Have a miscarriage, go to jail!

[Hedo69]

If Delegate John Cosgrove (R-78) has his way, HB1677 will become law in a few short months, and this scenario will be reality for many women in Virginia.

The Bill:

"When a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman's responsibility to report the death to the law-enforcement agency in the jurisdiction of which the delivery occurs within 12 hours after the delivery. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor."

-- Which will get you up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

www.rmpn.org/weblog/archives3/permalink/003732.cfm

leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=051&typ=bil&val=hb1677

[Harrybutt]

[shadow=red,left,300]WHY?[/shadow]

I guess it makes the right-winged "Christians" happy and after all...they did win the election...big debt to repay.

Other than that, I see it as an inane law....imagine that....right-winged "Christians" supporting an inane law

[DT]

Harrybutt said:

[shadow=red,left,300]WHY?[/shadow]

I guess it makes the right-winged "Christians" happy and after all...they did win the election...big debt to repay.

Uh Huh, Thats just a small payment on the interest. Wait till the Republicants make a payment on the principle....

[Merlot Joe]

1. They guy is a moron for proposing it. Kind of goes along with my Stupid Law thread of the other day. Not the same but still fits the outline.

2. The Virgina Legislature would be stupid if they passed
it, and Governor even stupider if he/she signed it.

My question would be, if they don't know the woman is Pregnant how do they klnow if she had a miscarriage with out medical attendance?

Don't know much about Virgina Politics but I would say this might not make it to law.

Joe.

[Hedo69]

I don't think it will be passed into law either, but the fact that it can even be considered is downright scary. Just think, if a lady had already visited the Dr., had her test, and then a month later has a miscarriage. So in reality It Could Happen that they would know.

IMHO, the Religious Right (not to be confused with the general just hardheaded right) is a constant danger to the freedoms we have. And being from Bama, I know where I am coming from!

[Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III]

Hedo69 said:

IMHO, the Religious Right (not to be confused with the general just hardheaded right) is a constant danger to the freedoms we have. And being from Bama, I know where I am coming from!

The law is stupid, but let's not forget one thing. It ain't the "Religious Right" that want's to ban religion from all walks of life.

We have Freedom of Religion in this country last time I looked. Funny, it would be the LEFT that wants to take Religion out of everything.

Funny, unless I'm missing something, this country was FOUNDED on the rights of those to practice their religion.

Now, even our kids can't even say the Pledge of Alliegance without some WACK'O LEFT'O freeekin' out.

WHY OH WHY does the left want to limit my right to my FREEDOM of religion? Just who's rights are being trampled on here?

[Captain Gary]

I'll admit this bill was worded badly, but the (to me) obvious intent was, as Cosgrove said:

"to add more teeth to laws penalizing women who abandon full-term infants after birth."

While we were in Key West for Fantasy Fest in October someone abandoned a fetus in the trash can at a hotel. You read about this all the time.

Rather than crucify the guy, perhaps a better worded bill could be created to punish those that do this sort of thing. (Remember, you have to word it so that all the slime-ball, lowlife, good for nothing, blood sucking defense lawyers don't get a guilty person off on a technicality!)

Take a look at home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=80370&ran=43780

His intentions were honorable.

Gary

[Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III]

Gary said:

His intentions were honorable.

Gary

"Intent" doesn't matter to Lib'ruls, Gary. Just look at how they have crucified Bush regarding WMDs. They are on a mission and the facts don't matter.

............Bob

[luckyhedo]

BobnRhonda said:

The law is stupid, but let's not forget one thing. It ain't the "Religious Right" that want's to ban religion from all walks of life.

We have Freedom of Religion in this country last time I looked. Funny, it would be the LEFT that wants to take Religion out of everything...

Not just the “left’ butt as with all enlightened democracies ,it is simply separating state from church or should we just once again have the Vatican rule kings and or "parliament"

LOU

[Hedo69]

O Bob, poor put upon persecuted Bob. Please tell me the last time someone blocked the doors to your church? When was the last time someone beat you with a bat for praying? My GOD! (pun intended) Religion is not being taken out of America, it just needs to be put back into your PERSONAL life, where it belongs. Period.

