Photos of Bush signing anti-abortion bill... with all white males!

[Skinner]

A friend of mine brought this to my attention. If it's been posted already, I missed it...

See how many women were there with Dubya when he signed the recent anti-abortion bill into law? None. Tell your friends.





SOURCE: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031105/480/pmm10911051943

[Brucey]

1. Look at those jackasses all dressed alike,

smiling, so gleeful about doing their Christian duty... stupid white men.

[Closer]

2. The

VERY first thing I said when I saw this on tv was "Look at all those old white men, telling a WOMAN what she can do with her body."

Sickening ain't it.

[Selwynn]

3. I can't believe I fell for the coathanger version of the picture...

I thought it was real last night... *blush*

Still pretty horrific.

[MissB]

11. It looked real enough

Either one is disgusting. I am almost pissed enough to pay for cross-country airfare in April to go to the March on Washington.

[Malva Zebrina]

4. Here is another that I posted somewhere

on DU earlier. Who is he waving at, and don't he look real little?

[Catshrink]

5. "This oughta keep those women-folk in line!"

[texastoast]

53. You have a point

It was hard getting the rights the young women of today "enjoy." Though pregnancy is no longer a personal issue for me, it makes me sad that another generation is going to have to fight this.

I pointed out to one of my 20-something nieces that there was a time (in my not-so-terribly-long lifetime) when women couldn't open a bank account, sell property, much less get a credit card without their husband's signature. She laughed and told me that that was impossible.

Get ready to rumble, young ones.

[SharonAnn]

67. Yes, I've decided that the younger women need to lead this

issue. I've led on it for more than 30 years.

If the younger women don't want the right to choose, then I guess it's not important to them.

Sorry to be so harsh but I'm tired of doing all the work and having young women vote Republican.

I'll continue to support it and fight for it, but now I'm more worried about Social Security, Medicare, and my 401-K. For sure no younger people are going to fight that fight for me. So I'll lead my fight and they'll have to lead theirs.

[cally]

75. Yes

The younger generation, both men and women, take for granted the rights we fought for. I'm willing to fight along side of them, but they have to get onboard.

I too remember when I first opened a checking account after I was married. I had to fight to keep my name and my credit history. I try to teach them, but I'm afraid that they will have to experience the backlash to get it.

[Malva Zebrina]

99. so very true

and those who would villify the women's liberation movement do not understand how much they owe to that movement. I am not sure--most of the intellectual side of that movement was instigated by older more mature women--whatever--it is really up to the younger now to hold steady the course. I hope we have instilled enough of a sense of outrage and enough of a sense of power to not slip back into that in our daughters and in our grandaughters. I know I tried. A perfect example of how far down women can slip back,and I do believe it is done purposefully by George, who gets the message from the paternalistic god, is Laura Bush. That pathetically subjugated, totally disheartening and apparently depressed woman who it seems is desperately trying to look as though she is twenty again because she is so fearful of her maturing years,when she should be so proud of herself and her life, is really so pathethic, imo, and not an example of what I would want my grandaughters to follow. They are far more self respecting and intelligent to subscribe to the Laura foundation of inane and insipid trophy wife Stepford personna.

[CBHagman]

6. And most of them are 'cans, too.

I can't put an ID to one of them, but I think Oberstar is the only Democrat present.

Obviously Bush's handlers are slacking off on their photo opportunity duties. I can bet there will be letters to the editor galore about the rich white male (usually with grown children) demographic there...

[Skinner]

9. Go for it... Write a letter to the editor.

BTW, Oberstar wasn't the only D there. Bart Stupak (D-MI) was too.

[texastoast]

48. Got it in the mail

President George W. Bush is applauded after signing the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 during a ceremony in Washington, November 4, 2003. Standing behind Bush are from L-R: Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill), Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT), Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) and Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH). (Larry Downing/Reuters)

[adriennel]

7. Thank you!

I saw this happy little group on the news last night and almost puked.
Sorry, Georgie-boy, you will NEVER tell me what I can and can't do with my own uterus!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. NO NO NO there are women in that picture. I clearly see them in back.

In their red, white and blue, flag patterned burkas.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. But you've gotta admit, KKKarl fucked up letting that pic be taken

It will make for a GREAT PRO CHOICE campaign pic.

