They Laughed When I Said This Would Happen.

Back in March, I wrote a blog about a bill that had been introduced into the Kansas legislature to monitor pregnant women.  Motivation for the bill was to investigate women who had miscarriages for the possibility they might have had off the books abortions.

Several of my readers complained such laws would never come to be because when abortion was illegal before Roe no such laws had existed.  Their compliancy needs to be corrected.  Politically, times were different.  Now, there is a war on women and we will see laws meant to control them during pregnancy.

Early on, we may not see laws labeled specifically as meant for suspicious miscarriages.  They will be said to be for other reasons.  This has happened in Tennessee.

Against the advice of doctors and professionals in the field, the Governor has signed a bill criminalizing drug use by pregnant women.  Note the word, “criminalizing”. This means law enforcement will be involved, not just health officials.  There are many good reasons why women should not use drugs, be overweight, have bad diets, etc., but there are also good reasons why government should not regulate every aspect of a pregnant woman’s life.

We have now seen law enforcement invited into the realm of pregnancy. Once in, law enforcement has to be given access to many private aspects of a woman’s life.  As I pointed out, any woman who has a miscarriage but has on her computer evidence that she looked up a site that gave instructions on home abortions may be in for some jail time.

http://redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/03/25/if-human-life-at-conception-is-law-all-miscarriages-will-be-suspicious-its-already-started/

http://aattp.org/american-taliban-tn-gop-governor-signs-bill-criminalizing-womens-pregnancy-outcomes/

P. S. For a different kind of discussion about religious issues, please visit the debates between my friend, Father Oliver Herbel, and myself. We are having fun exchanging essays and would enjoy your comments:

http://holyresurrection.areavoices.com/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to They Laughed When I Said This Would Happen.

  1. Carr says:

    The right wants government out of everything, no regulation. No oversight especially on big business. But, when it comes to my uterus, let’s just micro manage the hell out of it! It won’t be long before women have to prove that they did nothing to cause their miscarriages. We are moving back to when women are just chattel and a vessel for incubating children.

    • Henry says:

      Your supposition and Jon’s extrapolation. In land nav, if you are off by just a degree, you are off by a significant distance to hitting your target. Jon’s extrapolation is off by many degrees.

      • entech says:

        The state legislature has passed a bill that would allow police to investigate drug-taking mothers if their unborn children are harmed by their addiction.

        Tennessee may become the first state with a law that could criminally prosecute pregnant women if they harm their unborn children by taking illegal drugs. Miscarriages, stillbirths, and infants born with birth defects would be grounds for police investigation and charges that could put the mother behind bars for up to 15 years.

        Last week, the proposed legislation to allow for criminal assault charges to be brought against drug-addicted pregnant women overwhelmingly passed the Tennessee Senate with bipartisan support after already sailing through the House.
        This looks close to what Jon was talking about. Henry would feel obliged to come up with some argument against it. Henry who never lets accuracy affect his case. In this case it is so close to what Jon was talking about earlier that you would need a huge angle to move far from the target.
        And on the other hand you get so much chit chat from the anti gay crowd, so much thin end of the wedge stuff, the inevitability of descent into human/animal marriage is propounded as a reasonable extrapolation.
        Tennessee is not the thin end of the wedge. it has been driven so far in that there is enough space to put a hydraulic jack in there to finish the job.

        An interesting statistic was given in the story, America has more people imprisoned now that Stalin had at his peak. Another interesting statistic America has the largest Christian contingent per head of population and the highest Jail population per head of population. Coincidence or natural corollary?
        Of course statistics are open to being read differently according to what result you want to wring from them, if you are a real twister you can squeeze what is not there if you really want, and Henry is a real tornado.

        • Henry says:

          As usual, your bearing is off. Jon’s concern of criminality of aborted fetus is not present.

          • Henry says:

            A link to entech’s personal attacks. How surprising.

          • entech says:

            Suggesting that you might think things through is a personal attack, what a sensitive little person you must be behind the bluster and bravado.
            I sometimes think that in your view that an atheist breathes is a personal attack.

            None the less it is a good diversion from the fact that you are changing the subject.

          • Henry says:

            Your 5:24 had already engaged in personal attack. My 11:05 is in excellent order to this discussion.

          • entech says:

            To suggest that you twist things to the way you want them, or more politely interpret them in the manner most suitable to your cause is not really a personal attack, better described as fair comment.

            Your consistent prefacing of anything you want to belittle with “The Atheist” is the practically a definition of personal attack, a personal attack against anyone that does not believe as you do.

