If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MLive.com)   Despite the ability to "shut that whole thing down," Republicans propose women buy rape insurance   (mlive.com) divider line 374
    More: Sick, Republicans, Whitmer, Michigan Legislature, Rick Snyder, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

4859 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2013 at 10:27 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



374 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-03 12:51:16 PM

skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

True. False. Dunno but sounds bullshiat.

How is statutory rape not rape?

I'm not sure about the stats but I am talking about a percentage of elective abortions, not including abortions protecting the health of the mother.

Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape


That's true.  Just the fact that rape has to part of an abortion discussion to me is stupid.  A woman should be able to get an abortion if she wants an abortion.
 
2013-12-03 12:51:28 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Perhaps proposing a law making it the responsibility of the rapist to pay for any and all costs would make more sense.


And for the 97% or rapes that do not result in a conviction?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:52:14 PM

flondrix: I_Am_Weasel: Perhaps proposing a law making it the responsibility of the rapist to pay for any and all costs would make more sense.

And for the 97% or rapes that do not result in a conviction?


Didn't you see what she was wearing?
 
2013-12-03 12:53:11 PM

thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?

Do you insist on carrying this charade of pretending to lack the ability to infer broader meaning from hyperbolic terms further?  I'll understand if you're doing it for the sake of splitting hairs in a meta-debate about Responsibility in Descriptive Terms.


"Forcing women to decide whether they want to buy 'rape insurance' and even compelling parents to make the unfathomable decision about whether to buy it for their daughters is truly despicable,"

"Unfathomable decision"? That doesn't sound like "hyperbole" describing unplanned pregnancy insurance which covers abortion. That sounds like she's talking about rape insurance. Thanks for weighing in though.
 
2013-12-03 12:53:58 PM

d23: Current head of the GOP

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 417x393]


I like that. We need that to catch on. The Republicans are Ferengi.

/farking Rules of Acquisition shouldn't include females. . .
 
2013-12-03 12:54:14 PM

skullkrusher: Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape


It is in some states.
 
2013-12-03 12:54:20 PM

d23: thamike: skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.

Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?

I love what passes for reasoning today.  Wanting to regulate insurance companies that have the ability to inflict millions of dollars of harm on individuals is Democratic stupidity?

There is one reason only to believe that, and that is that you believe corporations should be able to do whatever they want at any time to any one.


I love what passes for reading comprehension these days.
 
2013-12-03 12:56:24 PM

flondrix: skullkrusher: Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape

It is in some states.


It isn't in Michigan however.
 
2013-12-03 12:56:34 PM

Headso: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?

I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?

Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity. The law is absurd on its face, it is contrary to everything the GOP pretends to stand for in terms of small government and business regulation and places an unnecessary burden on private commerce. I know! let's call it rape insurance to help deflect from the fact that the law is a piece of shiat!

And by the time you are done explaining why the law is idiotic everyone you are talking to has tuned you out, calling it rape insurance gets people's attention. "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.


"Liberals" are never concerned about their own stupidity... Unless they're squawking about how they condemn the stupid. Drive them out. Marginalize! When they're not breathlessly defending it, of course.
 
2013-12-03 12:56:49 PM

Headso: And by the time you are done explaining why the law is idiotic everyone you are talking to has tuned you out, calling it rape insurance gets people's attention. "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.


Then explain to me why and how 'unplanned pregnancy insurance' is different from normal 'neonatal care' insurance.

While you're at it, explain to me why women only should be forced to get this kind of coverage, and why men shouldn't be forced to also get 'rape accusation' insurance.
 
2013-12-03 12:58:00 PM

skullkrusher: d23: thamike: skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.

Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?

I love what passes for reasoning today.  Wanting to regulate insurance companies that have the ability to inflict millions of dollars of harm on individuals is Democratic stupidity?

There is one reason only to believe that, and that is that you believe corporations should be able to do whatever they want at any time to any one.

I love what passes for reading comprehension these days.


Right? What the f*ck was that about?
 
2013-12-03 12:58:01 PM

mrshowrules: Mike Chewbacca: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

It's actually less than 18%. However it is overwhelmingly poor women who get abortions, and from a mathematical point of view, every aborted impoverished fetus is one less mouth we taxpayers have to feed and clothe.

