Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
March 10, 2012
Image Size
9.7 KB
Resolution
123×84
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,512
Favourites
75 (who?)
Comments
179
×
War on Women by JediSenshi War on Women by JediSenshi
I received these links on my Twitter account and decided to make a stamp about it.

As if rhetoric weren't bad enough, states like Kansas have in development actual laws to further brutalize women's rights to control their own bodies and their health care. [link]

Also Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Doctors To Not Inform Women Of Prenatal Issues To Prevent Abortions [link]

Makes me glad I live in Canada.

Stamplate by :icondoitforthelulz:, Done using Paint.NET.
Add a Comment:
 
:icontheawesomehotdog:
TheAwesomeHotDog Apr 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Mitt Romney <3
Reply
:iconpeacefulinvasion:
peacefulinvasion Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
OMG hasn't the supreme court already ruled abortion to be CONSTITUTIONAL!?

This is just imposing on woman's rights. This is really bothering me because Colorado pretty much nearly passed a bill banning abortion all together. Luckily it failed to pass. It scares me though because if that bill would pass woman who were raped or who's lives are in danger would end up being in danger.

As for that Arizona law, I say thats just bullshit. A doctor needs to be inclined to inform the woman "hey this pregnancy will kill you." This only proves pro-lifers are ONLY pro-life for the fetus. They do NOT give a shit if the mother ends up dead they only care about the fetus and thats flat out murder right there.

Pro-life is just as pro-murder as pro-choice.
Reply
:iconjedisenshi:
JediSenshi Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Also they don't shiv a git about the fetus once it's born.
Reply
:iconpeacefulinvasion:
peacefulinvasion Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Yah once that fetus is a baby its on its own.
Reply
:iconmatthew-lane:
matthew-lane May 17, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Neither one of those links is a war on women. The first is about not giving anyone a free lunch, which i see as pretty darn fair. An the second link is the “wrongful birth” bill, which was passed not to stop abortions, but to stop the legal system being filled to capacity with frivilious malpractice lawsuits, if a child is born with an undetactable birth defect, such as congenital deafness. It does not prevent a doctor from being sued if he knowingly & with malice doesn't inform the parents of a serious potential problem, nor does it prevent him from being sued for breaking other criminal medical laws.

Please, in the future actually read the legilation you are railing against.
Reply
:iconpeacefulinvasion:
peacefulinvasion Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Its still infringing upon the woman's life. You have the right to know what goes on within your body. In medicine if a small problem goes unnoticed especially in pregnancy it can become a serious life threatening condition. You have every right to know that your child will be born with a serious condition so if you choose not to abort you can brace yourself (which I wont abort unless I know it is best for the child).
Reply
:iconmatthew-lane:
matthew-lane Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
"Its still infringing upon the woman's life"

No actually its not. Women don't actually have any right to free anything. Getting things for free is a privilege, not a right.

An the small things that go wrong in medicine are undetectable, which is why the law was put in place. Because people were suing doctors over wrongful life claims, where the mother is claiming that had they known that there was a chance of something like congenital deafness she would have aborted.

There are no tests for those kinds of defects: They are not obvious prior to birth & sometimes not obvious for quite some time after birth. The law was constructed not to stop women from making an informed choice, but to stop post birth buyers remorse linked to malpractice lawsuit pay days.
Reply
:iconpeacefulinvasion:
peacefulinvasion Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Ok you say that a woman knowing what goes on in her OWN body is a privilage?

So wait your saying that all prenatal care is free? I saw nothing saying that paying for it changes anything. Besides the POINT of government funded prenatal care is to idk make sure a woman goes through a healthy pregnancy? I'd rather tax dollars go to making sure the mother survives the pregnancy and/or doesn't go through a high risk pregnancy then for tax dollars to go to allowing a woman to die. It makes about as much sense as making government funded health care that doesn't cover hospital bills of any kind.

So what your saying is if you have a heart condition or a high risk for a heart attack you know what? its minor so its your privilage to know. You have pre-diabetes so its your privilage to know. You see what i'm saying? If a doctor knows something is wrong then he needs to give out the information.

At the end of the day if there is an issue with the pregnancy its the woman's right to know. If the doctor sees a medical condition the child might have the woman NEEDS TO KNOW! Why don't we just provide free health care and not even cover preventative care if were going to do that with prenatal care?
Reply
:iconmatthew-lane:
matthew-lane Feb 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
"Ok you say that a woman knowing what goes on in her OWN body is a privilage?"

No, i'm not saying that at all. In fact there is nothing in my reply at all that would indicate that as a view. My view was pretty straight forward. The law in question exists because there are a plethora of conditions that cannot be screened for. An because Americans all believe they deserve a free ride, mothers who have discovered there off spring has a genetic defect that are impossible to screen for, or really hard to screen for accurately have been suing for malpractice under the wrongful birth laws.

All this law does is stops GP's/Doctors/Physicians from being sued over things they had no way to test for, or whose tests are so very inaccurate that they cannot be relied on to be accurate.

The law was passed, with nothing to do with abortion rights, either pro life or pro choice bias.
Reply
Add a Comment: