Refusal to Prosecute Anti-Abortion Laws Highlights Whim Powering Legal System

Goya, Saturn Devouring His Son,
painted sometime between 1819-1823.
The image represents America today,
as judicial cult deliberating in secret has
decided women no longer have autonomy
over their bodies. The Supreme Cult seeks
other victims, amid warning, no criticism.

Commentary: Prosecutorial Discretion and Liberty

Madison, Wisconsin — Many citizens read the news that Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D) declared his office will not investigate or prosecute woman for abortion-related 'offenses' with approval.

Kaul made his intentions to refuse enforcement of Wisconsin's 1849 ban on abortion following oral arguments of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Dec 2021.

The Supreme Court decision on Dobbs will soon eviscerate reproductive liberty as the judiciary jettisons its station as a Court of law.

"Even if courts were to interpret that [1849] law as being enforceable, as attorney general I would not use the resources of the Wisconsin Department of Justice either to investigate alleged violations of that abortion ban or to prosecute alleged violations of it," Kaul said in an interview with the AP.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) claims to be outraged by Kaul and other DAs and attorneys general vowing to refuse to enforce anti-abortion laws.

Republican justices on the nonpartisan Wisconsin Supreme Court will interpret Wisconsin's 1849 ban as enforceable after Republicans on the nonpartisan United States Supreme Court hold women no longer have reproductive liberty.

Kaul was criticized for his abortion-law position by his Republican opponents for attorney general — Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney and State Rep. Adam Jarchow (R- Balsam Lake) in the AP piece.

"I am proudly pro-life and I will defend the police and defend our Wisconsin laws, including our abortion ban, if allowed," said Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney (R).

Adam Jarchow said that Kaul is a failed leader for his stated refusal to enforce criminal law. "[W]hile it’s disappointing that he says he will not follow the law, it’s not surprising," said Jarchow.

Some Wisconsin laws are more worthy of being followed and enforced than others.

Fast-forward five months to May 2022 and Jarchow is excoriating his Republican Primary opponent, Eric Toney, for enforcing Wisconsin's emergency order banning mass gatherings in 2020 (Opoien, The Capital Times). Republicans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided the ban was illegal.

But there is no rule of law to be found among prosecutors and judges.

Prosecutorial Discretion

Advocates for the wrongfully convicted continue to blast Attorney General Joshua Kaul for his political decision not to employ prosecutorial discretion in the DOJ's ludicrous crusade to keep those whom the State knows to be innocent in prison in post-conviction litigation, (see Steven Avery Motion to Stay Appeal and Remand, includes new eyewitness affidavit. April 12, 2021; Steven Avery Legal Filings - Updates;  State of Wisconsin v. Steven A. Avery, Appeal Number 2017AP002288 Wisconsin Democrats Block Exoneration Seekers.)

Advocates for the exonerated Black Lives Matter protesters in Madison similarly blasted the Democrat-led Dane County District Attorney’s office for changing its charging standard in two bizarre Black Lives Matter cases to accommodate a racist Democrat State Senator, Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee).

Prosecuting charged law-breakers is determined by politics, increasingly so.

And the judiciary is a politically charged branch of government that hides behind black robes and pretension.

The rule of law is the product of the personal whims of officeholders. Refusal to acknowledge this reality gives prosecutors (and judges) political cover.

Liberty and the rule of law are little more than political slogans of two corrupt and destructive politcal parties.

And prosecutors, in the words of Robert Jackson, are potentially the worst threats to a civil society.

"While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst," writes Robert Jackson in The Federal Prosecutor.

As prosecutors lie and posture to the public to no accountability, Jackson's warnings speak loudly today.

It's imperative to refuse to enforce unjust law such as bans on abortion animated by a dishonest judiciary engineering its unpopular, anti-liberty agenda in secret, as the U.S. Supreme Court proceeds.

Gap between government and the people

The fact of the matter is the enormous power of the prosecutor to direct state violence has corrupted entire professions, and the judiciary, as these super cults become focused on destroying liberty.

As the liberty of an entire class of people stands on the brink of elimination by black-robed cultists, we should consider the words of Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45, (University of Chicago Press. ©1955).

"What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap ... between the government and the people."

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand."...

This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter."

The prosecutor, the judiciary and the legal system as a whole have turned into a remote and destructive force that, even as the system's nature and effect become more obvious, cries out in response that the real danger is public criticism and calls for transparency.

We need massive reform on the power of the prosecutor and the judiciary as institutional narcissism working for totalitarian movements now feeds on the public with renewed appetite.