[MissB]

12. Yes it would (nt)

[Selwynn]

25. Yes Indeed.

[ForrestGump]

109. AND they forgot to shoot it from below this time

The Upward-Angle Directive has been ignored...

[Brian Sweat]

30. Yes, this was a huge screw up.

[liberalhistorian]

54. I'm not so sure about that.

I'm pro-choice, but not for partial birth abortion which is, quite frankly (and there ain't no pretty way to put it here) plain and simple murder. That is not a fetus, it's a nearly full-grown baby who feels pain and suffers severe pain at the puncturing of its skull to drain the brains out.

Yes, that's exactly what happens. The baby is delivered feet first, and then the base of the skull is punctured to drain the brain out, and that makes me physically ill to even think of. The baby feels it and suffers. The only difference between that baby and a baby who's been born is that it's still inside the body. It is quite viable if actually born. How a woman can do that to her own baby is beyond my understanding.

And I think we in the pro-choice crowd simply must acknowledge this, because if we don't it makes us look, frankly, horrible to the general public. Just because we support abortion rights does NOT mean we should blindly and unquestioningly support every single type of abortion at every single stage, no matter what.

The myth that it's done only in medical emergencies and done rarely is just that, a myth. It's performed thousands of times each year for no other reason than convenience for the mother. And that, quite frankly, is just plain wrong.

Ducking and running for cover from major shitstorm of flames heading my way!

[nostamj]

60. please provide links

for this statement:

The myth that it's done only in medical emergencies and done rarely is just that, a myth. It's performed thousands of times each year for no other reason than convenience for the mother.

I simply don't believe that there are doctors who would perform THOUSANDS of these procedures for the 'convenience' of the mother.

those would be murders. I don't believe it.

[liberalhistorian]

64. That's my point, it IS murder.

I have several articles I can refer to (don't have links right now since I'm not at home), I'll try to get a link tomorrow or Saturday.

[0007]

71. Call it what you want!

'Tis the woman's right until baby is born. Your freedom ends where Woman and her rights and her nose begins. Let Doctor and Women decide not government.

[MissB]

76. Some of the confusion may come from

the definition of late term abortion. (Remember, there is no such thing as a partial birth abortion, so what we're talking about here is some type of late term abortion.) Late term can apparently mean last 2/3, 1/3 or even 1/2 of the pregnancy. The so-called PBA is not an equal term to a late term abortion.


So if someone is talking about late term abortions, that may be some small percentage of the total abortions each year. The specific procedure would be performed in a very small amount of these cases.

I found a very good discussion of this on the web by a doctor. The way she broke it down, given statistical data, meant something like 32 abortions in 1995. If you're interested, I'll post the link.

[liberalhistorian]

82. Could you post the link?

If I'm wrong, I will certainly admit it and eat my share of crow.

[MissB]

89. Here's the link.

I don't think you need to eat crow. It seems that there are plenty of issues with the so-called "partial birth abortion" debate. Defining the issues is tough, when you can't agree what late term means.

Heck, for that matter, I may have to eat some crow here. I said she is a doctor, but that is based on my memory of her. She used to post over at a ParentsPlace abortion debate board, and I recall that she was a doctor. I know she has posted here in the last month or so. At any rate, I can't find anywhere on her webpage where she says she is a doctor, but then again, I don't spend alot of time at her site. I simply have it bookmarked.

So... here it is. http://eileen.undonet.com/

The statistical stuff on the so-called "PBA" is at: http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/PBAinfo/PBA_NUM2.htm

[liberalhistorian]

90. Okay, thanks,

I'll check it out!

[Orangepeel]

66. do you have credible evidence of this?

I'd like to see some believable statistics that this procedure is done thousands of times a year for no other reason than convenience for the mother.

Thousands of women go through 8 1/2 months of pregnancy just to say, "oh, forget it -- just kill the damn thing"? They couldn't do it before the third trimester because it interfered with their nail appointments? I simply don't believe it.

My understanding is that it is virtually always done either because the fetus is not viable or because the woman's health is threatened.

[ProudDad]

72. I'd say both

It's my understanding that this procedure is performed ONLY when the fetus is NOT-VIABLE -- essentially brain dead or entirely deformed.