Religion has no place in federal funded entities. Religion has no place in laws. Do lawmakers have the right to have religion? Hell yes, but keep it at home.

[Hedo69]

Gary,

He claims noble intentions, but is solely another way to control the reproductive rights of women. The girls who abandon their babies are the same girls that never visit the Dr. while pregnant. How will this prevent that?

Yes, the girls who do this should be prosecuted fully...absolutely fully, but this bill won't prevent a darn thing.

Deb

[Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III]

The said:

Not just the “left’ butt as with all enlightened democracies ,it is simply separating state from church or should we just once again have the Vatican rule kings and or "parliament"

LOU

Hey Lou....where in the US Constitution does it say there should be separation of Church and State??

I don't mean to be flimpant (is that a word?) but this "separation" thing has gotten out'a hand.

Would someone please tell me what is wrong with acknowleging (ooh..can't spell that!) a higher being??

.........Bob

[Hedo69]

Not a darn thing, but what if my supreme being isn't the same as your higher being? There are thousands to choose from, so how do we know which one to listen to?

If anyone tried to take away your personal right to worship how you wanted, I would be right there defending you, but don't push it on us all!

[Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III]

Hedo69 said:

Religion has no place in federal funded entities. Religion has no place in laws. Do lawmakers have the right to have religion? Hell yes, but keep it at home.

Got a wee bit 'o problem with religion??

Mind you, the last time I stepped in a Church was when my Dad died over a year ago.

But I'm gonna ask you now, and let you tell us all.

WHAT is the problem you have with religion in our laws? Why does it disturb you so? And don't tell me keep it at home, I want facts, specific accounts of how Religion has prevented you from enjoying your life.

I want to know how 3rd graders Pledging Alliegence (damn, I can't spell that either!) to the FLAG of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA causes them to enter HELL!!

But most of all, I want to know WHY you are SO AFRAID of the existendce of GOD!! (You know, that fellow you pray to as you're getting fucked and right about the time you are cumming!! "OH GOD!!")

Just curious!!

............Bob

[Merlot Joe]

BobnRhonda said:

The law is stupid, but let's not forget one thing. It ain't the "Religious Right" that want's to ban religion from all walks of life.

We have Freedom of Religion in this country last time I looked. Funny, it would be the LEFT that wants to take Religion out of everything.

Our Freedom of Religion is for you or me to practice what ever type of religion we want or not to practice religion at all. That is still in our

Funny, unless I'm missing something, this country was FOUNDED on the rights of those to practice their religion.

I fucking can't believe I am going to write this.

No Bob the Religious Right does not want to ban religion, they want the whole country to run on their agenda which is wrong. What they want does not belong in our Government.

The left does not want to take religion out of everything, they just want to keep it out of our Government. There is nothing wrong with that.

We have Religious Rightwing screw balls in our party that want to control the Government by the bases of their religious beliefs and that is just plain ass wrong.
(For the liberals out there, sorry Bush is not one of them)

I don't know Crosgrove was trying to get this billed passed for his Religious beliefs or just to put a hard ass law on the books? The Article doesn't state which.

Our Freedom of Religion is for us practice what ever type of religion we want or not to practice religion at all, without any Government interference.

The bottom line is keep religion out of government and keep government out of religion.

Joe

[Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III]

jdwinelovers said:

The left does not want to take religion out of everything, they just want to keep it out of our Government. There is nothing wrong with that.

Joe.......has thow forsaken us???

The Left wants to keep religion out of EVERYTHING!!

Our own children can't even Pledge Alliegence to the FLAG 'cuz there's this "Under GOD" thingy.

This nation was FOUNDED on the belief of a greater being, and the belief that persons should be able to search out that GOD and pray to him freely.

GOD KNOWS I pray to him nightly when I "know" Rhonda!!

