Vagina remarks, silencing of Michigan lawmakers draws firestorm online.

Originally posted by narwahl
It wasn't for saying vagina.
An email to the press corp has surfaced explaining it was because they were all upity, and wouldn't know their place.
(Meh can't find it anymore)
Anyway: They were both propably having a visit, if you know what I mean.

Since when is being uppity cause for banning? Like congressmen don't ever get uppity! You'd think freedom of speech would at it's strongest in government.

Hope you were being funny with the visitor comment, I'll assume so, but that comment even as a joke, is so demeaning to me as a woman.

Originally posted by sheba2011

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by narwahl
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Yes tinkerhouse.
You propably don't get to hear those that often in forced-birth circles, but it's fairly standard fare outside of it.
There is a T-Shirt "If I wanted government in my vagina, I'd F. a senator"
There is also a picture of an ultrasound wand. on the side it reads "If you can read this your government is too close"

It's innuendo
It's funny.
It drives the point home rather powerfully (as humor often does)

Sidenote: one of the provisions in the bill forces women to carry to term a baby that is found to be not viable after 21 weeks.
In my book that is plain and simple torture.

Thank you for admitting that it was intentional innuendo, Representative Brown was insinuating that the Legislature wanted personal access to her vagina. She was being dramatic and disrespectful.

Sexual innuendo has no place in a legislative body. If someone was wearing one of those t-shirts in session they would have been thrown out.

The word "VAGINA" is not the problem here - it's the act Representative Brown attempted to project on the Legislature with her statement.

Let's be perfectly clear here, shall we?

It wasn't sexual innuendo in the "wink wink, nudge nudge" way. It was sexual innuendo in that Rep Brown implied that the Republicans wanted to, essentially, rape her. That's why she added "no means no."

Yes she was being dramatic -- I would have been too. How else do we get our point across? THIS IS A DRAMATIC ISSUE.

Was she being disrespectful? No more disrespectful than those that passed this disrespectful law.

What is disrespectful about the law? No offense, but I doubt you even know what this bill would do. It's not even a LAW yet.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Oh, sorry then.
Must have slipped by.
I sincerely apologize for not reading carefully enough.

Of course, don't get pregnant is better than an abortion. But unintended pregnancies do happen, and if that happens and you can't have an abortion you are forced to give birth.

I think there is no doubt that it was a punchline. That's why it was at the end of the speech.
I am sure you could find other instances of reps ending on a punchline. I think it's a valid rethoric device.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

You obviously haven't educated yourself on what Representative Brown actually said, and why she was temporarily banned for speaking.

Well I was "educated" on what she said, and I thought it was completely in context with the debate, made moderate exploitive use of "shock factor" to apparently good effect, and was frankly funny as hell.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus If I were a state rep and said to the floor "I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my penis, but no means no!" would that have been appropriate?

If there was a debate on legislation determining how they could use their penis reproductively, absolutely; (and it still would have been funny.)

Originally posted by TinkerHaus Brown claims that men make offensive statements all the time, but are not banned from speaking. She doesn't give any reference or example of that, however.. Sounds like she is trying to rally the feminazis who are too stupid to actually look in to what happened. Sadly, it appears to be working.

They do, and you're right she should have referenced examples of that. However, she is not just trying to rally "stupid feminazis" (here is an example an offensive statement... are you male?), she is trying to rally any woman who is offended that the state is attempting to regulate what she does with her body, and how that effects her reproductive/social choices. I'm standing firmly with this lady on this one, and if that makes me a "stupid feminazi" in your book then we can count all of the ways that I don't give a sh*t.

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by narwahl
It wasn't for saying vagina.
An email to the press corp has surfaced explaining it was because they were all upity, and wouldn't know their place.
(Meh can't find it anymore)
Anyway: They were both propably having a visit, if you know what I mean.

Since when is being uppity cause for banning? Like congressmen don't ever get uppity! You'd think freedom of speech would at it's strongest in government.

Hope you were being funny with the visitor comment, I'll assume so, but that comment even as a joke, is so demeaning to me as a woman.

Ah found the email!