I would suspect that if the fetus were viable and the health of the mother is at stake, the doctor would conclude that a ceasarean birth would be in order.

Doctors DON'T kill for no good reason!

To be blunt, if it's a choice between the health of an adult human being, with experience and life-skills to contribute to society and an unborn bit of protoplasm, I'd vote for the adult human being every time!

[liberalhistorian]

84. But it isn't just an

"unborn bit of protoplasm." At five months it's fully formed, and at six months it's often viable. It would be different if it were in the first few months, but I'm not talking about that.

[cally]

77. My personal experience

which I've written about many times on DU. A close friend who is 7 months pregnant pulls me aside before we pick up our children from daycare. She just found out that her child, very much wanted, would die after birth. Worse, the mother would also probably bleed to death if she carried to term. What would you do? This is not murder. It is making the only choice that is available. I stayed with her 3 year old while she had the abortion to save her life. She came home to her child and eventually had another child who she cherishes. Yes, this procedure is graphic but this insane law would have made my friend bleed to death giving birth to a child who dies shortly after birth. I despise anyperson who supports a law who sentences my friend and women like her to death because it is too graphic a procedure. Let alone all who support this law for political reasons.

[nostamj]

83. it's truly GALLING that

these priviledged white men, who would NEVER have to face this decision--much less this procedure, which is horrible and horrifying--make a law with NO EXCEPTIONS while they have benefitted from having exceptions made for them (esp. the utterly useless fraud W).

they have legislated more death for innocent women and will save zero viable lives.

every day in every way they accumulate unimaginable evil.

[liberalhistorian]

85. Is there an exception for situations like that?

If not, that's despicable and typical of the "stupid white men" who think nothing of playing with our lives. Unless it's THEIR daughter, of course, then it's a different story.

[nostamj]

86. the bill has NO EXCEPTIONS

NONE.

under their LAW the mother and the child DIE. period.

[liberalhistorian]

92. Geez, that's really

"pro-life" then, isn't it? How freaking typical. You better believe that if one of THEIR family members were affected, the law wouldn't apply to them.

[nostamj]

94. no "laws" apply to rich republicans.

any more than any shred of decency or morality applies

[liberalhistorian]

96. But-but-but

but they're the party of "personal responsibility" and "morality and integrity" and "traditional family values" and "law and order!" GAG!

[nostamj]

97. there's this bridge down the street from me.....

can get ya a great price...

Molly Ivins warned us:

don't pay no attention to what he SAYS...
watch what he DOES

[libertad]

122. not only that very good point, but just the fact that it puts real

live breathing women in a less-than-human role. To put the "rights" of something (or someone) who may or may not turn into a living breathing person above those of someone who is actually already a living, breathing person seems so wrong.

[Karenina]

91. With the utmost respect LH

I ask that you do a little more research as your post is informed by sensationalism, not fact. The very idea that thousands of women decide on a whim in late pregnancy to simply "get rid of the thing" is nothing more than misogynist and overexposure to RW talking points. You have been through a pregnancy and have a child. Do you hold other women in such contempt?

[liberalhistorian]

95. NO, of course I don't!

My own mother has had abortions, which I accepted and supported as her choice, even though I'd always desperately wanted siblings. So has my favorite aunt, some good friends, etc., etc. And I will check out the link that was provided on another post.

[Woodstock]

105. liberalhistorian - see below

duplicate

[Woodstock]

107. Do you have any idea what Roe v. Wade states?

No, you couldn't if you said this:

"Just because we support abortion rights does NOT mean we should blindly and unquestioningly support every single type of abortion at every single stage, no matter what. "

Suggestion:

Instead of focusing on Bush's propaganda, read the Supreme Court decision called "Roe v. Wade" - it's very easy to find a summary. There ARE restrictions on abortion under Roe v. Wade. And most Americans have been quite happy with the Roe v. Wade provisions for the past 30 years.

Furthermore, read about how few of these procedures are performed - and how it isn't done "for the mother's convenience."

Additional assignment - review the wording of this bill - and like most reasonable people, you will come to the conclusion that it was deliberately worded such that it will be used to ban more than one procedure, and in more than late term cases - in effect, the purpose of this ban is to overturn Roe v. Wade (yep, that same thing most Americans support.)

Sounds like you have some reading to do.