But even casual observers must know in their hearts, reform is not possible. Only massive civil disobedience and general strikes can save liberty today.

U.S. Supreme Court, State and Federal Judiciary Need Radical Reform

Madison, Wisconsin — If you ever have spoken with a mother of a wrongfully convicted victim, you know why you should work to free the innocent and condemn the judiciary.

Mothers are up against unyielding judges and prosecutors who operate in collusion with other politicians, against the innocent.

The judiciary branch at all levels of operation is often a black-robed bulwark against justice. All those wrongful convictions we hear about in the news?

These miscarriages of justice are presided over by judges, but it's taboo to point out that strutting judges have ruined lives, and that judges are catastrophically wrong in how they conducted themselves.

Judges, especially federal judges, are commonly absurd figures, yet unless you read Lara Bazelon (as one should), this reality of the judiciary is protected by professional taboo, cult command, corporate media and Democrats.

Richard Posner, public intellectual and former judge on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, upon his retirement, termed many federal judges, "reactionary beasts," manipulating statutes and the Constitution as they engineer desired results in federal litigation.

But even Posner shied away from a full-blooded critique for reasons unknown.

The United States Supreme Court is poised to launch a massive assault against liberty, and escalate judicial malice to a new level — the long-planned destruction of women's liberty, in accordance with the Catholic Church and other political actors.

This coming instantaneous ripping away of foundational rights is not inducing national Democratic Party voices to demand radical reform of the judiciary branch (Roe v. Wade, Politico, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization). Last year, at oral arguments in Dobbs, Democrats offered statements that they may be open to considering and looking at the issue of Court reform and not "doing nothing." Seriously, that's what Democrats had to say on the eve of the destruction of Roe, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Rules of Professional Conduct of attorneys generally protect the judges' cult, and broadly forbid attorneys from pointing out intellectually dishonest operations of judges and other attorneys.

In fact, attorneys operate under an affirmative duty to "further the public's ... confidence in the rule of law and the justice system." Democrats in Congress and the presidency follow these taboo dictates, no matter the provocation.

Even when the justice system and its actors are dishonest and destructive. Can you imagine a member of Congress or a president demanding public confidence and respect, on the pain of contempt and imprisonment? Their popularity would tank immediately, and such officials would be suspected of having taken leave of their senses.

Not so the judiciary branch.

Writes Lara Bazelon in The Strand Magazine in June 2021:

Judges are the kings and queens of the legal system, literally looking at the populace they rule over from perches high up on a mahogany dais.  Referred to as 'Your Honor,' they demand constant verbal genuflection and scurrying about in response to their commands that is the equivalent of bowing and scraping.

'God save the United States and this Honorable Court!' the U.S. Marshal solemnly intones after the gavel comes down, a roomful of people stand up, and the nine justices of the Supreme Court enter the hallowed marble fiefdom where they preside.

In federal court, you don’t go anywhere or do anything without asking for permission.  'May it please the court?' 'May I approach?' 'May I confer with my client?' 'May I ask for a brief recess so that I can go to the bathroom and throw up because even though I am deathly ill you made me show up anyway?'

Judges are the closest thing that America has to royalty. Their power is enormous: what they do changes the courses of fortunes and lives.  They can award millions, even billions, they can send people to prison for the rest of their lives—or to their deaths. Often their decisions bind future generations. Because judges have so much power and responsibility, we assume they are eminently deserving of the honor and authority conferred upon them.

As the Dobbs leak shows, the judiciary does not function in an intellectually honest, apolitical fashion objectively finding facts, doctrine and application of law like detached agents of pure epistemology, hard science enforced by tyrannical control of courtrooms and taboo rules against public criticism.

Judges act as black-robed kobolds, diminutive "goblin-like creatures with short-tempers and a mischievous spirit."

Congress needs to begin reform of the judiciary that will include mandates that every oral argument, judicial memo and correspondence be revealed to the American people in as close to real-time as possible.

Judges cannot be trusted with the honor and authority conferred upon them.

The institutional narcissism and unparalleled arrogance of the judicial branch, working for totalitarian movements, needs to come to an end.

System Choice — Power to Direct State Violence Is Discretionary, Political and Vicious

The once exonerated Steven Avery faces
his most malicious enemy in the
Democratic Party and a corrupt
Wisconsin Judiciary that has abdicated
its duty to act with impartiality. Damage and
destruction are the aims against Avery
and his nephew who have committed a
mortal sin in Wisconsin: Fighting back
against state violence and corrupt cops.
SPIRITS Goya sneered at malevolent clergy
in Hobgoblins.