To the Capitol Press Corps,

Just to be clear, despite the misinformation being spread by Reps. Brown and Byrum, and Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, there are two representatives not being recognized on the House floor today because of their actions yesterday. It has nothing to do with their gender, their religion or the topic they were discussing. All day today, we have had representatives of both parties, both genders and several different religions passionately debating important issues that will significantly impact the future of Michigan. I would urge you not to become too distracted by temper tantrums designed to score political points.

Regards,

Ari

www.rhrealitycheck.org...

Of course I was being sarcastic.
The frigtening thing to me is that Ari Adler's characterisation (Temper tantrum) wasn't all that far away from what I said...

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Originally posted by DeathbecomesLife

Originally posted by DeathbecomesLife
When a mother is not left alone to raise her child, but is helped by the whole community...

When each child is regarded as the sacred continuation of our species...

When each person is free to explore this world again with the same wonderment they had as a child...

Then and only then will no one consider an abortion.

It is interesting that the above, which is the truth on the matter, has gotten not one reply and only a modicum of acknowledgement through stars. It is the truth. Before you can say you are against something, you should do some home work to find out why a thing is being done. You should try to get to the root of the issue and address it there.

How can you begrudge someone for having an abortion if all you are going to do is raise that child to go die in a WAR?

How can you begrudge someone for having an abortion when you first stripped them of the right to choose to get pregnant through rape or oppression?

How can you begrudge someone for having an abortion when the child will only be born suffering due to birth defects?

There is a reason the weaker sex physically is endowed with the divine right (it is in HER womb, not yours) to choose whether to allow life into this world or not. It is not the place of Man to decide this.

However, it is a man's place to protect this sacred vessel. To provide a sustainable environment for the child once it is born. To ensure the safety and health of the child. To teach it. To love it.

Do we acknowledge the sacredness of our women today? Truthfully?

Do we do what is the logical thing to do as Man who is trying to ensure the survival of our species?

It begins in the womb.

Originally posted by DeathbecomesLife
What are you willing to sacrifice that abortion is no longer considered?

How against it are you?

So I ask these again...

It is no one's place to dominate the body of another. A woman has the sacred right to do with what she will her own body. Until a child leaves her womb, she has the power.

Look at your women, and ask yourself, what will I do to protect them?

Then when you find your answer, know that the other man will too.

From a similar thread here:

If you dare

This bill isn't discussing REPRODUCTIVE rights. Reproduction is the act that leads to abortions. This bill still allows people to be completely irresponsible and do what they'd like with their vaginas. It's not about limiting a woman's right to her vagina, but rather about the law concerning what you can and cannot do to a fetus that was created through the free use of a woman's vagina.

Let's please stop trying to smear the words, and speak appropriately. Let's discard the buzz word labels and speak on the issue honestly.

Lisa Brown was insinuating that those who support this bill want personal access to her vagina. The comment was blatant sexual innuendo and had no place in a civilized discussion. It wouldn't and doesn't offend me, but I completely understand why these temper tantrums were punished. When my kids throw a tantrum we take a little time out to calm down too.

Act like a child, get treated like a child. If you guys want to watch the whole session you can see MANY people use the word vagina, including Republicans and Democrats, and OBGYNs.

So again, for the 50th time, despite what the MEDIA IS TELLING YOU the word "vagina" was not the reason Lisa Brown was censured.

What is disrespectful about the law? No offense, but I doubt you even know what this bill would do. It's not even a LAW yet.

Michigan House Bills 5711-5712-5713.

"The bills totaling 60 pages of legislation would end legal abortion procedures in Michigan after 20 weeks without exceptions for woman's life, fetal anomaly, in cases of rape or incest. All health facilities access providing access to family planning based medical care to have surgical rooms on site even if they do not provide surgical abortions. Physicians would be mandated to be present for medication abortions, to screen women for "coercion" before providing an abortion, and the legislation's would create new regulations for the disposal of fetal remains. Additionally, the measures would ban "telemedicine" abortions, use of technology to prescribe medication for abortion services and the morning-after pill."

If this were law, my sister would be dead right now, along with her fetus. Not to be dramatic, or anything...

If you want to respect life, it starts with the mother.

Mmmmmm Fajittas........

Thats what I think of when I hear Vagina....

Nope nothing bad about that word.....its my favorite study actually...how dare them prudes act in such a way to women.