            Miscarriages, stillbirths, and infants born with birth defects would be grounds for police investigation and charges that could put the mother behind bars for up to 15 years. The investigation of miscarriages and similar is what Jon was on about in the previous post. If a woman fall down stairs did she do it deliberately, if yes, in jail with her seem to be the implication in the media report I read. Introducing abortion as an emotional diversion is typical of your actions, that is personal and it is a fact. You will say anything to advance your agenda.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“Your consistent prefacing of anything you want to belittle with “The Atheist” is the practically a definition of personal attack, a personal attack against anyone that does not believe as you do.”

            The fact that you characterize my use of the words “the atheist” as a pejorative is telling. You seem to interpret its usage as negative, perhaps displaying your very own prejudice. I would think an atheist being called “the atheist” would be honorable. You have communicated loud and clear multiple times, with no disagreement from your cohorts, your objection to its use. Why would an atheist be embarrassed to be known as the atheist? Strange.

          • entech says:

            Again this is twisted to your meaning, the tornado strikes again. The objection is to your use of the expression to imply that because it is something to do with the atheist it is automatically wrong, this is the classical ad hominem fallacy, it is irritating and humorous at the same time, your consistent retorts against fallacy and logic from the atheist is consistent with your own scribblings.

            This does not mean that the atheist is sometimes wrong, perhaps on some subjects more than sometimes. It does not mean that he is wrong because he is (she is) an atheist simply wrong. And not wrong because you disagree, you may think it is wrong because it does not pass your scriptural filter but that is no more valid than my view that most things viewed through your scripture are wrong.

            So not embarrassed to be known as the atheist, I did try to argue against the designation a few years ago but gave up on that when it became obvious that you did not know what it meant and did not care. You can’t be embarrassed by something/someone that is just a joke.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“You can’t be embarrassed by something/someone that is just a joke.”

            My words were, “Why would an atheist be embarrassed to be known as the atheist?” In the context as presented, are you now saying “the atheist” is a joke? Unreal.

          • entech says:

            Again the inability to see straight.
            My reply was it is not possible to be embarrassed by a joke, the joke being the the way you use it and by extension you yourself.

  2. Adam Heckathorn says:

    I have thought lately about the Gap between what People say They believe and what Their Actions say They believe. Which leaves Me in a Quandary, do I Believe Their Mindless Words or their conflicting Mindless action. (James 1:22-24) 22?However, become doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning. 23?For if anyone is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, this one is like a man looking at his natural face in a mirror. 24?For he looks at himself, and off he goes and immediately forgets what sort of man he is. Jon’s near Prophet like prediction made Me think in a Scriptural manner. Considering the number of Folks imprisoned for Their addictions, The Racial injustice in The System born out by statistics, Wouldn’t it be nice if Christians could actually see these as They actually are People in need of a little help maybe a little practical guidance?

    • Henry says:

      Psst….Adam….the Tennessee legislators pushing this were unanimously (gasp) democrat working against republican holdouts, a strong indicator this Tennessee issue isn’t adversarial to abortion rights. Not all democrats are proabort and not all repubics are prolife, however the finalized legislation generally can be divided by party lines.

      I’m still awaiting the atheist religious prophecy of Jon to be fulfilled. This isn’t it.

      • Adam Heckathorn says:

        I think it’s certainly close and when They investigate the first Women because She was pregnant and now isn’t, or because of health problems with a new born We may have to give Jon his due as a Prophet!

        • Henry says:

          I don’t think so. Proof of intent for a home abortion versus an unintended miscarriage would be impossible. The law would not generally pursue even if something was on the books. Contrast that situation with a crack baby, for which the intent can clearly be seen: that the mother induced a testable, illegal substance at great risk to the baby. You are comparing apples and oranges wishing for a slippery slope that isn’t legally possible when intent is considered.

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            “the law would generally not pursue…”

            And you know this how? This will be determined by what actually happens. How can you possibly know this? Of course, you can’t so you are engaging in projecting your skewed version of how you think it will unfold. Does that make you a prophet? Yikes. That’s a scary thought.

          • Carr says:

            Would the moral police also take away the glass of Pinot noir I am drinking when I am 8 months pregnant?

          • entech says:

            Contrast that situation with a crack baby, for which the intent can clearly be seen: that the mother induced a testable
            Your fable logic is going a little astray here Henry.
            You seem to be saying that there would be no way to prove intent to deliberately induce a miscarriage, to affect a home abortion. That the case would not be pursued.
            Then you say that the addict can be proved to have ingested a drug with the “intent” to harm the unborn. I do think that addicts are also a little addled, not thinking straight because of the needs of the addiction, they cannot even think about harm to themselves let alone form an intent on the use of the drug except to relieve whatever physical or emotional pain that is driving them on.