..........Bob

[Chicago Jake]

Ahhh, it's so nice to have all the kids home from college and rappin' round the dinner table, just like old times! Keep it up, my hearties!!......Jake

[Merlot Joe]

BobnRhonda said:

Joe.......has thow forsaken us???

The Left wants to keep religion out of EVERYTHING!!

Our own children can't even Pledge Alliegence to the FLAG 'cuz there's this "Under GOD" thingy.

This nation was FOUNDED on the belief of a greater being, and the belief that persons should be able to search out that GOD and pray to him freely.
..........Bob

No Bob I haven't jumped ship.

I still disagree that the left does not wants religion out of everything. As we have rightwing nuts they have leftwing nuts that want the extreme also.(Seem like they have more than we do) I don't see church's closings or places or worship being picketed by them.

Under God will "never be" removed from the pledge in our life time. Again the extreme leftwing nut wants that.

Yes our country was founded on the belief of a greater being. Yes we can search him/her out and pray freely, but they also made sure that there was a clean cut between church and state.

To much one way or the other is no good. If everyone would just leave it alone..............we maybe all right.

Joe.

[Hedo69]

I will be glad to explain Bob. And just for facts, it isn’t just me it affects. I’ll give you a couple of details.

Right now, my children are not getting the proper science education because the teachers in school are so afraid that they will go to hell if they teach evolution (YOU might call it evilution). Our science books have a disclaimer in the front that evolution MIGHT not be the truth. My teenage daughter has a Indian friend..Hindu, who can’t join the high school choir because they sing xtian songs, yes in school. I am all for religion in schools even, IF THEY WILL TEACH THEM ALL! I don’t have a problem with religion per se, but America is FULL of different ones. You push one, you hurt kids. You hurt adults.

The pledge? No, those words added by a scared USofA during the Mcarthy period do not affect me other than knowing we added them for fear and control, but I remember a kid (Jehovah’s Witness) that wasn’t allowed to say it, and he was made fun of constantly. Kids are mean in case you missed out on that joy.

Laws based on religion do not fairly represent us a nation full of a mish mash of people with all sorts of beliefs. Teach what you want to your kids. Bring them up right and they will not stray. Beat them with a rod if you so desire. But don’t make me do it just like you!

I also have no fear of god. None of them. Religion. to me, is based in fear. O no, I will go to hell!!! But you’re welcome to think me afraid if it makes you feel braver!

[Chicago Jake]

I'm a Professor, and you can trust me on this one. As long as we inflict Final Exams on our students, there WILL be prayer in the schools!.....Jake

[Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III]

Hedo69 said:

Religion. to me, is based in fear. O no, I will go to hell!! But you’re welcome to think me afraid if it makes you feel braver!

I don't need to feel brave. Religion to me is not based on fear.

It's based on recognizing something greater than us. Hard as it might seem, when I look out on the beach at Hedo, I see folks engaged in various bits of religion.

"OH GOD!"

Funny how we always call to "him" at that moment, ain't it? I think it's something to do with evolution. Don't you?



............Bob

[Merlot Joe]

Hedo69 said:

I
Right now, my children are not getting the proper science education because the teachers in school are so afraid that they will go to hell if they teach evolution (YOU might call it evolution). Our science books have a disclaimer in the front that evolution MIGHT not be the truth.

I also have no fear of god. None of them. Religion. to me, is based in fear. O no, I will go to hell!!

That's bullshit. The Teachers should teach that evolution is correct. Science has proved it. The Adam and Eve garden thing is just an old story. Man crawled out of the ocean on his belly and is damn lucky to be here.

The Last line is well said my dear.

I went to catholic schools grades 1 to 12 and know exactly what you are talking about.


Joe.

[Hedo69]

It's based on recognizing something greater than us. Hard as it might seem, when I look out on the beach at Hedo, I see folks engaged in various bits of religion.

"OH GOD!"

Funny how we always call to "him" at that moment, ain't it? I think it's something to do with evolution. Don't you?

Bob, Why do you need government support to know this?