[Woodstock]

112. Roe v. Wade:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life <410 U.S. 113, 165> may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_g.htm

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. Wish I could remember which Du'er said this........

"If men were able to have babies, there would be an abortion clinic next to every Jiffy Lube in this Country." Seems to fit this pic to a tee.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. Trumad said it. It was one of his finer moments.

[cally]

Scary picture

Most scary is that this is what they think is a great photo op. Umm, Skinner DUers are the best. I saw this yesterday here in the lounge and then some innovating DUer added white coathangars to the pic. I'll look for the link.

Still, I think this pic needs wide distribution. A bunch of white suits telling women about their lives.

[DemExpat]

34. Here is the coathanger pic.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=658728


Both fotos are effective - with or without the coathangers!

DemEx

[dmr]

36. I'd like to see it, cally

Meanwhile: "Bush said last week that Americans are not ready for a complete ban on abortion."

In other words this is the first of increments to dissolve us of our right make our own personal choices. Another civil rights trickle down theory.

[nostamj]

56. i put the coathanger pic in the latest CARTOONS! thread too

posted today. link in my sig.

[MissB]

59. I've posted the picture at another site

Seems like some people don't find the picture very funny.

[methinks2]

14. It Figures!

I'm not surprised.

[karlspur]

15. I heard partial birth abortions were only conducted

when the woman's life was in danger, is that true? I am not particulary a "big fan" of abortion but I can understand peforming a partial birth abortion in instances like this.

[cally]

18. Pretty much true

It's used in extreme circumstances when a woman's health or life is in danger. I know the hype, but I don't think it's used for anything but that.

[quispquake]

19. Right, but the whole point of this law...

...is that even if a woman's life is in danger, a LATE TERM ABORTION (let's call it what it is folks!! Not the doublespeak the Repukes use) can not be performed.

Sickening on so many levels...

[bluedeminredstate]

28. "Partial Birth Abortion"

is a term the right wing came up with to make the procedure sound more barbaric. It is a LATE TERM ABORTION and not many of this particular kind of abortions are performed in this country on an annual basis. It isn't an elective procedure, it isn't because someone forgot to get an abortion at 8 or 10 weeks, it's done for specific MEDICAL reasons.
It's safer than other methods of late term abortions, but those weren't outlawed - just this procedure. I heard the Chimp said it was "cruel."

I know someone who had this done and believe me she agonized over her decision which was, in fact, medically necessary.
How dare they tell her doctor and her she must jeopardize her life because they don't "like" it.

[liberalhistorian]

61. I'm sorry, but the procedure is indeed barbaric

and nothing short of murder. How delivering a nearly full-term baby feet first, then, before it's all the way out, puncturing the base of the skull to drain the brain out (this causes SEVERE pain to the baby, btw) cannot be considered barbaric is totally beyond me. And it's done a lot more often and for convenience reasons a lot more frequently than you might think. Yes, I am pro-choice, but there are limits.

[ProudDad]

74. But...

It's ok to let the mother die?

I can't buy that....

[liberalhistorian]

87. No, it most certainly isn't.

And if there isn't an exception in the bill for that, then that's inexcusably despicable and so typical of the male wingnuts.

[ProudDad]

100. We can definitely agree on that, lib.

I would prefer to see a society where family planning information and methods are freely available to everyone with no stigma attached. It is my opinion that the major reason so many abortions are done in this country is because of the rabid, mindless, christian fundamentalists who have set the agenda for most of the years since 1870 when abortion was first made illegal in this country. As well, I blame their mindless denial that people have sex and don't always want, need or can handle babies...

I am not a fan of abortion either, I've personally been on both sides of it as a father, as a partner of someone who has had one without talking to me, and as partner of someone who didn't have one, thank goodness. To me it's the court of last resort not a general method of birth control.

[Resistance Is Futile]

102. No exceptions

The rethug law makes no exceptions for the health of the mother.

Your argument is that you'd rather women to die than offend your ideology. This is not pro-choice. This is an indefensable and ethically bankrupt position that is in good company with the likes of the Taliban and the Khmer Rouge. It has no place in this century.