That is total abortions.  What about elective abortions?

I wouldn't look at any abortions related to protecting the health of the mother.   Those should not be considered as abortions which can be avoided.


Only a small percentage of abortions are done to protect the health of the mother. Also, only ~2% of all abortions are performed at more than 20 weeks' gestational age. It's a really tiny number, in the low thousands. Minors only account for 7% of all abortions.
 
2013-12-03 12:59:02 PM

mrshowrules: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

True. False. Dunno but sounds bullshiat.

How is statutory rape not rape?

I'm not sure about the stats but I am talking about a percentage of elective abortions, not including abortions protecting the health of the mother.

Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape

That's true.  Just the fact that rape has to part of an abortion discussion to me is stupid.  A woman should be able to get an abortion if she wants an abortion.


Sure. Stupid law proposed by GOP is stupid. I guess we wouldn't have much of a thread if some people weren't trying to pretend the response wasn't bullshiat. Drew loves him some cheer leading ninnies
 
2013-12-03 12:59:49 PM

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?

Do you insist on carrying this charade of pretending to lack the ability to infer broader meaning from hyperbolic terms further?  I'll understand if you're doing it for the sake of splitting hairs in a meta-debate about Responsibility in Descriptive Terms.

"Forcing women to decide whether they want to buy 'rape insurance' and even compelling parents to make the unfathomable decision about whether to buy it for their daughters is truly despicable,"

"Unfathomable decision"? That doesn't sound like "hyperbole" describing unplanned pregnancy insurance which covers abortion. That sounds like she's talking about rape insurance. Thanks for weighing in though.


So, "yes," then.  OK.
 
2013-12-03 01:00:06 PM

Headso: you know the old saying... You rape what you sew...

[cltampa.com image 528x333]


and I laughed and laughed
 
2013-12-03 01:00:25 PM

thamike: skullkrusher: d23: thamike: skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.

Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?

I love what passes for reasoning today.  Wanting to regulate insurance companies that have the ability to inflict millions of dollars of harm on individuals is Democratic stupidity?

There is one reason only to believe that, and that is that you believe corporations should be able to do whatever they want at any time to any one.

I love what passes for reading comprehension these days.

Right? What the f*ck was that about?


His playing off your (hopefully insincere) attempt at ball busting
 
2013-12-03 01:00:45 PM

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?

I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?

Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity. The law is absurd on its face, it is contrary to everything the GOP pretends to stand for in terms of small government and business regulation and places an unnecessary burden on private commerce. I know! let's call it rape insurance to help deflect from the fact that the law is a piece of shiat!

And by the time you are done explaining why the law is idiotic everyone you are talking to has tuned you out, calling it rape insurance gets people's attention. "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.

"Liberals" are never concerned about their own stupidity... Unless they're squawking about how they condemn the stupid. Drive them out. Marginalize! When they're not breathlessly defending it, of course.


it's not stupid to target your message to the level at which the electorate operates at.
 
2013-12-03 01:00:47 PM

tarthrin: What I don't understand and what really ticks me off, is how can this tiny sliver of the Michigan population have this much influence.

I understand if you have enough signatures that the legislature would have to take a look at your suggestion and/or consider it, but to make it so that it also bypasses the governor completely is just insane.

That's less than 3% of our population and somehow that's enough to say its the people's will?


There are almost 10 million people in MI - 3% of that is 300k people. Probably not big enough for a truly representative sample (unless your selection was truly random, and not taken from a population of self-selected moralistic busybodies; and even then), but not insignificant.

In VA, I think you only need 30k signatures on a petition to run for president. The remedy against having batshiat crazy laws is that the same 3% of the population can wildly misrepresent the whole, which is why we have elections and referenda - if 97% of the people vote against, you've conclusively shown that that 3% really is out of touch. If another 47.0001% sign on with that 3%, then they did represent the whole (and the whole might be a bunch of moralistic busybodies in the aggregate, leaving the Courts to decouple the legal parts of the policy from the part that was legislated from the pulpit).

