  Senator Demspey, it would be helpful to me if you mind your own damn business, do the job your were elected to do, and get your head out from between the stirups in my gynecological exam room!

I come back to the bottom line where I always do on this issue.  If men could give birth, we would never be discussing this.  It is one of the great sexist issues left in our state and national governmental bodies, still controlled primary by a bunch of guys, that we can't just get that this is medical issue between a woman and her doctor and it's just none of the government's business!  For a party who is always for less governmental control, the conservatives sure do want to be involved in the most personal decisions possible in a person's life.  These new legislative proposals are complete bullshit.  Get your sexist, religious-based governing style out of my doctor's office.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Fuck Fox News in the Face Until It Dies.

(apologies in advance for all the colorful language I am about to use)

This enrages me so fucking much:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The dude who is filling in for Keith Olberman hits the main points of why this pisses me off, but please allow me one moment to expound on his points.

First, shut the fuck up, Fox News asshole du jour! In case you didn't know, that's the motherfucking President of the United States you're talking to, you disrespectful asshat.

Sub-issue: This is the same network that told me for eight years that I was not allowed to question the Executive Branch on anything, lest I be branded a terrorist sympathizer. The twin towers fall, we support the President. The Vice President shoots someone in the face, and it's unfair to make fun of him. New Orleans washes off the map, and we can't get pissed at the President. The Vice President keeps people-sized safes in his office, and I'm not even allowed to say that's creepy, at the risk of sounding unpatriotic.

Our entire financial system collapses on Bush's watch, and Fox News blames Obama. That is like getting mad at Pampers when your baby shits itself, Fox News! Go away!


Monday, March 15, 2010


No wonder we can't agree on foreign policy in this country! 

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Marc Thiessen Extended Interview Pt. 1
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Reform

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Cry Me a River, Johnny

Chief Justice John Roberts has been out complaining lately about how President Barack Obama mentioned the Citizens United decision in the middle of the State of the Union Address.  These are the remarks Chief Justice Roberts is so upset about:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Roberts showed his disapproval at the time by disrespectfully shaking his head and mouthing, "not true."  Since then, he's been out whining that the Supreme Court Justices should not have to attend the State of the Union Address.  He's pretty upset about having to sit there during the applause noted above.

Think about the Citizen's United decision.  First of all, this group was originally an anti-Hillary Clinton group, and their name was Citizens United, Not Timid.  So the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a group named CUNT.  Do we really think CUNT is interested in what is best for America?  The CUNT decision is so unpopular that almost every person you speak with, regarless of their polticial affiliation, supports legislation or a constitutional amemdement to try to fix it. 

The point of the State of the Union address is for the President to update Congress on, well, the state of the union.  It has been televised since 1947.  It is the time for the chief elected executive of our country to give a report on how our country is doing.  Since 1947, it has also become a time when Presidents promote their particular poltical agenda to the country.

The Supreme Court attends the State of the Union.  No one has complained until now.  Justice Roberts has been part of a court that has handed down an extremely unpopular decision, essentially granting freedom of speech to corporations and making coporate bribes legal, and he cannot take the heat.  He had no problem sitting through George Bush's addresses.  The judicial branch of our country should not cite judicial independence in order to get out of an uncomfortable moment in an annual traditional speech.

John Roberts's whining and crying about this makes him appear more partisan and less politically independent than his actual decisions do, if this is possible.