[bluedeminredstate]

103. It is illegal for doctors to do it for

"convenience" when a fetus is viable. Some states have laws that don't allow abortions after week 12, other states have laws that allow it up to week 16 of gestation, but at NO time in any state is it legal to abort a viable 7, 8 or 9 month fetus just for the heck of it without a medical reason. In this medical procedure, "convenience" is not a good enough reason to get an MD to perform this type of abortion, much as the RW would like us to believe there are thousands of women just too busy or selfish to complete their pregnancy and who also happen to find an OB-GYN ready to accomodate them.

I am a nurse and in my state abortions are allowed up to 12 weeks, however, the OB-GYNs I've talked to tell me that this procedure is not a routine thing. Yes, there are 2nd trimester abortions done all the time, but the third trimester abortion that the anti-abortion people want the public to believe is happening all the time is a very, very rare thing.

[libertad]

123. It is not done "a lot" at all.

n/t

[SharonAnn]

69. Well, I'd be more comfortable having doctors practice medicine

Just a personal quirk of mine.

[hlthe2b]

16. Ladies, Behold the men who think they own both YOU

and your uterus.

And we thought slavery was dead in this country.

[tom_paine]

20. It's making a BIG COMEBACK under "alternate guises"

The Busheviks truly dislike Free Americans, I believe that.

They think we are animals.

[Terran]

17. Off-topic, but

Hastert needs a neck transplant. The man has no neck. Ergh.

[hippiegranny]

21. this picture is worth a million words

nuff said.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. What's wrong with this picture?

It really does have a sort of a white plantation owner feeling to it, doesn't it? Next they'll be breeding us according to desirable traits.

[Serial Mom]

24. And the looks on their faces

are reprehensible!

Look at first picture of Dubya signing . . it looks as if he is spelling his name as he writes it: G, E, O . . . and the second picture they all look like they are happy cause he got it right!

The smiles on the others . . makes me want to :puke: - like they all have this new power and are happy about it.

[Brian Sweat]

26. NARL and PP should toast them with this.

[pmbryant]

27. Skinner, Skinner, Skinner ;-)

This has only been posted, like, 4 or 5 times already! :evilgrin:

But it is so atrocious that it deserves wide play, so the more, the better, I say.

--Peter

[Catshrink]

31. I'm glad he posted it....

I was tied up yesterday and didn't get to "do the DU."

[Skinner]

32. Whoops.

:blushingicon:

(It was a favor to a friend. I swear.)

[dmr]

40. Well, thank you for posting it

because I didn't see the other ones.

There are some issues that need to be shouted out loud and often; this is one because we are going downhill rapidly.

[pmbryant]

58. Agree completely

This photo needs to be spread far and wide.

--Peter

[CBHagman]

29. Saw the pro-choice Dems on C-SPAN last night.

Jerrold Nadler and Louise Slaughter were among them. I'm afraid I forget who else was there. At any rate, there was more ESTROGEN in that crowd, and actual people who had given birth.

On edit: Isn't Santorum in hot competition with you-know-who for the most irritating smirk in the country? :puke:

[SharonAnn]

70. Santorum said that only "pro-life" was his responsiblity, not

any social justice issues. He said this to a couple of priests and Catholic Church representatives who went to his office to meet with him to get him to support:
Living wage
Affordable Housing
Medical Coverage

He said that his responsibility as a senator did not include Social Justice issues.

As far as I'm concerned, that's EXACTLY what a senator's responsibility is.

[CBHagman]

93. SharonAnn, do you have a link on that story?

I went BALLISTIC when Santorum, who prissily sets himself up as the Ur-Catholic, let slip that it was okay with him to make single mothers struggle a little harder to get child care.

Now anyone who regularly attends Mass will remember that recently a couple of different readings from the Epistle of James were featured in the second reading. Both offered very harsh condemnation of believers who favored the wealthy over the poor. What does Santorum think he's doing by favoring tax cuts and making poor women struggle?

It's amazing how Santorum is only a Catholic when it comes to Bill Pryor or abortion law. I'm beginning to think this guy would push Mother Teresa or Oscar Romero under a train.

[KoKo]

33. Skinner, thanks for posting on this! Now we know "you care!"

LOL's Seriously, it was good to see this post. I've always seen you as a "silent."

Thanks!

[neverforget]

35. I pointed this out last night to my wife. She's not so mad that the bill

passed, but that there is absolutely nothing in the bill about the life/health of the mother.