Madison, Wisconsin — In Wisconsin, human rights workers fight for the innocent — brutalized by liars populating offices of district attorneys, attorneys general and seemingly an entire state judiciary — yet these same human rights advocates often labor under delusion.

This delusion is that the criminal justice system and the judiciary function in an intellectually honest, non-political fashion objectively finding facts, doctrine and application of law like detached, non-political agents of pure epistemology, so dedicated as to approach hard science.

Lunacy. Worse, it's a lie.

While not every Wisconsin district attorney is a verminous Ken Kratz (driven from law and Wisconsin), or an odious Vince Biskupic (a sitting judge!), nor is every cop a Matt Kenny (still a Madison cop) or Mark Wiegert (still a sheriff) or a cold-blooded killer Stephen Heimsness (sponging off Madison people as he claims he was traumatized for killing the innocent Paul Heenan), misconduct and malignant action of cops and prosecutors incur little costs, commonly garner professional awards, and win plaudits from most judges.

Put another way, cops will kill, and prosecutors will destroy life; and the judiciary, best understood as a cult of high  clergy, will stamp its imprimatur as agents of the Sovereign, smiling down on imprisoned slaves of the state like black-robed kobolds, diminutive "goblin-like creatures with short-tempers and a mischievous spirit."

See, for example, Wisconsin sitting County Circuit Judge Vince Biskupic: "[J]ust stay away from anything to do with [Vince] Biskupic. He will pull you into this (a homicide charge). You have nothing to do with it. He doesn’t care about you or your kids," a lawyer warned an innocent, lest she become another victim of Wisconsin injustice. 

And that was before Biskupic became a Outagamie County judge, and before he resigned in scandal as Outagamie County District Attorney.

Scandal and crime rarely disqualify for service in Wisconsin's criminal justice system.

The Judiciary

Widespread faith in the state and federal judiciaries persist no matter deceit.

This may be changing.

As judicial supremacists in the United States Supreme Court have decided women no longer possess autonomy over their own bodies and no longer have liberty to choose whether they have children, millions of Americans are asking, who the hell do these justices think they are? Monarchs?

It's a good question, but one that up to now was more likely to be brought up by Sidney Powell than the Democrat establishment.

The question of judicial supremacy especially as embodied in the federal judiciary that routinely overrides the will of Congress and the presidency on liberty questions, per Court caprice or service to favored interests, has been staring America in the face for a long time.

Civil disobedience is only now becoming widespread.

During COVID 19 that spurred a body of law governing citizen behavior on public health grounds, sheriffs the nation-over stated as Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said, "state law does not have the power to supersede or suspend the Constitutional rights of American citizens" (WISC-TV).

Racine's Schmaling and others were not going to let laws or any judge intrude upon liberty (Washington Post, The Guardian).

Following the heroic leaking of the draft Supreme Court opinion eviscerating reproductive liberty enshrined in Roe v. Wade, (Politico) (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization), Democrat prosecutors across the nation raced to declare they will not prosecute women under existing state laws defining abortion as a criminal offense (Washington Post). See Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al. No. 19-1392.

Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D) declared his office will not investigate or prosecute woman or doctors for abortion 'offenses.' Further, Kaul is discouraging district attorneys and law enforcement throughout the state from enforcing an 1849 ban on abortion.

Putting aside why Wisconsin Democrats did not legislate away this ban in 2009 when Democrats had unitary control of state government, Kaul said on social media this week that his determination to protect women's choice would be fought on several fronts, including the courts, "We must speak out against this effort to erode Wisconsinites’ freedom. If the Court abandons precedent and Roe falls, we must fight to protect reproductive freedom—and our other freedoms—in Congress, state legislatures, and state courts."

We must speak out against this effort to erode Wisconsinites’ freedom. If the Court abandons precedent and Roe falls, we must fight to protect reproductive freedom—and our other freedoms—in Congress, state legislatures, and state courts. 4/4

— Attorney General Josh Kaul (@WisDOJ) May 3, 2022

Human Rights

Disobedience of Court-sanctioned lawlessness is a healthy development for human rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the face of judicial malignancy, commenting on the Roe opinion leak, said people must "live with outcomes we don’t agree with" or the judiciary is imperiled.

Really? In Thomas' view, there is no recourse once the judicial kings and queens have spoken. It's how Thomas and his friends view the Court.