Put another way, if "only" 3% of people put forth a petition opposing murder, would we say it's not representative? That's just a legal threshhold, and making it higher could serve as a barrier for important legislation (it's hard to find 300k people willing to sign anything, especially if they have to give a name, e-mail address and/or phone number). We in other states with fewer moralistic busybodies (or in those states that respect all parts of the doctor-patient relationship and HIPAA) may disagree, but "Democracy is messy."

// especially when some asshole goes and re-mixes religion with politics after some breech-wearing businessmen made damn sure to filter that shiat out
 
2013-12-03 01:01:31 PM

thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?

Do you insist on carrying this charade of pretending to lack the ability to infer broader meaning from hyperbolic terms further?  I'll understand if you're doing it for the sake of splitting hairs in a meta-debate about Responsibility in Descriptive Terms.

"Forcing women to decide whether they want to buy 'rape insurance' and even compelling parents to make the unfathomable decision about whether to buy it for their daughters is truly despicable,"

"Unfathomable decision"? That doesn't sound like "hyperbole" describing unplanned pregnancy insurance which covers abortion. That sounds like she's talking about rape insurance. Thanks for weighing in though.

So, "yes," then.  OK.


Boring already, Mikey. At least make it less apparent
 
2013-12-03 01:03:59 PM

skullkrusher: Sure. Stupid law proposed by GOP is stupid. I guess we wouldn't have much of a thread if some people weren't trying to pretend the response wasn't bullshiat. Drew loves him some cheer leading ninnies


We wouldn't have much of a thread if some ninnies didn't spend their time trying to distract from the main idea by nitpicking syntax, either.
 
2013-12-03 01:05:46 PM

skullkrusher: His playing off your (hopefully insincere) attempt at ball busting


The ball busting is what's entirely sincere.  I would never give you less.
 
2013-12-03 01:09:15 PM

thamike: skullkrusher: Sure. Stupid law proposed by GOP is stupid. I guess we wouldn't have much of a thread if some people weren't trying to pretend the response wasn't bullshiat. Drew loves him some cheer leading ninnies

We wouldn't have much of a thread if some ninnies didn't spend their time trying to distract from the main idea by nitpicking syntax, either.


Detracting from the main idea by criticizing it 3 times now? Sorry if juggling 2 balls is beyond ye
 
2013-12-03 01:12:46 PM
"I'm sorry, ma'am, but your policy only covers rape by apes and hominids. You were attacked by a monkey, and therefore, not covered."
 
2013-12-03 01:13:43 PM
Can men have "oops, it slipped in" insurance?

/stupidity
 
2013-12-03 01:14:10 PM

jst3p: It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.



Because their men tell them to.
It's the sammich voting block.
 
2013-12-03 01:20:08 PM
If someone is going to sell rape "insurance" then can I sell mafia-style rape "protection?"

Sounds like a business where everyone wins.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-12-03 01:20:47 PM
Can men get in on the rape insurance deal?

"We know you like your anal integrity but if you're raped,we give you a summer home and two Mercedes-Benzes. Wouldn't that be nice, too?"
 
2013-12-03 01:23:35 PM

Pinner: jst3p: It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.


Because their men tell them to.
It's the sammich voting block.


Interesting block demographic you've described.  Are you saying that if a woman votes republican it is because a man told her to? Or that there is a significant number of women that vote how their man told them to?  Are all republican votes from women a result of this, or just a measurable population? I need to know more of your categorization before I can comment on it. On the surface, it seems diaphanous at best, but I'll entertain your corroborating argument.
 
2013-12-03 01:25:49 PM

lennavan: Bennie Crabtree: It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate.

It's also a reasonable line of attack.  Michigan attempted to pass this same bill long ago and even their ridiculously right leaning governor Rick Snyder vetoed it saying not allowing rape victims to keep coverage goes too far.  Republicans had the opportunity to simply write a bill to allow an exception for rape victims and Rick Snyder would have presumably signed it.  They didn't, they're trying to override his veto.

 That's why it's fully reasonable to attack Republicans on the rape issue.  They were specifically told to make accommodations for rape victims and they specifically chose not to.


You said Republicans twice.
 
