©
RICHMOND
A Virginia legislator known for his opposition to abortion has filed a so-called "personhood" bill.
Del. Bob Marshall filed legislation Monday that states that human life begins at fertilization, and that Virginia's laws should grant rights, privileges and immunities to what the bill calls "unborn children."
Abortion-rights supporters say the Prince William County Republican's measure would outlaw abortion and threaten certain forms of birth control. They also say it's out of touch with Virginians' values and priorities.
The pre-filing period for legislation for the upcoming General Assembly session opened Monday.
In Mississippi, voters recently rejected a proposed constitutional "personhood" amendment.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
don't you love VA?
Many of our politicians never miss a chance to beat us over the head with their version of 'morality.' Why can't he stick with issues that actually effect him. Wouldn't this also ban birth control? How is it that Republicans, who claim to believe in individual rights and personal responsibility, never miss a chance to violate these tenets.
What is Fertilization?
Will the "pill" be outlawed? I think tt stops a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Will women of reproductive age be prevented from actions that may harm the fertilized egg? Then, 13 - 55 year old women will need to be kept under tabs.
I bet if someone looks at this closer we'll find a bill written by the same lobbying group that has put this on several states ballots.
Please stop the fundamentalists!
Comment deleted
Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling
politics
I think Virginia Del.Bob Marshall needs to be Fired for a Job unbecoming. This Commonwealth needs to be Pro-choice. No Two-Bit Politician,nor The Governor of Virginia should decide on what is right or wrong when a Woman makes that kind of decision. This is what is wrong with State and this Country..
Let anarchy reign?
It will not be a decision made by two people. The bill will be acted on by the elected representatives of the people of this state. That is how it works.
The majority is still bound by the Constitution.
Our highest court has ruled on the Constitutionality of this question with the very Solomaic Roe v Wade decision which explicitly prohibits the states from restricting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy and allows them to be regulated in the last).
A propsed law that so directly ignores that explicit ruling is very clearly Un-constitional and has no more business in the legislature than, say, a law prohibiting people to own handguns within a given jurisdiction. The Courts have spoken on both issues.
The comment was aimed specifically
at the assetion that a women should be able to choose right and wrong on that kind of decision. When 'that kind of decision' is left so open ended the result is anarchy. As for SCOTUS, remember the Dred Scott decision?
I consider myself an
I consider myself an independent, but I do tend to lean more to the right than the left. That being said, this is one of those areas that simply wreaks of hypocricy when it comes to conservative republicans. How can those who stand for individual rights, personal responsibility, and less government intrusion into our personal lives stand there and shout from the mountain tops that when it comes to one of the most fundamentally personal aspects of our being we should have no individual right to decide and that the government should reach right into our personal lives and dictate our behavior?
There is no contradiction
it all depends upon the premise you choose. If your premise is that a baby exists at conception then fighting for the baby's individual rights makes perfect sense and government 'intrusion' to protect that individual is a function of government. If your premise is that the woman's personal responsibility starts BEFORE she engages in sex, rather than after she becomes pregnant, then the personal responsibility aspect makes perfect sense as well. Of course, if you choose the premise that the baby does not exist until some other time none of it makes sense.
Yes there is a contradiction Mike - regardless of the Premise.
Let me explain.
You are apparently a fully fledged human being. Does the government have the right to force me to, say, have my bone marrow harvested if you need it to preserve your life? That is a painful and risky deal and I may CHOOSE to NOT do it.
Is it right that I be compelled to suffer and risk my health for YOUR benefit? Or should I be free to choose? Would compulsion be consistent with the general Conservative principle that the government has too much power over our lives?
If you say I cannot be compelled, then there is no logical reason why a woman should be - even if your premise is that the thing in her womb is a person. If you say I can be compelled, then you are not a Conservative. See the contradiction now?