The United States Supreme Court is poised to issue an edict that women are no longer masters of their own bodies, and following the release of this information, Thomas reasons we have to "live" with it.

We can hope that recent disobedience to what Thomas terms an "outcome" will be the beginning of massive civil disobedience, transparency from the Court, and resulting reform that will include mandates that every oral argument, judicial memo and correspondence be revealed to the American people in as close to real-time as possible.

The institutional narcissism and unparalleled arrogance of the judicial branch, working for the police and totalitarian movements needs to come to an end.

Clueless Democrats Ignore Insight of Stephen Macedo

Stephen Macedo. The New Right v. the Constitution
(Washington: Cato Institute, 1987)

"When conservatives like [Robert] Bork treat rights as islands surrounded by a sea of government powers, they precisely reverse the view of the Founders as enshrined in the Constitution, wherein government powers are limited and specified and rendered as islands surrounded by a sea of individual rights."
- Stephen Macedo. The New Right v. the Constitution (Washington: Cato Institute, 1987)

Bork and his tyrannical vision were defeated in the U.S. Senate in 1987.

But Bork won at the Court this term, as Democrats floundered and drowned in identity politics and incompetence.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden seems oblivious on how to proceed.

Asked this morning if codifying Roe or abolishing the filibuster to help protect women's reproductive choice are the offing, Biden replied, "I am not prepared to make those judgements now."

America Entrusted Roe to Democrats; Party and Identity Politics Pissed Choice Away

Democrats Are Incompetent

Update: Biden says, "I am not prepared to make those judgements now," on codifying Roe or abolishing filibuster to help protect women's reproductive choice.
Actually, now would be a good time to make those "judgements."
---
Chants of "Do something, Democrats," rang out in D.C. last night, Reuters reports.

Wrong party. Democrats don't do things.

The chants for action took place at a demonstration outside the U.S. Supreme Court following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion eviscerating Roe v. Wade, (Politico) in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, designed by activists to overturn Roe.

Following oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in Dec 2021, Democrat senators vowed that they may be open to considering and looking at the issue of not doing "nothing."

Seriously, that was the Democrat reaction last year.

As millions of women stand to lose their right to choose, that's the best congressional Democrats and Pres Biden could do, as reported by the Washington Post last Dec, four months ago.

Here's a quote from a leading Democrat senator exemplifying Democrat floundering on the proposed effort to expand the number of Court justices: "I’m not ready to say we need to change the number of justices," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said. "[W]e need to take a look at how the court functions."

Morons.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg refused to resign after being diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer in 2013, to Democrat cheers. Way to live female empowerment, Ginsberg, a critic of Roe, who seven years later bequeathed her seat to a lifelong foe of reproductive choice.

Hillary Clinton and corporatist Democrats rigged the 2016 Democrat precedential primary. Female empowerment, right? Trump nominated three Court justices, the margin Supreme Court politicians needed to reverse Roe.

If you believe the loss of reproductive choice will goad Democrats into action to safeguard reproductive rights, you are deranged.

I don’t want to hear one Democrat whine or fundraise or talk about how the Republicans are big bad meanies today. I want to hear how they’re going to use their power to codify and protect reproductive rights. I don’t want their sympathy; I want their battle plans.

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) May 3, 2022

Republicans to Women: Your Bodies, Our Choice

Not so fast says federal Judge, blocking GOP law.

Scott Walker and his "savior" say they know better than women what they should do with their own bodies, health and lives.

Here we are in the 21st century and a major American political party - composed mostly of religious, white men - is still telling women what's best for them.

The forces of fanaticism and ignorance do remain forever busy.

Scott Walker, GOP Did Not Run on What They Are Doing to Wisconsin

Republicans are pouring out their extremist legislative agenda that ought to concern all Wisconsin citizens just now learning about it.

Did you ever hear Scott Walker and the Republicans say a top priority is limiting women's choice what to do with their bodies which Republicans assert should be used according to its Party's dictates; mandatory ultrasound for women seeking abortions; restricting access to contraceptives; and creating a new pretend issue stopping women from obtaining abortion that calculates sex selection?

Did you hear Republicans campaign on Wisconsin adopting an ALEC-Supported, for-profit Bail Bonding bill slipped into the budget?

Republican do not believe in accountability.

Their conception of government is authoritarian, disdainful of civil liberties, and misogynistic.

Who wants to run on that?

