START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
926,885 people care about Women's Rights

You Thought Kansas was the Worst for Women? It Gets Worser.

You Thought Kansas was the Worst for Women? It Gets Worser.

Oh Kansas. You really are the worst, aren’t you? I mean, come on. When this is the lede of a Kansas City Star article on your most recent anti-choice bill, what else am I supposed to think?

Kansas House members on Tuesday gave first-round approval to sweeping new restrictions on abortion after refusing to add exceptions that would allow victims of incest or rape including children who are raped to get late-term abortions.

Charming. Oh hey, and it gets worse. Not only does the bill prevent child rape victims from getting abortions, it also contains personhood language, prevents public schools from discussing abortion in sex ed, and prohibits sex ed from any organization affiliated with an abortion provider.

It gets even worser than that! The bill requires doctors to tell their patients that abortions are linked to breast cancer. So, you know, doctors have to lie.

Seriously.

It didn’t have to be this bad. I mean, it’s pretty bad. Pretty much the worst, actually. But this wasn’t just an oversight by overzealous and super douchey state-level politicians. Nope. Democrats in the Kansas house brought up rape and incest exceptions, which the Kansas GOP rejected.

Let me say that again. The Kansas GOP explicitly rejected exceptions for rape and incest. I guess once a few dozen start a-growin’ in a uterus, the holder of that uterus comes second.

I feel like this is so self-evidently BS that I shouldn’t have to explain it to people and, indeed, it’s hard to find the words to do so. But let me try.

Look, it’s not like hoards of women go around having abortions for funsies. Those people are rare, if they exist at all. Women get abortions for a lot of reasons, though. Women get abortions so they can care for their existing families, so they complete their education (thus increasing the chances of any child they have in the future having a better life, I might add), because they’re not financially stable enough to raise a child, because they just plain don’t want a kid, and anything in between. This does not make women who choose abortions open to ridicule or less worthy of respect as human beings. People make decisions that are in their best interests and in line with what they think they can handle. Women are no different.

Ah, that’s the problem, isn’t it. Fanatical anti-choice opponents believe women are different. They believe women are hussies who just can’t keep their legs closed like good girls. Hell, they believe that keeping your legs closed is what makes you a good girl. But bros, totally go at it. It’s your manhood at stake!

I mean, you get what’s going on here, right? It’s all about control. Women have a place and these self-appointed guardians of the hymen have decided it’s their job to punish women who choose to embrace their sexuality rather than hide from it. And the exceptions (or lack thereof) for rape an incest? Well, that just serves to illustrate the point. Women of Kansas, your life is only yours when your uterus is empty. And even then, it’s questionable.

 

Related Posts:

Kansas has a New Abortion Bill. And It’s BIG.

New Judge, New Ruling in Kansas Abortion Insurance Fight

Kansas Wants to Shield Doctors Who Lie to Women about Abortion

 

Read more: , , , , , ,

Image: worldcantwait/flickr

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

241 comments

+ add your own
8:42PM PDT on Apr 25, 2013

I think that Kansas House members made right decision.
You write about women's right to care their families, to complete their education, to have more fun by not having children. But you don't mention child's right to live! If he cannot cry while in uterus, it doesn't mean he cannot feel lust of living. I think so.
What about financial problems etc - if the state bans abortion, it must help woman at time of pregnancy, and help family or woman to grow child up.

4:31AM PDT on Apr 20, 2013

It is 2013 people are we going to go back to alley abortions? I believe it has more to do with money than it has to do with religion & who is going to take care and pay for all these unwanted children?

7:47PM PDT on Apr 13, 2013

I have asked this question many of time why are the Tea Party Republicans are so intense on women reproductive static. Women bodies belongs to no man. Kansas have pushed their controls to far no abortion not even in cases in incensed. Imagin a 12 year old being made to carry out a pregnancy by her father. This angers me to no return. I am willing to give my last dime if a one of these law makers would allow their daughter to go through with this mental anger. These laws will only apply to the poor the Middle

2:15PM PDT on Apr 3, 2013

I see Cyan still can not wrap his head around the idea that Former President Jefferson9d) did write the Constitution. Was Deist and a free thinker.. Had no patience for the organized religion of his day.. Probably would insist that Benjamin Franklin was not agnostic on most days. That is when he was not being an atheist.. By the way Cyan Mr Franklin belonged to the hellfire Club.. Google it..

But then Cyan you want history your way.. To bad.. You have been given enough information for you to really learn American history as it really was in fact. Not what you would like it to be in your mind.

5:33AM PDT on Apr 3, 2013

Cyan - Just repeating the same bulshit that has already been discredited is not persuasive. Madison opposed such things as chaplains and any prayer associated with government, he eventually chalked it up to "De Minimus Non Curat Lex."

That the First Amendment was only intended to oppose a "national" religion is supported by hacks, religious nutjobs, and people with no knowledge of law or history (i.e. people like you with a religious agenda). That fact does not make it good history.

Once again, I recommend you actually educate yourself on the subject and get back with me, quite frankly I am not interested in discussing the issue with someone who has no actual knowledge of the subject. I have outlined the truth of the matter and the historical and legal foundations and backgrounds. Because you do not like them does not change their validity.

Also, you obviously have no concept of the difference between the "accommodation" of religion and the "establishment" of religion. Once again, I am not responsible for your intellectual shortcomings. Learn something about the subject and get back to us.

12:29AM PDT on Apr 3, 2013

Kevin cont'd
At least 1 SCOTUS decision has prevented local jurisdictions from banning religious use of public parks.
The rulings are far from clear sometimes contradictory, and are unsupported by history or law or common sense. They have been flagrant examples of results oriented jurisprudence, determined not by intention of the Framers but by liberal ideology and politics of the era.
The 1st amendment was intended, as Madison himself, the writer of same, at the insistence of the body considering the matter, to prevent the establishment of a national religion and prevent the Congress from interfering with the states' religious inclinations. It was the intent to prevent disapproving any religion as well as approving or favoring any one religion, which at the time, consisted overwhelmingly of Christian sects with a few Jewish populations and very few Deists.

12:24AM PDT on Apr 3, 2013

Kevin It has been my experience that people with an agenda (particularly an anti religious one) are masters at misquoting Jefferson out of context and attributing to him constitutional framing for which there is no evidence.
SCOTUS holds "court" in a chamber with the 10 commandments enscribed on the wall behind the bench.
House debate made two things clear about the Bill of Rights and its religion clauses: (1) Madison was introducing the amendments not because he thought they were needed but because others did, and because he had promised to act according to their wishes; (2) the aim was to prevent Congress from establishing a “national” religion that would threaten the religious diversity of the states.
Re the 14th amendment applying” a protection of the states as a weapon against them—using the First Amendment to achieve the very thing it was intended to prevent. The legitimacy of this reversal has been convincingly challenged by such constitutional scholars as Raoul Berger, Lino Graglia, and James McClellan. But for present purposes, let us simply assume the First Amendment restrictions on Congress were “applied” against the states. What then? What did this prohibit?
One thing we know for sure is that it did not prohibit officially sponsored prayer, which is and has been an important and public part of Congress. The armed services have always had paid chaplains, as does Congress.
At least 1 SCOTUS decision has prevented local jurisdictio

7:07AM PDT on Apr 1, 2013

So true Linda M, as furr-in-errrs often know a lot about American history, politics, social situations...the list is endless. I am in Ontario, can click my remote and get L.A. news quick as a bunny, not to mention B.C. news. Or some N.Y. news. Many Americans can't click their TV remote and get a foreign news station unless perhaps they live in a border town.

Since many Americans...especially on the far right, love to comment on foreign events and tell the rest of the world "How it is Really Done!" the rest of us on Care2 have no worries about commenting on American issues. Often there are similar issues within our own borders, or in many areas we have already moved on, where abortion is already legal or there is legal gay marriage long ago and one sometimes feels as if entering a time warp reading some of the present discussions.

7:04AM PDT on Apr 1, 2013

Good morning David !!! Enjoy the donuts! Love the announcement about the change of name of site ......... pull the 'udder' one, Eric !!!

6:50AM PDT on Apr 1, 2013

HAPPY APRIL TROLLS DAY EVERYONE!!!

I wish I could stay and play... BUT it's time to go "make the donuts"!

Have a great day!

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

I had no idea that Giraffes are heading towards extinction too nor that they can grow up to 5 horns on…

What a wonderful two some, just adorable love, purr-fect together.

ads keep care2 free



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.