Her words, "So if there's a problem with my pregnancy (our child is due May 27), I'm supposed to die too? Two deaths instead of one! How's that pro-life?"
My response, "Notice that those are all men, white men at that, that are around Bush. This isn't about abortion. It's about control because they only care about the baby in the womb but when it's born, fuck it. It's on its own."

[Iris]

50. If I were pregnant right now, I'd be VERY unhappy about this bill.

This procedure isn't done for frivolous reasons.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hippiegranny]

44. let's start with the size of the baby in this graphic

it is the size of a fetus that is no less than 7 or 8 months. they don't do abortions this late. at 14 weeks, the mother doesn't even look pregnant yet, and the "baby" is a mass of matter at that point.

chalk it up to another hysterical exaggeration in order to propagandize the minds of americans.

[Brian Sweat]

49. That's what I figured.

I am not very educated on this subject. I thought that by late term, they meant in the last 2 or three months of the pregnancy. 14 weeks is only the third month. What is the latest tht they do this procedure?

[Military Brat]

38. And here's a true story about "Sick Rick" Santorum

Look who is close to bush ... the homophobic Santorum.

By now almost everyone knows the story about how his baby died, despite their best efforts to save it. His wife was advised to have an abortion but they went through the trauma of having the baby, anyway. The child died very soon after birth. Truly awful. And I would never condemn them for trying.

However, I call him "Sick Rick" because he had his young children view the dead child and "pet" it good-bye. Ghoulish.

Mrs. Santorum has written a book, "Letters to Gabriel." Apparently it sells fairly well in the RW Christian market. So I called the publisher to ask where the proceeds for the book went. They got a little defensive, but told me that a portion of the profits went to anti-abortion efforts. I said, "Well, I was hoping that some of the proceeds would go to charities, maybe, that support unmarried women who decide to keep their baby, and help them to get on their feet and take care of their baby."

But no, that would be too much to ask of a RW Christian, wouldn't it, that they actually put their money where their mouth is. That's why they aren't pro-life ... they're just pro-birth.

And "Sick Rick" is their idol.

[Resistance Is Futile]

110. Power, not life

Anti-choice is about power, not life. The anti-choice backers believe their masculimity is threatened by women having a right to control their own bodies. A woman who has an abortion is denying the anti-choice zealot the 'right' to procreate and is engaging in what the anti-choice zealots consider castration by proxy. Anti-choice is not about birth or life; it's about preserving the masculinity of insecure mental midgets in the modern world.

[gibbsvol]

39. requesting help wingnut reply!

Friends, please help me respond to this wingnut rant. I don't know which angle to attack this hateful message. It is from another political board in which the subject was the "partial-birth" abortion ban and its disregard for the mother's heath. Here is his message unedited. Any help is appreciated:

"The life of the mother provision is in the bill. The vicious left-wing fanatic democrats are using the "health" term because they know that the word is undefinable and therefore if accepted by some syphilitic brained judge, they win and once again impose their tyranny of the mind upon the people of this nation.

The democrat party owes it's current existence to a varied group of voting blocs that are only connected bt the one issue and that is abortion on denmand. You will see NARAL signs at every womans, black, hispanic, union,anti-war, homo-rights rally or protest. That one issue is why democrats will block every attempt to confirm any judge with a brain to the Federal or Supreme Courts with their illegal filibusters.

If Harry Blackman's bastard imaginary Constitutional right to an abortion ever be thrown out for the lie that it is and returned to the States where it rightfully belongs, democrats would cease to be a national party as these groups would splinter and cease to be effective.

Power, is all this is about. The liberals don't give a damn about these women and never have. They will fight every single attempt to limit abortion even supporting this gruesome procedure that is illegal to perform on animals."
:eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. There's more evidence that fundi's don't give a fuck about those fetuses

once they are born and become children.
Like the millions of americans with NO health insurance.

[CBHagman]

126. Good luck, and here are some ideas.

For starters, the writer (?) makes numerous historical, logical, factual, spelling and grammatical errors. He (I'm assuming it's a he) makes assertions and judgments and provides virtually no backing for his arguments.

Just a few corrections, major and minor:

*For a person who pronounces people "vicious" to call a judge "syphilitic brained" is a little contradictory, isn't it? It seems that the writer is suffering from projection, which means that he's attributing his own less desirable traits to others. Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter do this quite frequently.