            Why would they introduce a law that they had no intention of using?

          • Henry says:

            r:“Of course, you can’t so you are engaging in projecting your skewed version of how you think it will unfold.”

            Please tell how intent could be proven. Your fears are unfounded.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“Why would they introduce a law that they had no intention of using?”

            What law are the proabort people fear mongering about? If abortion services are banned, then the providers would be breaking the law if they continue the practice. Fear is unnecessarily being provoked and preyed upon for women who may have a miscarriage in order to promote the slaughterhouse agenda of the proabort crowd.

          • entech says:

            You continue to conflate a miscarriage and determining if it was accidental or ‘intended’ and the possibility of pressing charges. With the act of abortion illegal or otherwise. Simply dishonest.

            Well I am off for an early night, good that you seem to have been up most of the night in your time zone – it explains many things.

          • Jinx says:

            Sometimes we need to ignore little Henry when his 33.33 rpm record is stuck and repeating, over, over, and over.

          • Henry says:

            Nothing to add to the topic, Jinx? Your team seems to be projecting a lot today. As usual, you struggle to contribute.

    • StanB says:

      Look up the “residents encounter Christ” retreat program. We ARE trying to help the prisoners. Last weekend over sixty Christians in central Minnesota spent their weekend in jail helping the inmates look at their lifestyle from a biblical point of view. Over Saturday and Sunday we put in over thirty hours each. This is a program sponsored and paid for by that hated Catholic Church.

  3. Adam Heckathorn says:

    “Contrast that situation with a crack baby, for which the intent can clearly be seen” I believe the intent would be to get High perhaps to temporarily escape an unbearable Life. Certainly I can understand culpability just as I understand culpability with The Mother that smokes cigarettes, has a glass of wine while pregnant. I believe We will be better served as a Society if We work to make Life more meaningful for People like this.

    • Henry says:

      Adam:“I believe We will be better served as a Society if We work to make Life more meaningful for People like this.”

      Who couldn’t agree with that? However, that does not address the question.

    • entech says:

      Yes. Interesting that the atheist perspective is to try and improve the situation. Henry, the fine Christian, in an act of brotherly love, seems to say punish them they must be sinners.

      What do you think Henry, unwarranted extension? perhaps but it is very similar to what you are inclined to do.

      • Henry says:

        If you only want to improve the situation on one aspect, but ignore the larger issue of human slaughter and call that brotherly love, go for it.

    • StanB says:

      Google Residents encounter Christ

  4. Wolfy32 says:

    It’s a hard distinction. There’s a lot of practical issues with the law in terms of enforcement. Unless they investigate every miscarriage, how can a fair and equal treatment of women be carried out? Every single miscarriage must be fully investigated… Is that remotely possible? A woman could have a miscarriage in the first month that’s equal to a really strong menstrual period. She wouldn’t even know if she miscarried until the second or 3rd month and she got her period out of the blue.

    Then the police are going to be called in to interrogate her about every drug she’s had in the last 2 months. What’s rules and definitions will be used? And putting the mother away for 15 years? How is that going to help the addiction, the baby, or society? It makes the mother’s life worse, gets her into more drugs probably, and takes away any hope the mother had of recovery. Yes, go prisons!!

    The other side of the coin is that I have a friend that’s pregnant, she’s in her 8th month. I saw her just last night, in two hours, she had smoked 4 cigerettes ( at least, that doesn’t include anytimes I may have missed her going outside to smoke.) If she smokes a cigerette every half hour she’s awake that’s what 30 cigerettes a day for the entire pregnancy?

    Halfway through the pregnancy she almost lost the baby, the doctor put her on bed rest.. Her husband is furious with her for smoking with his child…. How is this healthy for the child?

    Should she go to prison for this for 15 years if she would have lost the baby? And assuming she carries it to term what issues is the child going to have growing up when its first 9 months of life it was fed cigerette carcinogens and rat poisoning?

    She was instructed by the dr. her husband, and friends to reduce her smoking. She refused to listen to anyone.

    Henry please do tell us what would be the christian thing to do? Lock her up if she would have lost her baby? So, that there’s no mom to take care of her other kids?

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Wolfy32 “Every single miscarriage must be fully investigated…Is the remotely possible?”

      That is a common issue in law enforcement. When there was not sufficient political support for wearing seat belts, law enforcement was prevented for pulling you over to check seat belt use. You had to be stopped for some other reason. Police normally cannot search your house without reason for suspicion. So, some criteria would have to be established.

