Sigh
FROM AN E-MAIL ALERT
Feminists Want ERA In Order To Force Partial Birth Abortion, Tax Funded Abortions, and Homosexual Parenting
An ERA bill has been filed in Arkansas HJR1014 in the House and SJR12 in the Senate
Evidence that ERA would force partial birth abortion, tax funded abortions, and homosexual gay parenting is found in a feminists article on the National Organization of Women (NOW) website.
The quotes in the tables below are found in this article to feminists [on NOW website] entitled, "Who Needs An Equal Rights Amendment? You Do!" at this link: http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/who.html <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102479862212&e=001_GHh7rQorMErmxHUp8SY-k0feIvjy_cZtuBoeTrVdvf330zZNT0BfVJLPHUqumNh3RsthiZERG4tWOhhHVBT1cTctU_dAWag5bM-z_ZNf5T6WCdLDS2AHLu_57Nw3KoJxUmkDtjg8DV27FTHRZ9Q_w==>
"Since 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down the historic Roe v Wade decision which legalized abortion, a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy has been under continuous attack. The latest assault by the Congress has been on the late term abortion technique known as dilatation and extraction (D&X).[partial birth abortion]. This bill, passed by both houses of Congress, would have outlawed the abortion method, with inadequate protection for life and health of the woman. The bill was stalled by a presidential veto."
It is also obvious from the following quote in the same article, "Who Needs An Equal Rights Amendment? You Do!" and same link that feminists want ERA to pass so they can mandate public funding for abortion.
"Mandatory pregnancy has become the reality for many young and poor women and, as of 1995, for federal workers and women in the military serving abroad where safe, private facilities are not available The real issue for women is the right to bodily integrity, and without this basic right women can have no true freedom. " [ No freedom unless they can terminate a pregnancy at any time, even just before birth, and have it paid for by taxpayers.]
Feminists also want the ERA to prevent any judge from considering the fact that a father or mother is homosexual in child custody cases. See this quote in the same article"Who Needs An Equal Rights Amendment? You Do!" and same link given above.
"Lesbian and Gay Rights. Currently lesbians and gay men are discriminated against in areas as basic as employment, parenting, marriage and housing rights. Numerous court decisions demonstrate the need to establish a constitutional guarantee of rights regardless of sexual orientation. "Many cases illustrate the pervasive discrimination against lesbians and gay men. One of the most plainly egregious and unfair is the case of a lesbian mother in Pensacola, Florida."
Feminists are now advocating a more thorough Equal Rights Amendment (called Constitutional Equal Right (CEA) that would spell out all the issues they desire. However, they admit that the present Equal Rights Amendment could be used by a friendly judge to do the same. See the following question and answer quoted from this NOW article "Frequently Asked Questions about the CEA" at this link: http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/faq.html#madison <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102479862212&e=001_GHh7rQorMEIKvHfrVWDLia3Yn5IY45vgQP_FMDRiaFBXXnHPZk6Yp5RShFsEgDO0PckIiOIBruNYpCedT5MCNABIsKDfOWaF0CieaDdXfeWx2hK4qdBKFiIdm7F2U_cHqUqTrslO5wCHGJrKpM4rsDjuMiG2rTTpTQSr2k6QfQ=>
2." Couldn't an amendment [ERA] based on sex cover all the issues?" [All the gay and lesbian and abortion issues NOW is concerned with]
"ANSWER: The short answer is yes. Theoretically, a court could interpret a prohibition against sex discrimination to include the protection of lesbian and gay as well as reproductive rights. However, we have learned not to leave anything to chance. The proposed CEA [new proposed ERA Amendment] says explicitly what we want."
Following in NOW's own words is a strategy for the ERA amendment to still be adopted nationwide. (Same article and link as last one above)
"4. What is the Madison Strategy?
"ANSWER: The "Madison Strategy" calls for trying to get the last three states needed to make up the 38 necessary for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and then present it to Congress for certification. Some people believe this strategy will work because in 1992, Congress certified the Madison Amendment (which concerns congressional pay raises) as still viable and therefore considered it ratified when passed by the thirty-eighth state 203 years after its original presentation to the states by Congress."
Now there is no doubt as to why Representative Lindsley Smith is determined to get the ERA passed in Arkansas. Lindsley Smith received a zero on her voting record on family issues in 2005 by the American Family Association of Arkansas, and she recently voted voted against the ban on partial birth abortion.



Comments
There is no group that's more anti-woman than religious nuts...regardless of whether they're Baptist, Catholic or Muslim. Guess it's inevitable that Patriarchy wouldn't slither off quietly after so many centuries of wielding power at the expense of the Female...which is why it still needs a few HARD kicks to move it along. But damn I'm sick of the three-inchers throwing roadblocks up every time ANYTHING related to gender equality tries to make its way through our legal/social minefields. It's a pitifully small man who's threatened by true equality. And our Legislature is OBVIOUSLY full of small men whose only hope of maintaining power is to throw as many institutional roadblocks in front of women as they can. Whether it's the bedroom or boardroom...they wouldn't stand a chance one on one with a female who hasn't been socially castrated.
Thank you Lindsley et al. Screw every so-called religious organization that hides its anti-family, anti-gender crap behind nice titles of 'Family This' or 'Family That.'
Posted by: zelda
|
February 27, 2009 07:31 AM
We've got to find a way to get/put these religious nuts in their rightful place -- if we can find a way their vision of hell would be my first suggestion with their bible interpretations inserted sideways.
Looking back on history I can't find one thing these religious quacks have ever contributed to the betterment of America but oodles of things they've tried to do to F----- it and individual rights that don't submit to their weirdness.
