If the house 'publicans are going to pass all these symbolic anti-abortion bills (knowing full well that the bills will die in the senate), can't we propose some symbolic legislation too? I'm tired of their side being the only one that seems fired up by their principles. Maybe I'm being all petty and wrong, but I'd like my party to show that they're pro-choice -- maybe even moreso than Herman Cain!
What has me riled up at the moment is that Kaili Joy Gray reported on the "heartbeat bill" that Michele Bachmann would like to make the law of the land. The basic idea is, force a pregnant woman to listen to the sounds of her fetus before she can have an abortion. More like, "force a pregnant women endure some psy-ops before letting her exercise her right, and even if that pressure doesn't make her cave, it will at least increase the delay, expense, and emotional cost of ending a pregnancy." What bullshit.
I'd like to see a Democrat introduce a bill that is the opposite -- maybe call it the Women Deserve Respect Not Propaganda Resolution? In that vein, it suits my fancy to try to ape legislative language. So, if you have the stomach for that, click across the squiggle to read my "bill."
WHEREAS neither an embryo nor a nonviable fetus is a baby or a person; and
WHEREAS a woman has a constitutional right to decide whether and when to have a baby; and
WHEREAS there is no room for propaganda in the doctor-patient relationship;
BE IT RESOLVED that any woman exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy shall be informed by her doctor of all pertinent facts and recommendations the doctor judges to be accurate and therapeutic; but
(a) the embryo or fetus should not be referred to as if it were a baby or person;
(b) the patient should not be referred to as the "mother" of the embryo or fetus; and
(c) the doctor should not condition her or his services on
(i) whether the patient listens to sounds emanating from the fetus;
(ii) whether the patient views an ultrasound image or similar image of the fetus;
(iii) whether the patient interviews with a counselor about whether to continue the pregnancy;
(iv) whether the patient has the permission from others to terminate the pregnancy;
(v) whether the patient has completed a waiting period; or
(vi) whether the patient completes any similar form of meditation, dialogue, reflection, counseling, education, or exercise about ontogeny, life choices, adoption, family relationships, or the ontology of personhood.
If you want, tell me in the comments (1) what I forgot -- probably a lot of things, because this isn't really serious; or more to the point, (2) why Democrats shouldn't propose a bill like this, as a symbolic gesture to the pro-choice base. Is it too much work? Would it be embarrassing somehow? I don't get it.