2013-12-03 01:27:22 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Proposing it is an amazing dick move.  Following one dick move with another doesn't make sense.

Perhaps proposing a law making it the responsibility of the rapist to pay for any and all costs would make more sense.  Said perp has no means to pay?  He's doing time and working until he's paid back the state for the costs they covered.  Of course, that sort of thing might amount to slave labor.  Making someone work for no or little pay is far, far worse than rape...because money.  Go ahead and rape money and see what happens to you.


That would be great...if it wasn't for the fact that rapists are rarely brought to trial and rarely convicted.

/Info from anonymous crime surveys, not because DERP WOMEN LIE ABOUT RAPE
 
2013-12-03 01:30:53 PM
Everyone is looking at this so negatively.

I say, let's join in.

I propose no insurance can cover any Catholics/Christians on Sundays.
It's the Lord's day and they shouldn't be doing anything that would get them hurt in the first place.  Sure, some people will get hurt anyway but it will be a small percentage.  Besides, this is the day God is looking down at everyone so Christians already have the God plan going.

I don't see why I should have to pay for people when their God is slacking on the job.
 
2013-12-03 01:31:54 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Proposing it is an amazing dick move.  Following one dick move with another doesn't make sense.

Perhaps proposing a law making it the responsibility of the rapist to pay for any and all costs would make more sense.  Said perp has no means to pay?  He's doing time and working until he's paid back the state for the costs they covered.  Of course, that sort of thing might amount to slave labor.  Making someone work for no or little pay is far, far worse than rape...because money.  Go ahead and rape money and see what happens to you.


Wal-Mart anyone?
 
2013-12-03 01:35:01 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Rape Insurance


[www.imfdb.org image 500x335] [small handgun]



Unless of course the rapist gets hold of it first
 
2013-12-03 01:36:23 PM

Pinner: jst3p: It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.


Because their men tell them to.
It's the sammich voting block.


Certainly this does happen pretty often, but it is sexist of you to assume that all women who vote Republican do so because their husbands commanded them.  You cannot fairly paint them all with such a wide brush.  I will have you know that many modern Conservative women vote that way because they are are stupid, gullible, self-loathing, and/or insane.

Plus you do have cases of men voting as they are commanded by their wives.
newsbusters.org
 
2013-12-03 01:39:02 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-03 01:43:22 PM

bk3k: Plus you do have cases of men voting as they are commanded by their wives.


img.fark.net

That's a bad example:

After all, in 2006 she said she took a degree in tax law, despite hating everything to do with taxes, because he told her to. "The Lord said, 'Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands,'" she told the crowd at a Minnesota megachurch.

http://www.thenation.com/article/162957/michele-bachmann-wife-chief#
 
2013-12-03 01:43:57 PM

bk3k: Pinner: jst3p: It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.


Because their men tell them to.
It's the sammich voting block.

Certainly this does happen pretty often, but it is sexist of you to assume that all women who vote Republican do so because their husbands commanded them.  You cannot fairly paint them all with such a wide brush.  I will have you know that many modern Conservative women vote that way because they are are stupid, gullible, self-loathing, and/or insane.

Plus you do have cases of men voting as they are commanded by their wives.
[newsbusters.org image 400x300]


Well, being in Utah it's not too much of a stretch. There's plenty of stupid, self-loathing and/or insane.
 But yes, it was a pretty general statement.
 
2013-12-03 01:53:10 PM

Do you know the way to Mordor: Zeb Hesselgresser: Rape Insurance

Unless of course the rapist gets hold of it first


blogs.westword.com
 
2013-12-03 01:54:41 PM
mrwgifs.com
 
2013-12-03 02:05:38 PM

Dr Dreidel: tarthrin: What I don't understand and what really ticks me off, is how can this tiny sliver of the Michigan population have this much influence.

I understand if you have enough signatures that the legislature would have to take a look at your suggestion and/or consider it, but to make it so that it also bypasses the governor completely is just insane.

That's less than 3% of our population and somehow that's enough to say its the people's will?

There are almost 10 million people in MI - 3% of that is 300k people. Probably not big enough for a truly representative sample (unless your selection was truly random, and not taken from a population of self-selected moralistic busybodies; and even then), but not insignificant.

