Republicans love fetuses.
In fact, they love them so much they’re willing to jeopardize the lives of pregnant women on their behalf.
On April 23, a Republican lawmaker in the Texas State House of Representatives offered an amendment that would force pregnant women to carry to term fetuses that can’t survive outside the womb.
The debate had started on a completely different subject–how to retool the State’s social safety net for the poor. But as usually happens when Republicans hold a majority in a legislature, the subject quickly turned to abortion–and how to ban it.
Rep. Matt Schafer (R-Tyler) proposed an amendment that would make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion after 20 weeks–even if a fetus has “a severe and irrevsersible abnormality.”
Matt Schafer
This would force a woman to carry a dead fetus to term, even if a doctor warned that this could endanger her life.
Schafer justified his proposal on the grounds that suffering has been “part of the human condition, since sin entered the world.”
A highly probable consequence of that suffering could be the death of a woman from sepsis–a whole-body inflammation caused by an infection–by carrying a nonviable fetus.
Schaefer’s amendment actually passed, but he removed it for full committee review after Trey Martinez Fischer, the House Democrat from San Antonio, filed a legislative point of order.
Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) had an entirely different take on the proposal.
She called this year’s state legislature the most misogynistic she’s seen in her 21 years as a state representative,
“Women are leaders of their families, whether some men in this room do not recognize that,” she said after her male Republican colleagues refused to support a bill that would expand access to breastfeeding.
Click here: Texas House Proposal Would Force People to Carry to Term Non-Viable Fetuses
Schafer’s is just the latest Republican to try to insert government into the vaginas of American women.
An earlier one was Scott Walker–the current governor of Wisconsin and a Koch brothers favorite for donations as a 2016 Presidential candidate.
Scott Walker
As a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly, Walker introduced AB 538 in September, 1997.
This would have allowed doctors to withhold from a woman information about a fetal disability while abortion was still an available option.
In short, doctors would have been allowed to lie to her.
At the time, if a health care provider withheld information about a fetal disability while abortion was still an available option, s/he could be liable for the child’s future medical expenses. But AB 538 would have changed that.
According to the proposed bill:
“This bill creates an immunity from a wrongful birth or wrongful life action for a person who commits an act or fails to commit an act and that act or omission results in the birth of a child because a woman did not undergo an abortion that she would have undergone had the person not committed the act or not failed to commit the act.”
AB 538 was not passed, ultimately dying in April 1998 without receiving a floor vote.
So Walker and 28 colleagues tried again in 2001.
They re-introduced the same legislation as AB 360. Although approved by the Orwellian-named “Family Law Committee,” it similarly failed to receive a floor vote.
In 1998, Walker introduced “conscience clause” legislation that would have allowed medical professionals to cite religious reasons in denying patients medical services such as contraception.
The bill failed to pass, so he introduced it again in 1999. This attempt also failed. In 2001, he introduced it a third time–when it similarly failed.
During the 2012 Presidential race, Right-wing broadcaster Rush Limbaugh furiously denied that Republicans were waging a “war on women,” as charged by Democrats.
On November 5, 2012, Limbaugh said on his program:
“Now, this War on Women. You know, it’s been fascinating to watch this in one regard, maddening, too.
“But supposedly [Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt] Romney and [Wisconsin Representative Paul] Ryan are gonna reverse Roe v. Wade and they’re gonna take contraception away from you, and that’s the essence of the War on Women.
“Romney, Ryan, Republicans are gonna take abortion away from you and they’re going to make sure that you don’t get contraception so that you have to get pregnant and you can’t get an abortion and therefore you have to stay home, stay in the kitchen.
“….Well, just as I said, reversing Roe v. Wade is nothing a president can do. A president cannot touch it. A president has no role in constitutional amendments.”
Click here: The Left’s War on Women Lies – The Rush Limbaugh Show
Limbaugh neglected to mention, however, that a President can appoint Justices to the United States Supreme Court–who could overrule Roe v. Wade.
He also failed to note that overturning Roe v. Wade–which legalized abortion in 1973–has been a top Republican goal for the last 42 years.
The coming 2016 race for President will doubtless see banning abortion take center stage in Republican agendas.



ABC NEWS, ARSON, CBS NEWS, CNN, DARREN WILSON, FACEBOOK, FERGUSON, LOOTING, LOUIS HEAD, MICHAEL BROWN, NBC NEWS, RIOTING, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, TWITTER, USA TODAY
THE TRUTH-AND THE DIRT–WILL OUT
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on May 12, 2015 at 12:02 amOn April 23, the family of teen thug Michael Brown filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Ferguson, Missouri.
Brown, 18, was shot by a Ferguson police officer on August 9. Brown was unarmed, but the officer–Darren Wilson, who has since left the police department–claimed self-defense. According to him, Brown tried to seize his weapon.
The lawsuit claims that
Brown, 18, was unarmed and walking in the street with a friend on Aug. 9 when Wilson told them to get on the sidewalk.
The lawsuit claims that Wilson said: “Get the [expletive] out of the street.” Without the “unnecessary and unwarranted profane language,” the encounter would have been “uneventful.”
Attorneys for Brown’s parents promised the case would reveal new forensic evidence and raise doubts about the police version of events. Some of that evidence, they said, had been overlooked in previous investigations.
If it comes to trial, the lawsuit could force a full review of all the evidence in the shooting and bring key witnesses to be questioned in open court.
Civil cases generally require a lower standard of proof than criminal cases. Jurors must base their decision on a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard needed to convict in a criminal trial.
The reason for this is that, in a criminal trial, the freedom of the accused is at stake. In a civil trial, only money is.
The lawsuit could prove embarrassing to the Ferguson Police Department, which has already been heavily criticized in a Justice Department investigation.
The report of those findings, released on March 4, stated:
“The Justice Department found that the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution….
“Our investigation showed that Ferguson police officers routinely violate the Fourth Amendment in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force against them….
Federal investigators found that the FPD had a pattern or practice of:
Click here: Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri | OPA | Department
So there will be many opportunities for the Brown family to reveal highly damaging truths about the FPD.
But the trial promises to be highly embarrassing for the Brown family as well.
Consider the following:
Michael Brown (left) roughing up a store owner
Lesley Mcspadden
Louis Head calls for arson in Ferguson
No doubt the Ferguson police will be working overtime to turn up even more embarrassing truths–or at least charges–against the Brown family.
In the end, the outcome of the lawsuit may well turn on who can dig up more dirt on whom.
Share this: