Thread: MO Rep Wants to Ban Morning After Pill Because He's Stupid

I just love that title. Perfect.

The one thing you can count on is that Republicans will attempt to legislate women’s body based on information that they got from an email forward from their crazy uncle Jeff:

Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri, wants to ban the morning-after pill, considering it to be a form of abortion, he told a Kansas City radio station Wednesday. “As far as I’m concerned, the morning-after pill is a form of abortion, and I think we just shouldn’t have abortion in this country,” Akin said Wednesday, the day after his victory in the Republican primary, in an interview with Kansas City radio host Greg Knapp. Audio was posted by the liberal site Progress Missouri.
Knapp asked about Akin’s views on abortion in situations as rape and incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.
“Well, you know, the life of the mother, the situation there is one where I think what you want to do is optimize life. You try to save the mother’s life, you try to save the child,” said Akin. “There are certain things, like you know you get a tubal pregnancy — where the child has absolutely no chance of surviving — and then you do the best you can to save the mother’s life. So, I think you optimize life, is the way I would probably describe it.”
Knapp asked again: “So just to be clear, though, you would like to ban the morning-after, totally for everyone?”
“Yeah,” Akin said. “I think that’s a form of abortion, and I don’t support it.”

Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Missouri Rep. Todd Akin Wants to Ban the Morning After Pill Because He is Stupid

I wish legislators wouldn't legislate about stuff they know nothing about.

Originally Posted by Babba

I just love that title. Perfect.


Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Missouri Rep. Todd Akin Wants to Ban the Morning After Pill Because He is Stupid

I wish legislators wouldn't legislate about stuff they know nothing about.

It's just mind boggling that people can be that stupid.

What's mind-boggling to me is that some people refuse to recognize that the debate about abortion has nothing to do with a woman's control over her body/sexuality and everything to do with the right to life of the unborn child...

If he doesn't think abortion should be legal then why don't he go after abortion. Sour grapes. We have real issues facing this country right now. And I am sure the state of Missouri has real issues as well.

Originally Posted by metheron

If he doesn't think abortion should be legal then why don't he go after abortion. Sour grapes. We have real issues facing this country right now. And I am sure the state of Missouri has real issues as well.

The Supreme Court doesn't have the balls to attempt to tackle the question of when life begins and at what point human rights are established.

Originally Posted by sparsely

The Supreme Court doesn't have the balls to attempt to tackle the question of when life begins and at what point human rights are established.

Why would we want them to? The legality of abortion has already been ruled on. Beyond law is outside of their realm. They should stick to dictating law, which in the case of abortion, they have.

You may disagree with it, but it doesn't mean that haven't ruled on the law.

Originally Posted by metheron

Why would we want them to? The legality of abortion has already been ruled on. Beyond law is outside of their realm. They should stick to dictating law, which in the case of abortion, they have.

You may disagree with it, but it doesn't mean that haven't ruled on the law.

I don't understand why we wouldn't want them to do so.
We're talking about people...individuals. Citizens.

If we recognize that individuals have assigned natural rights by the virtue of their existence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) it behooves us to determine at what point we regard a human being to be afforded said rights.
The primary one being the right to life itself.
Therefore, it is our moral responsibility as a people to protect these basic rights for those who cannot defend them by themselves...

Originally Posted by sparsely

I don't understand why we wouldn't want them to do so.
We're talking about people...individuals. Citizens.

If we recognize that individuals have assigned natural rights by the virtue of their existence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) it behooves us to determine at what point we regard a human being to be afforded said rights.
The primary one being the right to life itself.
Therefore, it is our moral responsibility as a people to protect these basic rights for those who cannot defend them by themselves...

The Supreme Court interprets laws and their Constitutionality. That is their purpose. I wouldn't want them chasing down moral authority. Morals are different for everyone. Laws aren't. Its a losing purpose to have them defining morality.

Do you really want the Supreme Court to dictate morality to you? You can't pick and choose.

Originally Posted by sparsely

The Supreme Court doesn't have the balls to attempt to tackle the question of when life begins and at what point human rights are established.

Meh.... that's a good thing. After all, that would make them bigger idiots than they already are.

Originally Posted by sparsely

What's mind-boggling to me is that some people refuse to recognize that the debate about abortion has nothing to do with a woman's control over her body/sexuality and everything to do with the right to life of the unborn child...

So long as that unborn child is attached to the woman's body and dependent on her for life, it's definitely about her right to have control over her own body.

Regardless, the morning after pill has been proven without a doubt to not be abortion. It's not a subjective issue. To claim it is abortion is to be ignorant of the basic biology. Actual abortion is much more of a grey area.