      But, what would that criteria be? Known membership in a women’s liberation organization? A subscription to NOW? A donation to some pro choice group? A whisper to a friend that she is heartbroken with this pregnancy and does not want this man to have any part of her life–then whispered by the friend to law enforcement?

      This fact remains: If a fetus is giving all the rights of a human citizen, its death is a law enforcement matter. Critics of this blog can dance around this by saying the death of a fetus was not treated the same way as the death of a human citizen before Roe. But, that doesn’t guarantee a thing about the future in a new political environment.

      I don’t see it as remotely possible that miscarriages will be treated with sympathy after a human-life-at-conception law.

      • StanB says:

        Laws for preventing smoking and manditory seatbelt use but let them do all the hard drugs they want while pregnant, it’s their choice….

    • Henry says:

      Wolf:“Henry please do tell us what would be the christian thing to do? Lock her up if she would have lost her baby? So, that there’s no mom to take care of her other kids?”

      All your supposition and perhaps experience/projection. That is not the real world. We now have the Wolf instruction manual on how to treat women who lost their baby, lock em’ up.

  5. Fr. James says:

    As I pointed out in response to Jon’s lies the law in question was not to criminalize women in Kansas. It was to ensure that children born of miscarriage had a proper death certificate issued. It was to recognize them as persons. Also that prior to Roe no women were prosecuted for having a miscarriage. However, Jon chooses to continue to lie hoping that repetition will work where his lies fail.

    What does the TN law actually say, not what does Jon say it says. It, like many laws out there, is designed to protect the child. Already if someone kills a pregnant woman in many jurisdictions they can also be prosecuted for killing the child. In this law a woman who uses illegal drugs while pregnant, IF the child is harmed for example is born addicted, can be prosecuted.

    How many here would say it is wrong to addict a child to cocaine? I do. Anyone else? Are the rest of you okay with it? This law was meant to protect the child from parental abuse.

    Given that we have laws about second hand smoking, transfats, sugar, how much soda you can buy etc. all compliments of the nanny state how can any good liberal oppose this law? They can’t, unless they admit to hypocrisy.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Fr. James 5:48 “They can’t unless they admit to hypocrisy.”

      It is people like you who will not admit to hypocrisy. You must decide, is the fetus a human being or is it something less? You simultaneously say it is a human but then say it can be killed without law enforcement investigation. If it is a human being, miscarriages will be investigated. If the fetus is something less, miscarriages will not be investigated.

      Some intellectual honesty on your part would be most appreciated.

      • Fr. James says:

        Legal abortion is extremely new. Up until very recently everyone repudiated it. You are the ones who decided that a human being isn’t a human being anymore. Given the history behind this you are the bad guys here.

        As I point out the law in Kansas was to ensure that a death certificate was issues. I READ the law in question. Did you? No, you didn’t. So who is being dishonest?

        Btw, your “dialogue” with the Orthodox is reprehensible. You are insulting some very nice people.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Fr. James 3:59 “Btw, your ‘dialogue’ with the Orthodox in reprehensible. You are insulting some very nice people.”

          As usual, you do not reference what you a talking about so I can only guess. I assume you are referring to my observation that both Catholics and Fred Phelps’ Baptist church share a dislike for homosexuality. I also pointed out they have different reasons.

          I feel badly if I, as you say, if I insulted “some very nice people.” Stating facts sometimes does that. My guess is that Pope Francis has noticed his church and Fred share this view and he, wisely, wants to move away from it.

          • Fr. James says:

            So when I equate and compare atheists to Kim or Mao you have not problem? You are all just the same. Not a bit of difference. Right? That’s your logic applied to you in reverse. Not so fun when viewed that way is it? But you won’t get the point. You like bashing us too much.

            I state facts and you insult me. You insult Francis as well. So typical.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Fr. James 7:37 Kim in Korea is not a atheist regime–he is a god like figure. Mao is a figure from history. If you want to compare him to me, I could care less.

            The Catholic Church and Westboro Baptist Church today share the practice discrimination against patriotic, law abiding gay people.

          • Fr. James says:

            Jon, they are professed atheists. Just like you. They hate religion. Just like you. They want to eliminate us. Just like you. Mao, Kim, and Stalin are just like you.

          • entech says:

            7:42 That kind of specious and spurious grouping is pretty stupid.
            Fr, Gerald was a Catholic priest just like you.
            http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/55

          • Fr. James says:

            entech, I am using JON’s reasoning right back at him. So you actually bolster my point.

          • entech says:

            OK, so all atheists are mass murders and all priests are either child abusers or assist in the continuance of this horror.

          • Fr. James says:

            entech, that is the point I am making. Jon tries to play that exact game.

  6. Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

    Welcome to The Matrix, Coppertops.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>