[Hedo69]

Joe,

I know, but is a sad truth here in Alabama. We have a lawmaker RIGHT NOW, trying to keep any state funds from purchasing books or publications that might put being gay in a good light instead of showing it as an abomination. I don't just mean just in schools, but our public funded libraries as well.

[luckyhedo]

BobnRhonda said:

Hey Lou....where in the US Constitution does it say there should be separation of Church and State??

I don't mean to be flimpant (is that a word?) but this "separation" thing has gotten out'a hand. ..


.........Bob

Bob , see the !st Amendment ( i.e. the “Establishment Clause”) - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Ratified 12/15/1791.

“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.”<br>
In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 91 L. Ed. 711, [***489] 67 S. Ct. 504 (1947).Stated:

"The Amendment's purpose . . . was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion."

Which was quoted with approval in the 1992 Supreme Court case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, Stating:

“Nearly half a century of review and refinement of Establishment Clause jurisprudence has distilled one clear understanding: Government may neither promote nor affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, nor may it obtrude itself in the internal [**2662] affairs of any religious institution. The application of these principles to the present case mandates the decision reached today by the Court.
This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 91 L. Ed. 711, [***489] 67 S. Ct. 504 (1947). n1 Relying on the history of the [*600] Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of [****39] any religious organization and vice versa. n2 "In the words of Jefferson, the clause [*601] against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'" Everson, 330 U.S. at 16 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1879)). The dissenters agreed: (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.). “<br>

LOU

[Harrybutt]

Bob's the goat! Bob's the goat! ;D ;D

I wonder if Bob's thoughts on the subject would be different if it were some religion other than Christianity that was being protected and foisted upon others...?

[DT]

I still see Bush as a moral majority/ neoconservative who carries a Bible in one hand and a Glock in the other.

No doubt here. There will be religion in politics. Isn't the courts ruling on displaying the Ten Comandments in a court house coming soon? I believe they will vote to keep the Comandments. Do I believe its right? Hell No! Even though I believe in a High Power. What about the folks that don't believe in a HP. They have a right to not believe. Isn't that freedom from religion too? Keep religion out of politics period!!!!!

[Hedo69]

Shiva bless you dt!

[Harrybutt]

Must be one of thos liberal, activist judges we need to get rid of.

Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia, has ruled that a suburban county school district's textbook stickers referring to evolution as "a theory not a fact" are unconstitutional.

In ruling that the stickers violate the constitutionally mandated separation between church and state, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that labeling evolution a "theory" played on the popular definition of the word as a "hunch" and could confuse students.

The stickers read, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

The disclaimers were put in the books by school officials in 2002.

"Due to the manner in which the sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life," Cooper wrote in his ruling.

Cooper said he was ruling on the "narrow issue" of the case, brought against the Cobb County School District and Board of Education by four parents of district students, was whether the district's stickers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

His conclusion, he said, "is not that the school board should not have called evolution a theory or that the school board should have called evolution a fact."

"Rather, the distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolution movement, and that was exactly what parents in Cobb County did in this case," he wrote.

"By adopting this specific language, even if at the direction of counsel, the Cobb County School Board appears to have sided with these religiously motivated individuals."...

www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/index.html

[zilla]

BobnRhonda said:

I want to know how 3rd graders Pledging Alliegence (damn, I can't spell that either!) to the FLAG of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA causes them to enter HELL!!

............Bob

It doesn't cause them to burn in hell, because hell only belongs to those that believe in it, and the folks who have issues with the Pledge of Allegiance in general don't believe in God (or at least not YOUR god) or hell.

I don't have any problem with the pledge of allegiance as it was originally written. I have a problem with the divisive McCarthian addition of "under God" that children of Atheist's are *forced* to repeat day in and day out. (Reason 7,523 why I don't want to have children, as an agnostic I'm holding out judgement one way or the other until i have more proof)

If you write laws with religion in them, then i guess those laws should only apply to those who are brought up in, or believe in that religion.

Zilla