Wisconsin's War on Women escalates:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The New Dr. Ultrasound—Scott Walker

Scott Walker remains committed to the war against women.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has thrown his support behind an anti-abortion measure that’s currently moving through the state legislature, saying he will sign the bill into law if it makes it to his desk. SB 206 would require women to undergo an ultrasound before getting an abortion — which would mandate an invasive transvaginal probe for some of the women who seek early abortions in their first trimester — and force one of the state’s last abortion clinics to close its doors.

“I don’t have any problem with ultrasound,” Walker told reporters on Tuesday in Milwaukee. “I think most people think ultrasounds are just fine.”
- Tara Culp-Ressler

Justice Ginsberg Way-off on Roe v. Wade

Update: Erwin Chemerinsky writes "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire from the Supreme Court after the completion of the current term in June. She turned 81 on Saturday and by all accounts she is healthy and physically and mentally able to continue. But only by resigning this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president will be able to choose a successor who shares her views and values." (LA Times)

Diane P. Wood, Margaret Raymond, and so many brilliant, young jurists are ready that Ginsberg's obviously outstanding tenure aside, not stepping down is selfish in the face of American misogyny and the brand of authoritarianism that is arising now from underground into the judiciary.
---Time for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to get off the Court

What ahistorical spasms have taken ahold of Justice Ginsberg?

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993-present) told an audience at the University of Chicago Law School on Saturday night that a lack of 'judicial restraint' in the court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade gave abortion opponents a 'clear target' that continues to fuel anti-choice activism 40 years later," notes Katie McDonough this morning in Salon.

A clear target?

Women have been the clear target of the Catholic Church hierarchy and free roaming misogyny since the inception of the United States of America.

Roe stopped the enforcement of anti-choice state laws outlawing abortion.

Salon's McDonough also references similar comments that Ginsberg made in April:

As noted by the New York Times editorial board and Yale Law School professors Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel, Ginsburg’s previously-asserted idea that the court got 'ahead of public opinion' on abortion and 'short-circuited' an evolving political process at the state level is deeply problematic.

If one follows Ginsberg's logic, the Court should never protect the constitutional rights of minorities in the face of majority opinion because that would make political targets of minorities by assorted majority bigots and oppressive, tyrannical law of which America has a long, shameful tradition.

Ginsberg goes on pursuing several lines of thought, all of which do not demonstrate a clear hold of any conception of the civil rights of Americans, and certainly not specifically the constitutional imperative to protect free choice, an issue that props up the GOP and Tea Party as major political forces.

Ginsberg's public forays into political strategy are ill-conceived and foolish for a sitting justice of the Court, and her constitutional jurisprudence is suspect.

Ginsberg is 80-year-old.

And she is no William O. Douglas or Robert Jackson. Ginsberg should resign at the end of term in June.

The stakes are way too high with this reckless, statist Roberts-Scalia court and the forces of authoritarianism that hold sway in the majority of states.

GOP Bets Heavily on the Appeal of Misogyny

Photo that caught a nation napping as women are targeted

Update II: Irin Carmon reports: Something incredible just happened. Faced with a growing national outcry against a bill forcing an ultrasound before an abortion — which activists and legislators had been comparing to rape — Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell backed off from his earlier support. “Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state,” he said in a statement today. “No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.”

Update: See Opus Dei and the War on Birth Control: Neofascism Within the Catholic Church

Those failing to challenge Virginia's state-mandated (not just state-sponsored) rape of women are betraying humanity. The War on Women has been declared; whose side are you on?
---
The above-right shot is not a photo of a 16th century inquisition. This is 2012, and these men are going to engage in a discussion on WOMEN'S health, contraception, and family planning.

I'm not going to ask "What's wrong with this picture?"

We know what's wrong.

I'm asking how can this be happening in 2012?

By Progressive Eruptions

What I want to know is: Where are the women?” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked the committee chairman, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) before walking out. “I look at this panel and I don’t see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning. Where are the women?”

More here.

From Politico:

"The image of men dominating the discussion about women’s health, say those on the left, may galvanize women voters in the way that the Senate Judiciary Committee's handling of sexual harassment allegations against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas did in 1991.That incident is widely credited with the election of a large number of Democratic women the next year.