*It's hard to make the argument that the liberals and/or the Democratic Party don't care about women when so many women are in positions of leadership in progressive, liberal and/or feminist organizations, and women, as a group, tend to fall into the moderate to liberal category more frequently. And you'd have a hard time finding women in that picture up there

*Filibusters are not illegal, and merely writing an e-mail that claims they are does not make it so.

*It's hard to make the case that those who object to the restrictions in this bill are imposing a "tyranny" on the nation. Check out the figures for how many women have abortions in this country and then consider whether placing a further restriction on them doesn't constitute trying to control them, their bodies, their family lives, and indeed the possibility that they will survive pregnancy.

*The claim that partial-birth abortion wouldn't be allowed on an animal sounds rather fishy, if you'll pardon the expression. Given what is done to animals in medical and scientific testing, plus in slaughterhouses, I rather doubt there is any prohibition against ending a pregnancy that way.

*The claim that NARAL signs are at every gay rights, union, women's rights, or Hispanic rally also sounds a little fishy. Can the writer provide documentation and/or pictures?

*How tolerant is it to term gay rights "homo-rights"? Isn't that a little vicious, tyrannical, and hateful?


*The spelling and grammatical errors are atrocious and almost too many to mention, but for starters, there is no such word as "womans." The writer probably meant "women's." It's the "Democratic Party," not the "democrat party." And "it's" is a contraction of "It is," not the possessive "its."

[Kamika]

41. LOL if i didnt know better id think it was a photoshop pic

Thats seriously a creepy picture

[0007]

43. All smiles, 'eh?

Except for that greedy one!

[gulliver]

98. So true. Those pictures are off-the-scale awful, but their true ...

... potential is unrealized without Cheney.

[ScreamingMeemie]

45. Only one response seems fitting...

:puke:

How many of them have daughters that this idiotic law will affect...hmmmm?

[SharonAnn]

73. None, they'll all go on "vacations". Actually you get a better

response when you talk about their granddaughters. They adore them and it does make them stop and think.

[Resistance Is Futile]

108. None

They'll ship their female relatives, if any, to Canada or Europe should they have complications.

Laws do not apply to reThugs.

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. My husband has a friend who is a repub

Well he was at the time, I think he has since adjusted his political viewpoint, since he now hates Bush* and is endorsing Gerphardt. My husband asked him why he voted repub, since in doing so, (he as a working man), resulted in him voting against himself. His reply was that he thought abortions were wrong. My husband's reply, which I found hilarious, was this: "So let me ask you this, would you as a man, want the Gov. to have a say in what you do with your dick?" His friend replied that is wasn't the same thing. My husband say, "Sure it is, it's part of your body, isn't it?" My husband went on to say that if the Gov were ever to tell him what to do with his dick, that he might as well cut it off. Crude, I know, but he somehow managed to get his point across, because his friend ultimately agreed with him that a woman has a right to decide what is happening with her body and that it should be her decision and only her decision.

edited: because my fingers got ahead of my thoughts or the other way around. :silly:

[Iris]

52. Your husband deserves an award!

[chromotone]

47. Wrong photo...

This is the "Bush Signs 'Country Club Tax Relief Bill'" photo taken earlier today.

[chromotone]

63. /sarcasm (n/t)

[IndianaGreen]

51. Not in the picture, is DLC Chair Evan Bayh, who voted for the ban

The creep votes for the abortion ban, and then he doesn't have the balls to show up for the signing hoping that no one else takes notice.

Senators vote for abortion ban bill

WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. Richard Lugar and Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh voted "yes" on a bill to ban "partial birth" abortions this week.

The Senate voted 64-34 and the bill now heads to President Bush for his expected signature. The House passed the bill last month on a 281-142 vote.

The bill bans a type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed.

http://www.thestarpress.com/articles/9/007935-6129-004.html

[CMT]

55. Skinner, this picture should be in every Democratic

ad and pamphlet dealing with Choice because it speaks volumns.

[izzie]

57. I hate to think that women will have to re-fight this all over.

But I will not be shocked. If they let the powerful run things they will.It is so nice to have these old white men tell women what they must do with their body.Do not say I do not know what I am talking about when I say it is still a mans world.

