Home

Join

Main Menu



blog advertising is good for you

Links

Put a Stake in the Wedge Issues

Although the Indiana General Assembly is still a couple days away from convening, I’ve started to skim through some of the bills that are being filed so see what’s on the minds of lawmakers.

I’ve maintained on this blog and in other media that the best thing the Republican-controlled legislature can do is focus on jobs and education reform.  If a bill has nothing to do with creating jobs, putting more money in the pockets of Hoosiers, improving education or bringing more accountability and transparency to government, what’s the point?

So when I saw Senate Bill 50 all I could do was scratch my head and ask is this legislation really necessary?  The measure would require any woman seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound at least 18 hours before the procedure.  I assume the logic of this is that the woman who went through all the internal processes of whether to have the procedure will change her mind when she sees the images.   Of course such a bill could also have the reverse effect and make the woman even more determined to have the abortion.

For me the bigger question is does this bill create a job?  Do mandatory ultrasounds improve education or make Indiana more competitive in the marketplace?  Does it streamline local government?   It does put more money in the pockets of Hoosiers, but only because it forces the woman to pay for the ultrasound.  Other than that, what purpose does it really serve?

And before anyone accuses me of not wanting to protect the unborn, I have two responses.  First if you want to protect the unborn make sure the there’s an economic climate where the already born can prosper and you’ll find that the abortion issue tends to take care of itself.  Also, making sure people who are not prepared to deal with the responsibility of children never get pregnant in the first place because they have access to contraceptives solves a multitude of issues.

And legislation like this really won’t stop abortion because if a woman really wants one,  all she has to do is hop on I-74 west or I-65 north and drive a couple hours.

Indiana has a lot of crucial issues to face,  I don’t see this as being one of them right now.

  • Anonymous

    04 Jan 2011 @ 17:52

    How typical….you answered nothing…

    1. Did Rico mention ‘God’ at all in his post? You failed/refused to answer.
    2. “I think government has a legitimate role in limiting the access to an abortion, but not the right.” — I asked that anyone BUT you reply IF THEY COULD MAKE SENSE OF YOUR REMARK. Since no one BUT you has replied, this suggests that no one BUT you can make sense of your remark.

    How can you think it makes sense to use ‘right’ and “limiting the access” in the same sentence?

    Your wrist is looking a bit limp…need a brace ??

  • Anonymous

    “How does government sanction religion? Let me count the ways:
    IGWT” license plates. Religion in schools. I could go on, but…” — T.A.

    Huh? Please tell us, specifically, what provision(s) of our Constitution are being violated. Once you provide your citation, then we can go and check for ourselves if your analysis is accurate or not.

  • Anonymous

    You’re being a pompous ass again.

  • Taxpayer 834512

    I hope not, but maybe some of them have gone to the same place Indiana House Democrats retreated to when ISTA funding dictated education policy (or lack thereof).

  • Taxpayer 834512

    The pleasure is very usually mine to hear ideas thrown around the horn in Abdul’s ballpark. However, my own skills must be more suspect than cited, as I thought border security was an issue of definitive national concern, a “federal issue” shall we say, while the choice to have health care was of lesser stature- just an individual choice.

    Shows what I know. Back to the bench I go, I guess.

  • Taxpayer 834512

    Pardon my initial reaction, Mr. Easter. I believe abortion, like education, to be an issue of incredible importance to many people. As it is about both life/death, children, and moral/ethical convictions, it will bring up some potential conflict with rules of the state. Maybe kind of akin to how some look at home-schooling. I don’t thing everybody’s going to “get in line” for either side on either issue.

  • Think Again

    Nah. That’s the face of “real,” Aires. Men making these serious decisions strikes me as comical.

    And void of reason.

  • Think Again

    Liberty, pal. It’s a great concept. Ponder it.

  • Think Again

    Not at all. Your inability to comprehend logic won’t define my answers. Thankfully. Limp wrist has nothing to do with it, sis.

    Limiting anyone’s rights to access, is a potential threat to liberty. It’s just that simple.

    I think we need rules on abortion timing. Access? That’s a sticky one. I don’t need your responses, or anyone else’s, to define the access question. It’s one of those things that, you know it when you see it. Or don’t see it.

  • Dave

    Are we to consider pregnancy (and “policy” related thereto), a natural occurrence (some consider natural to be “green”), to be a fate worse than death?

    So, birth is important enough to warrant protection of the born; but short circuiting that otherwise important distinction or natural process (abortion) protects only those who choose to do so? That’s civilized (the best we can do)?

  • pascal

    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/04/supreme-court-justice-scalia-roe-v-wade-not-in-constitution/ Well, one of the brightest justices asks you the same question. Where, in the Constitution or Declaration do you find Abortion Rights or even in the Bible which I presume you read every other day or so.

  • pascal

    It is not, however, a requirement for government to sanction any religion over another. A direct quote from one who can’t explain that State governments both before and after the Constitution had established religions. Or, perhaps all that claimed learning could explain. Give it a try!

  • pascal

    Phillip Hamburger, read his book on this subect (Church and State separation). It is fairly new and the last word on the subject-re read it and you will have some basis for discussion other than talking like a person with a paper asshole. If you read it carefully you will then comprehend why Hitler called FDR “That Old Mason”.
    There is a long standing myth that the employee pays 50% of his Social Security Insurance while the employer pays the other 50% of that insurance. Most of us have tumbled to the fact that “insurance” was a lie….sorta like the lie that Mitch has foisted on us with his $2 Billion borrowed from China (ultimately) welfare scheme.
    Economically, the employee pays ALL of the tax for Social Security. The employee pays ALL of the Unemployent Compensation taxes collected in Indiana as well. These per capita taxes are one reason employment is lagging A LOT. For instance, I was offered a consulting position in Manufacturing to use my expertise to eliminate jobs. At that time the firm noted that they would invest $120,000.00 per job eliminated (not to me). They wanted to eliminate the per capita taxes (including health care which closely resembles a tax).
    Add up all the per capita taxes on your paycheck and you can then begin to disbelieve myths proprogated to “sell” those taxes on you to you. Or, if you know a smart steward, ask him what the “roll up” is at your place of employment.

  • pascal

    Your opinion is noted, as though it were something of value but, of course it isn’t. What might be of value would be repudiation of your previous statements/lies about her ethics violations having teeth (which they did not). I have her new book and hope to get around to reading it soon to find out much more about death panels and other things she does not like, e.g. your friends chipping gold fillings out of the recently deceased.

  • pascal

    Piss on the oatmeal citations. Rico is looking for citations of the Constitution which SO FAR you are completely unable to provide. I suspect Rico thinks about KKK/Mason opinions about the same a a dog feels about a fire hydrant.

  • pascal

    You claimed to have read Hamburger. Apparently, you did not read him on that subject or you don’t read very well.

  • pascal

    And, as usual, you neglect to point out in the Constitution where you and the modern hedonists find the right to take the life of another human being. Dodge, twist, spin, do all your tawdy tricks but I’m guessing you haven’t read those documents for a long time and are, even if you had, unable to point out what you claim as a constitutional right. If myths could be eaten you would be fat.

  • Dave

    Parenthetically, (abortion) should occur after the word circuiting in paragraph #2

  • pascal

    http://catholiccitizens.org/press/pressview.asp?c=52542 Better analysis than the casual stuff offered by our host. Note-the report isn’t done by Catholics. I read an article once entitled, How Contraception causes drive by shootings.