'I think it is an Anita Hill comparison,' said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who staged a walkout of Democratic women in protest of the chairman’s decision not to seat a minority female witness at the start of the hearing. 'I hope it will be just as galvanizing.' ”

More anti-woman legislation:

This time from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which just passed a bill that REQUIRES a doctor to give a transvaginal ultrasound (that is legislating vaginal penetration by the state) before a woman receives a legal medical procedure, even when the doctor deems it is not necessary. Democrats in the legislature tried to pass an amendment to the bill:

"An amendment by Del. David Englin, D-Alexandria, would have allowed medical professionals to determine whether images can be obtained without being penetrated by equipment used in the ultrasound."

The amendment failed.

Republican Governor McDonnell says he will sign the bill.

Got that?

Lord, you'd think there's less fools in this world

Virginia is poised to legislate forced penetration of a pregnant woman's vagina in order to obtain an image of the embryo or fetus and then the woman will be forced to view the image before she is able to receive a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

No exceptions under any circumstances whatsoever.

This monstrosity of a law forced on the women of Virginia by the party that wants government out of its lives.

The GOP has lost its mind; and certainly women's votes.

Here are some of the comments on the website announcing the legislation:

"Wake up Virginia! Wake up America! Virginia is about to pass legislation that requires women to undergo an invasive search of her body in an effort to gain permission from Republican legislators for her to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure from her doctor.

Now, if anyone wants to liken this law to that of the Nazi regime, go right ahead."

*****

"Forcing women to be penetrated vaginally? Isn't that the equivalent of rape??"

*****

"Well, reads that way to me ... but with rape you could get pregnant and then denied the right to abort the child of a socio or psychopath ... UNLESS you agree to be penetrated once again. You can see the logic to their argument, nes pas? Again, does it not appear that logic is nowhere in this legisltive thought process? Just sayin' ..."

*****

"If rape is nonconsensual penetration, then what the government is mandating is rape of a pregnant women. Have we gone so far down that path that our most vulnerable citizens can be treated in such a criminal manner. I hope the courts are getting to overturn this monstrous legislation."
*****

"An affront to all women everywhere!"

UPDATE:

From ThinkProgress:

"As Dahlia Lithwick explains, the effect of this bill would be to force most women to undergo a stunningly invasive procedure for no medical reason whatsoever. “Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.”



Virginia mandates rape - nothing less

 In case Lithwick’s description doesn’t completely drive home what this means, here is a depiction of the procedure that women would be forced to endure under the Virginia bill:"
"Simply put, it is difficult to distinguish a law requiring women to be vaginally penetrated by a long metal object from state-sponsored rape. Worse, discussions among lawmakers leave little doubt that its supporters understood just what they were trying to write into law — they just didn’t care. As an unnamed lawmaker told a fellow Virginia delegate, a woman already consented to being “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant."(confirmed with Englin that this quote was accurate.)

"VIRGINIA IS FOR MORONS"

Charlie Pierce writing in Esquire: "Yes, and anyone who has had their earlobes pierced already has made the decision that, one day, the law would require them to have a tenpenny nail driven into their eye."

Pro-Nader WI Site Says Roe v. Wade Safer with McCain!

The Proletariat site contends "It seems to me Roe v. Wade will be a lot safer in a McCain than an Obama presidency," promoting Ralph Nader's appearance in Madison tonight.

Is this guy kidding?

From John McCain's site on women's choice:

Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life Overturning Roe v. Wade John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.

I have voted for Nader for president before, but I swear some of these pro-Nader people are as deluded and oblivious to facts as the religious right.

Let's hope someone from the Cap Times hits Nader with the question about Nader being concerned that a McCain administration would result in overturning Roe.

UW's Shapiro, Charo Hit Bush Effort to Limit Women's Reproductive Freedom

A woman's right to choose is dead if John McCain is elected president.

But the Bush administration is fighting to inflict as much damage as possible on women prior to that sickening possibility of choice disappearing, including decreasing the availability of contraception.

From today's Washington Post:

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

"The breadth of this is potentially immense," said Robyn S. Shapiro, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "Is this going to result in a kind of blessed censorship of a whole host of areas of medical care and research?" ... Critics charge that the proposal is the latest example of the administration politicizing science to advance ideological goals. ... Others said the rule could have additional implications, including justifying discrimination against gays, single women or others seeking health care.
"As soon as you have a definition in one part of federal law, it can become the inspiration for the reinterpretation of other statutes," said R. Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

McCain is even more anti-choice than Bush. It will be interesting to see where McCain lines up on this initiative.

Is this late initiative intended as a way for McCain to shore support with the religious right, though this would hurt him with political independents?

Or is this George W. Bush just being the fool to whom we have become accustomed?

One thing is certain, all women and all who value women's civil rights should be outraged.