In VA, I think you only need 30k signatures on a petition to run for president. The remedy against having batshiat crazy laws is that the same 3% of the population can wildly misrepresent the whole, which is why we have elections and referenda - if 97% of the people vote against, you've conclusively shown that that 3% really is out of touch. If another 47.0001% sign on with that 3%, then they did represent the whole (and the whole might be a bunch of moralistic busybodies in the aggregate, leaving the Courts to decouple the legal parts of the policy from the part that was legislated from the pulpit).

Put another way, if "only" 3% of people put forth a petition opposing murder, would we say it's not representative? That's just a legal threshhold, and making it higher could serve as a barrier for important legislation (it's hard to find 300k people willing to sign anything, especially if they have to give a name, e-mail address and/or phone number). We in other states with fewer moralistic busybodies (or in those states that respect all parts of the doctor-patient relationship and HIPAA) may disagree, but "Democracy is messy."

// especially when some asshole goes and re-mixes religion with politics after some breech-wearing businessmen made damn su ...


The issue is that there is no recourse for the other 97% of the population to do anything about it until the next election cycle. I can't vote "no" on this petition. There won't be a state-wide referendum on it. I would be okay if these petitions ended up as state-wide votes instead just skipping past the governors desk into law. (Assuming the legislature votes yes, and in this instance, since they have once, I bet they'll do it again)

Also, 3% is not necessarily representative at all. How many people did they ask to sign their petition? If they asked 600k and got 300k to sign, then fine. If they asked 5000k people to sign and only got 300k to sign, is that representative? Could it be?, maybe.

If groups want to propose legislation, fine, but it shouldn't bypass the checks and balances.

If the R's really want their bill passed, there is already a way to overturn a veto. Don't try to skirt the rules just because it's convenient.
 
2013-12-03 02:06:52 PM

skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: You know, both sides are, in fact, bad, despite how that overly simplistic argument gets rightfully shot down here on Fark.

Democrats and Republicans both have a long-standing history of being utterly, insanely wrong on matters of economy, the military, social justice, foreign policy, domestic policy - you name it.

BUT

There is only one party that has an appallingly glib, morally confused, utterly repugnant stance on what is arguably the ugliest act one human can perform on another.

http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/

The comments in the above link are not isolated incidents.  They are not taken out of context.  They are a clear, consistent pattern of dangerously hateful rhetoric.

1 in 3 women are victims of sexual abuse.  No matter who you are, you know victims of sexual abuse.  Many of the women in your life, whom you love and care about, have had to endure an unspeakably heinous invasion of their body and by extension, their minds, souls, and lives, and the lives of their loved ones.

And anyone that is flippant, confused, or ambivalent to this awful act and its consequences, I would assess as ignorant and callous to a sociopathic degree.

Democrats suck, there's no denying that.  But I vote for them because the alternative is, quite literally, the Pro Rape Party.

Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.


Not to mention the fact that the Republican party has nothing to do with this proposed legislation.
 
2013-12-03 02:06:54 PM

formerfloozy: My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal.


WTF?
 
2013-12-03 02:06:56 PM

MayoSlather: If every woman were required to carry rape insurance I'm pretty sure my new pick up line would be "Just let it happen, you have insurance."


Talk about moral hazard!
 
2013-12-03 02:11:42 PM

Cataholic: Not to mention the fact that the Republican party has nothing to do with this proposed legislation.


Republicans aren't the one pushing a law to make it illegal for insurance companies to include abortion coverage?


Also, why are Republicans telling insurance companies what they can or can't do? Why do they hate the free market?
 
2013-12-03 02:28:34 PM

grumpfuff: Cataholic: Not to mention the fact that the Republican party has nothing to do with this proposed legislation.

Republicans aren't the one pushing a law to make it illegal for insurance companies to include abortion coverage?


Also, why are Republicans telling insurance companies what they can or can't do? Why do they hate the free market?


No.  But then I'm guessing you didn't RTFA.
 
