Bloodless Coup

The things you learn reading other people's comment threads

Our neighboring state - I'm talking to you Ohio - harbors extremists who would prevent the free movement of citizens of the United States, and would give property rights over women's reproductive organs to third parties.

No, I am not "making this shit up."

Submitted, for your disapproval, Ohio House Bills 228 and 287.

The first (making its way through the legislature) removes the ability of a woman to sue her doctor for withholding information that might have led to her being able to abort her pregnancy. This presumably includes withholding details of fetal health.

Sec.2305.116. (A) No person has a civil action or may receive an award of damages in a civil action, and no other person shall be liable in a civil action, upon a medical claim that because of an act or omission by the other person the person was not aborted.

(B) No person has a civil action or may receive an award of damages in a civil action, and no other person shall be liable in a civil action, upon a medical claim that because of an act or omission by the other person a child was not aborted.

That is, if a doctor omits to inform a woman that she may have cause to choose to abort a pregnancy because his favorite magic pixie told him not to, she cannot seek civil action against the doctor. That's right. It's a license to withold information from women about their own medical condition. And if they get uppity and think they can sue the doctor, the state legislature is handing out this get out of lawsuit free card, just to make sure that women realize they are not allowed to make decisions for themselves.

Next up, a law that will make you think HB 287 is middle of the road. This Ohio bill (not moving as quickly) is chock full of nausea-inducing authoritarianism. Without further delay, HB 228:

(C) Whoever violates division (B)(1) of this section is liable to the pregnant woman, to the person who was the father of the fetus or embryo that was the subject of the abortion, and, if the pregnant woman was a minor at the time of the abortion, to her parents, guardian, or custodian for civil compensatory and exemplary damages.

There you go ladies. A law, that if passed, shows that other people own your uteruses, and can seek damages if you sneak off an have an abortion.

And when Tom Brinkman (R-Mount Lookout) introduced the bill, he thought of all the special touches to rein in the full citizenship of his female constituents.

From Common Ground, Common Sense:

Anticipating that, Brinkman's bill also prohibits transporting a woman across county or state lines for an abortion. Doing so would carry the same charge as an in-state abortion: first- or second-degree felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Look what got struck out:

(1) "Medical emergency" means a condition of a pregnant woman that, in the reasonable judgment of the physician who is attending the woman, creates an immediate threat of serious risk to the life or physical health of the woman from the continuation of the pregnancy necessitating the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.

You read it correctly. "An immediate threat of serious risk to the life" of a woman is no exemption from the ban.

This is insane. Not just if you are a woman, but if you love a woman in your life, and want her to keep on living.

If you read through the whole bill, which I suggest you do despite the urge to retch brought on by absolutism, you will perhaps notice something.

Don't think about red.

Did you hear me? Don't think about red.

Now:

(1) Materials that inform the pregnant woman women about family planning information, of publicly funded agencies that are available to assist in family planning, and of public and private agencies and services that are available to assist her them through the their pregnancy, upon childbirth, and while the their child is dependent, including, but not limited to, adoption agencies. The materials shall be geographically indexed; include a comprehensive list of the available agencies, a description of the services offered by the agencies, and the telephone numbers and addresses of the agencies; and inform the pregnant woman women about available medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care and about the support obligations of the father of a child who is born alive. The department shall ensure that the materials described in division (C)(A)(1) of this section are comprehensive and do not directly or indirectly promote, exclude, or discourage the use of any agency or service described in this division.

(2) Materials that inform the pregnant woman women of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the their zygote, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus at two-week gestational increments for the first sixteen weeks of pregnancy and at four-week gestational increments from the seventeenth week of pregnancy to full term, including any relevant information regarding the time at which the their fetus possibly would be viable. The department shall cause these materials to be published only after it consults with the Ohio state medical association and the Ohio section of the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists relative to the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of a zygote, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus at the various gestational increments. The materials shall use language that is understandable by the average person who is not medically trained, shall be objective and nonjudgmental, and shall include only accurate scientific information about the zygote, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus at the various gestational increments. If the materials use a pictorial, photographic, or other depiction to provide information regarding the zygote, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus, the materials shall include, in a conspicuous manner, a scale or other explanation that is understandable by the average person and that can be used to determine the actual size of the zygote, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus at a particular gestational increment as contrasted with the depicted size of the zygote, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus at that gestational increment.

...don't think about abortion.

And just in case you wondered about who is human:

(B)(1)(a) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, as used in any section contained in Title XXIX of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, "person" includes all of the following:

(i) An individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association;

(ii) An unborn human who is viable.

(b) As used in any section contained in Title XXIX of the Revised Code that does not set forth a criminal offense, "person" includes an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association.

(c) As used in division (B)(1)(a) of this section:

(i) "Unborn human" means an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.

(ii) "Viable" means the stage of development of a human fetus at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing of a life outside the womb with or without temporary artificial life-sustaining support.

Again, yes, you guessed it.

I wonder if they've considered the science behind the struggle between fetus and host, in which the fetus could well be responsible for killing the woman carrying it.