[_NorCal_D_]

62. What a bunch

of pitiful old fools. They make me sick.

[Malva Zebrina]

65. there has been an enormous amount of myth and specious details

behind this bill. The "partial birth abortion" moniker for one. For some reason those who are interested in women's right to choose just could not get the message out in order to educate the people. Religion, and all of it's mysticism, ie--the fetus has a soul--indeed, the fertilized egg at the moment of conception has a soul and on and on. This religious conviction was enough to make those zealots crazy to bring women and the doctors who aid them in their choice to prison--this bill criminalizes them all--imagine that? There are the good old boys behind the idiot Bush, all laughing because they know that the little boy Bush has just signed something that criminalizes women for exercising control over their own body and their own health and their own family. It is, after all, really a conservative religious movement to subjugate women and their sexuality. That is the fear of these fat bellied white haired Christian misogynists. I am so relieved to see that the ACLU and that NARAL was on the ball here. They recognized where they should aim their arrows for the optimum result--and immediately have gone to court instead of wasting time and energy on lobbying against the bill. They deserve my contribution for this vigilant reaction.

Bush looks like an idiot--right he looks like he is saying to himself in the picture--duh--"G" and then takes a long time to make the letter, "E" and an equal amount of time to make that letter "O"(is that right he asks himself and then decides it is right because none of the venerable congressional hacks behind him have told him it was wrong) and so he continues on=it takes a long long time for him to sign the bill--Laura is sitting in the front row here applauding her adored hubby.

[neuvocat]

68. The obvious was so overlooked.

Increedible.

[proud patriot]

78. Disgusting picture of my rights being signed away

The smiles on the faces of those in this picture
says it all . They are smiling because the think they
have power over my body .

[moondust]

79. Stupid White Men.

These are them.

[veganwitch]

80. i posted about this yesterday

its titled "this makes me want to vomit."


i said the picture was akin to a gang rape.

[veganwitch]

115. heres the link to my original post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=656251#657290

[Mairead]

81. Can anyone identify them all?

It would be good to know.

[Skinner]

119. If you click the link, yahoo news lists all their names.

The link is in my post above.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

88. haven't seen that many shit-eating grins since...

...well, never

[Woodstock]

101. Thank you for posting this

:kick:

[CWebster]

104. Grinning old dinosaurs boys all in a row.

Scanned for a token female when they ran this on the news tonight, but what have they got to do with it?

[Cleita]

106. Hadn't seen this until now.

I'm sick.

[Solomon]

111. It struck me like a lightning bolt when I opened the paper.

The first thought on my mind was all white men. And I mean "white" white men.

[foreigncorrespondent]

113. Isn't it sad to know...

...that there is going to be a whole new generation of babies who will become orphans because their mothers/parents, will be too young to care for them, and these kids will be unwanted. That these babies are going to grow up in orphanages because there aren't enough couples out there willing to adopt, and with in the gay community, lots of couples wanting to adopt, but not allowed.

So much for repuke thinking. And so much for no child left behind!

[Catherine Vincent]

114. From the looks of that picture,

we don't have to worry about women choosing to have abortions by these men. I doubt if any of them can get it up. Ick!

[goforit]

116. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............................

:puke::argh::puke:

[elperromagico]

117. Male Apartheid At Work Once Again n/t

[retyred]

118. I think Hatch just wet himself!

It's a lot harder than with a crayon isn't it george?


Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[SoCalDem]

120. What he really wrote..

www.b3ta.com

[prolesunited]

121. Thank you for calling attention

to this outrage by posting this. :thumbsup:

[snippy]

124. White House claims there were women in the room, but won't name them.

From today's Wall Street Journal:

MINOR MEMOS: Women's issue? Only men in Congress flank Bush for his staged signing of late-term abortion ban; an aide says female lawmakers were in room, but won't name any.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,washington_wire,00.html


I believe that is better for medical decisions to be made by doctors and patients rather than the elected clerics of either party. Here is part of the statement from The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concerning this bill:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

. . .

As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."

. . .

The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

# # #

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the national medical organization representing 45,000 members who provide health care for women.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm

[mandyky]

125. Senator Lautenburg D - NJ

just brought this up on the floor of the Senate.