Posted by: BWC
|
February 27, 2009 07:41 AM
Funny how viagra issues are immediately dealt with; it's how we got insurance coverage for birth control. In small countries where micro-loans are given, they no longer give them to men, because their families only benefit when those loans are given to the woman of the household. The more empowered women are, the more society benefits, whereas the "3 inchers" (LOL) pretty much consider their own needs first. As long as there is breath in my body, I'll be making the decisions about what grows in there and what doesn't. But there is hope; when I was young these issues weren't even discussed.
Posted by: Net Owl
|
February 27, 2009 07:51 AM
Three quotes to ponder!
The World is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tales to believe. In the end, Religion will kill us all.-- Ed Krebs
Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen."
-- Michel de Montaigne
The Holy Bible -- 66 Fairy Tales written by 40 authors in three different languages on three different continents Over approximate 1600 years.
Posted by: BWC
|
February 27, 2009 08:06 AM
ONE of my most favorite sayings from our "great awakening," i.e. the 60's is: Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition!
The contempt I hold towards the wingnut Religionists almost defies articulation, but it's still always fun to try: FEAR the "sin," HATE the sinner. They don't get it (equality), never will, and PRETEND they do by such claptrap as Promise Keepers and the ever-popular SLIMY "definition" of the role of the male vis-a-vis female in a marriage (which escapes me, somebody help me out!!)... In short, they SUCK!~!~!~!~!~!~!
|
Posted by: Larry
|
February 27, 2009 08:43 AM
"We've got to find a way to get/put these religious nuts in their rightful place -- if we can find a way their vision of hell would be my first suggestion with their bible interpretations inserted sideways." If I had been Rep. Pyle, I would have printed off and displayed comments such as these that BWC and others have made on this very site as evidence that church concealed-carry is needed in our state. That's pretty serious language. If I were to post on this site a diatribe such as, "We've got to find a way to get/put these homosexuals in their place," coupled with a suggestion that a book be inserted sideways into their orifices, I would be banned, and rightly so. But hate speech directed at Christians is ignored or, even in some instances, seconded here.
BWC, same question as last week: have you burned down any good churches lately? Judging from your comments, it appears that something very bad happened to you at a church somewhere. I'm sorry it happened. Now, go get counseling before you act on your hate.
Posted by: FromThePines
|
February 27, 2009 08:56 AM
FtP: HERE'S the difference, which I know YOU KNOW, but conveniently bypass -
Gays, liberals, women, blacks, Hispanics and pretty much everyone not self-identified as Conservative Christian, Right-Wing Republican, Straight, White, American Male (as so clearly tagged by Todd Snider - whom I tag as "Religionists") are NOT trying to run the lives of the aforementioned, We couldn't give a flip if they (and their Stepford wives) decide to bear unwanted children, abstain from alcohol, vote for Morons and criminals, pray to whomever, remain virgins until marriage, buy Hummers (both kinds! ;>)...you know the litany.
Religionists, on the other hand cannot seem to grasp one fundamental truth of what is SUPPOSED to be America: "...freedom and justice for ALL!" That's it, it's that simple. Since those of that ilk continuously, arrogantly, superciliously, HYPOCRITICALLY continue to cram THEIR FORM OF BULLSHIT up our butts - uninvited, you get the anger, contempt and disdain illustrated here, often humorously, as therapy from the "moralists" who are NEVER satisfied to practice their own form of "faith," but are unrepentant buttinskis who WON'T LEAVE REGULAR FOLK ALONE!!!!!!!!!
Get it now?!!
|
Posted by: Larry
|
February 27, 2009 09:58 AM
So posting threats and other forms of trash that purports to be biting social commentary is "therapy" for you and your ilk, Larry? At least we can agree on one thing: based on what BWC and you have written, you two are definitely in need of therapy. And I'd hardly categorize the two of you as "regular folk." I know regular folk, and you ain't them.
As for your laundry list of people that are not trying to "run the lives" of Christians, I believe most of those individuals would rather not get drawn into your little circle. Liberal anti-Christian people such as you simply want to silence those with whom you disagree. You're a fraud.
Posted by: FromThePines
|
February 27, 2009 10:41 AM
You have a way, Pines, of conveniently skipping by the very REAL ways some segments of society (today it's religious extremists) discriminate and advocate discrimination of gays/women. Instead of stopping to even acknowledge this documented real discrimination you go straight to some silly equating of our dislike of such discrimination with their discrimination. According to your words, anyone who says we ought to rise up and fight against those who would keep us in second place is guilty of the same discrimination that we're fighting against. Outright stupid.
Posted by: zelda
|
February 27, 2009 10:43 AM
AND if you're fixated on "...hate speech directed at Christians..." you may want to recall the "Letters from Christians" collection that Madalyn Murray maintained in the 60's...
|
Posted by: Larry
|
February 27, 2009 10:43 AM
I don't recall EVER "threatening" anyone, here or anywhere else. You have no facts/basis for your claptrap, and in fact are a one-note LIAR. I don't hang out at Rush Limpdick's website, maybe you should try the same formula since NOTHING you read here is anything you want to "hear."
And "most of those individuals" ARE us, regular or special... Take a hike.
|
Posted by: Larry
|
February 27, 2009 12:28 PM
Wow seems like we got some ones with their drawers in a twit.
It makes one want to reconsider if you're going to some churches packing for pra(e)ying wouldn't be a bad idea. Skin crawling.
Posted by: BWC
|
February 27, 2009 03:11 PM
Here is the simple amendment:
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
Let us not forget our Constitutional origins:
Only property owning Caucasian males were allowed to vote.
We've come a long way but not far enough.
Posted by: eLwood
|
February 27, 2009 06:01 PM