Does that mean the fetus-human could be prosecuted for murder? Involuntary manslaughter at least? No? Yeah, you're right. They'll call it self-defense.

But then, the woman has no right to self-defense, and the fetus does, so women must not be included in "(B)(1)(a)(i) An individual..."

And on the subject of individual women, there seem to be some confusion in what they can and cannot do:

(2) Notwithstanding division (B)(1)(a) of this section, in no case shall the portion of the definition of the term "person" that is set forth in division (B)(1)(a)(ii) of this section be applied or construed in any section contained in Title XXIX of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense in any of the following manners:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(2)(a) of this section, in a manner so that the offense prohibits or is construed as prohibiting any pregnant woman or her physician from performing an abortion with the consent of the pregnant woman, with the consent of the pregnant woman implied by law in a medical emergency, or with the approval of one otherwise authorized by law to consent to medical treatment on behalf of the pregnant woman. An abortion that violates the conditions described in the immediately preceding sentence may be punished as a violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, 2903.03, 2903.04, 2903.05, 2903.06, 2903.08, 2903.11, 2903.12, 2903.13, 2903.14, 2903.21, or 2903.22 of the Revised Code, as applicable. An abortion that does not violate the conditions described in the second immediately preceding sentence, but that does violate section 2919.12, division (B) of section 2919.13, or section 2919.151, 2919.17, or 2919.18 of the Revised Code, may be punished as a violation of section 2919.12, division (B) of section 2919.13, or section 2919.151, 2919.17, or 2919.18 of the Revised Code, as applicable. Consent is sufficient under this division if it is of the type otherwise adequate to permit medical treatment to the pregnant woman, even if it does not comply with section 2919.12 of the Revised Code.

(b) In a manner so that the offense is applied or is construed as applying to a woman based on an act or omission of the woman that occurs while she is or was pregnant and that results in any of the following:

(i)(a) Her delivery of a stillborn baby;

(ii)(b) Her causing, in any other manner, the death in utero of a viable, unborn human that she is carrying;

(iii)(c) Her causing the death of her child who is born alive but who dies from one or more injuries that are sustained while the child is a viable, unborn human;

(iv)(d) Her causing her child who is born alive to sustain one or more injuries while the child is a viable, unborn human;

(v)(e) Her causing, threatening to cause, or attempting to cause, in any other manner, an injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its duration or gravity, or a mental illness or condition, regardless of its duration or gravity, to a viable, unborn human that she is carrying.

On the other hand, when it comes to individuals and others:

(A) "Unlawful termination of another's pregnancy" means causing the death of an unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another, as a result of injuries inflicted during the period that begins with fertilization and that continues unless and until live birth occurs.

Phew! So it looks like you menstruate and flush out that fertilized egg l'il human that failed to implant and actually become a pregnancy, you are in the clear. If you help someone else do it, you're in trouble.

No mention of whether or not helping a friend dispose of the Kotex is "accessory" to murder.

Of course, this is intended to criminalize the use of Plan B, but the ignorant authoritarians forget to check the science on Plan B, which does not cause an abortion.

RU 486 (safer than Viagra!) is right out:

Sec.2919.123.(A) No person shall knowingly give, sell, dispense, administer, otherwise provide, or prescribe RU-486 (mifepristone) to another for the purpose of inducing an abortion in any person or enabling the other person to induce an abortion in any person

Random fun fact:

a child is "emancipated" if the child has married

A male child maybe. If she's female, her husband and family still have property rights over her uterus.

And, hey, in case you still had doubts about whether there was any pro-woman content, check out what got axed:

Sec.3701.341. (A) The public health council, pursuant to Chapter 119. and consistent with section 2317.56 of the Revised Code, shall adopt rules relating to abortions and the following subjects:

(1) Post-abortion procedures to protect the health of the pregnant woman;

(2) Reporting forms;

(3) Pathological reports;

(4) Humane disposition of the product of human conception;

(5) Counseling.

Hang on, hold the phone. I found something I agree with:

(B)(1) No person shall be ordered by a public agency or any person to submit to an abortion.

Now, if only the idiots responsible for the amendments to that bill (which has all kind of employment law, school regulations, and sex offender law in it) had the logical capacity to understand that forcing abortion on a woman who wants to be pregnant and forcing pregnancy on a woman who does not want to be pregnant are two sides of the same coin: authoritarian state controlled natal policy.

Silly me. There I go thinking that the fine legislators care about women as citizens and human beings. It's all about favoring the fetus in the mano a mano contest Hell, it's no contest. Women can fuck off get back in the kitchen and shut up.

While there are several cooks involved in this dish, Tom Brinkman stands out above his peers:

Brinkman himself talks up the consistency of his pro-life platform, which includes opposition to the death penalty. Yet the only sex education he condones is for what he calls "the only 100 percent effective birth control" -- abstinence.

"I was abstinent," he says.

Given the fine specimen of manhood he turned out to be, I think I have some ideas about why it was so easy for him to remain abstinent.

Motivation to do the research from pslade.

Posted by binky at March 19, 2006 01:01 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Extremism | Gender and Politics | Liberty | Religion | Reproductive Autonomy