2013-12-03 02:40:38 PM

tarthrin: The issue is that there is no recourse for the other 97% of the population to do anything about it until the next election cycle. I can't vote "no" on this petition. There won't be a state-wide referendum on it. I would be okay if these petitions ended up as state-wide votes instead just skipping past the governors desk into law.


Is that what's about to happen? Just take a petition signed by X people to the legislature, and BAM! - law?

If so, that's a huge problem, and for exactly the reason(s) you mention, and many, many others (not least of which is we already have "petitions" to get representatives in office for the sole purpose of examining and discussing proposed bills) - this is yet another way the GOP likes to abdicate the responsibility of actually governing in favor of rule by most-inflamed mob.

I thought they were collecting signatures for a ballot question.

// and it really doesn't matter out of how many people that sample was pulled
// it's out of the total number of registered voters in the state; the vote happens at the ballot box and not before
 
2013-12-03 02:40:55 PM

Cataholic: grumpfuff: Cataholic: Not to mention the fact that the Republican party has nothing to do with this proposed legislation.

Republicans aren't the one pushing a law to make it illegal for insurance companies to include abortion coverage?


Also, why are Republicans telling insurance companies what they can or can't do? Why do they hate the free market?

No.  But then I'm guessing you didn't RTFA.


I see. So the law they attempted to pass last year, which tried to do the same thing and was vetoed, has absolutely no bearing on this current legislation.
 
2013-12-03 03:01:25 PM

sabreWulf07: formerfloozy: My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal.

WTF?


Sorry, I sould have said "my now ex-husband"
 
2013-12-03 03:04:09 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I can at least understand the pro-life people who go out and shoot abortion doctors. They see the clinic as a house of horrors, wherein hundreds or thousands of babies are being murdered every year, and decide to be a hero and save some lives. In their own warped mind, they're doing something noble. The other ones, I don't understand all that much, and I think I hate them more because of how big of hypocrites they are about the whole thing.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest?
Congratulations, you're in favor of murdering only certain kinds of babies.

You're a pro-lifer who can't make abortion illegal, but instead protest outside clinics?
Congratulations, you yelled at a woman murdering her baby and did nothing to stop it.

You're a pro-lifer who thinks that women shouldn't be tried as murderers for having abortions?
Congratulations, you're an asshole.


Morally an exception for rape can be justified without too much difficulty based on the mother's rights.

The key to the rape exception is that the woman did not chose to have sex, so her rights personal health and security is a relevant concern. Effectively a woman then has the right to self defense.

In cases other than rape, the woman consented to have the child the moment she let a penis enter her. So her rights are now irrelevant.
 
2013-12-03 03:06:27 PM

Dr Dreidel: tarthrin: The issue is that there is no recourse for the other 97% of the population to do anything about it until the next election cycle. I can't vote "no" on this petition. There won't be a state-wide referendum on it. I would be okay if these petitions ended up as state-wide votes instead just skipping past the governors desk into law.

Is that what's about to happen? Just take a petition signed by X people to the legislature, and BAM! - law?

If so, that's a huge problem, and for exactly the reason(s) you mention, and many, many others (not least of which is we already have "petitions" to get representatives in office for the sole purpose of examining and discussing proposed bills) - this is yet another way the GOP likes to abdicate the responsibility of actually governing in favor of rule by most-inflamed mob.

I thought they were collecting signatures for a ballot question.

// and it really doesn't matter out of how many people that sample was pulled
// it's out of the total number of registered voters in the state; the vote happens at the ballot box and not before


It's a little simplified, but basically the idea is that if you get enough signatures, your group can propose legislation to the state house, and they have to consider it and I think take a vote on it. (Which I think is fine, except for the Governor bypass)
In this instance the repubs tried to pass a similar bill, and it got vetoed.
So since this petition is "coincidentally" similar to the one that got vetoed....

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28xrjn2lj2t21orj55b1g1ky45%29%29/ mi leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-II-9

"No law initiated or adopted by the people shall be subject to the veto power of the governor, and no law adopted by the people at the polls under the initiative provisions of this section shall be amended or repealed, except by a vote of the electors unless otherwise provided in the initiative measure or by three-fourths of the members elected to and serving in each house of the legislature. "
 
Displayed 50 of 374 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report