Seems ridiculous if you ask me. You should be able to say whats on yer mind without all the fuss. And for some reason Penis seems more offensive......

reply to post by sheba2011


Not for nothing, but they already do that in China.....under heavy coercion.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus


This bill isn't discussing REPRODUCTIVE rights. Reproduction is the act that leads to abortions. This bill still allows people to be completely irresponsible and do what they'd like with their vaginas. It's not about limiting a woman's right to her vagina, but rather about the law concerning what you can and cannot do to a fetus that was created through the free use of a woman's vagina.

Let's please stop trying to smear the words, and speak appropriately. Let's discard the buzz word labels and speak on the issue honestly.

Lisa Brown was insinuating that those who support this bill want personal access to her vagina. The comment was blatant sexual innuendo and had no place in a civilized discussion. It wouldn't and doesn't offend me, but I completely understand why these temper tantrums were punished. When my kids throw a tantrum we take a little time out to calm down too.

Act like a child, get treated like a child. If you guys want to watch the whole session you can see MANY people use the word vagina, including Republicans and Democrats, and OBGYNs.

So again, for the 50th time, despite what the MEDIA IS TELLING YOU the word "vagina" was not the reason Lisa Brown was censured.

edit on 18-6-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

I find you horribly offensive. Please go sit in the corner.

reply to post by narwahl


It's hard for me to grasp your take on all this. Do you think it was ok that these women were banned for being uppity? The day it happened, I saw a news video snippet and a republican woman was ranting (quite possibly construed as uppity) about the offensive comment because of the use of the word Vagina, so I do think this was the given reason for the banning.

Anyway, the slope is getting more slippery by the day.

Originally posted by sheba2011

Originally posted by TinkerHaus


This bill isn't discussing REPRODUCTIVE rights. Reproduction is the act that leads to abortions. This bill still allows people to be completely irresponsible and do what they'd like with their vaginas. It's not about limiting a woman's right to her vagina, but rather about the law concerning what you can and cannot do to a fetus that was created through the free use of a woman's vagina.

Let's please stop trying to smear the words, and speak appropriately. Let's discard the buzz word labels and speak on the issue honestly.

Lisa Brown was insinuating that those who support this bill want personal access to her vagina. The comment was blatant sexual innuendo and had no place in a civilized discussion. It wouldn't and doesn't offend me, but I completely understand why these temper tantrums were punished. When my kids throw a tantrum we take a little time out to calm down too.

Act like a child, get treated like a child. If you guys want to watch the whole session you can see MANY people use the word vagina, including Republicans and Democrats, and OBGYNs.

So again, for the 50th time, despite what the MEDIA IS TELLING YOU the word "vagina" was not the reason Lisa Brown was censured.

edit on 18-6-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

I find you horribly offensive. Please go sit in the corner.

Ah, personal bias. Such a wonderful thing. =]

I haven't said anything offensive or against the clear and well-documented rules of ATS. If I had, I would expect to suffer the consequences as outlined in the ATS T&C. =D

reply to post by SunnyDee


What I saw of her remarks about jewish law mandating abortions, was news to me, and very interesting.
The punchline was great and made me laugh out loud.

If a man had delivered this, he would have been applauded.
I think the (dare I say hysterical?) overreaction of the speaker actually shows this.

Hope that clears things up.

Ah, personal bias. Such a wonderful thing. =]

I haven't said anything offensive or against the clear and well-documented rules of ATS. If I had, I would expect to suffer the consequences as outlined in the ATS T&C. =D

Your personal bias is showing too.

This bill isn't discussing REPRODUCTIVE rights. Reproduction is the act that leads to abortions.

Let's quibble here, definition of reproductive rights:

en.wikipedia.org...

The act that leads to abortion is sex. Are you, I dunno, offended by that term?


This bill still allows people to be completely irresponsible and do what they'd like with their vaginas.

"Completely irresponsible" .. there's your personal bias showing again.

My sister was highly responsible. She wanted a child very much. She did all the required prenatal tests, didn't drink or smoke, etc. But she still wound up discovering -- after the 20 week mark -- that her pregnancy was not viable and was dangerous to her life. There was no question that the fetus would die; she would also have died if she had attempted -- or been coerced, or forced -- to carry to term. Her doctor himself said he had no other choice than to insist on abortion -- even if she was willing. It was an extremely difficult and painful time. And completely private. Government intrusion of this sort would not only have killed her but would also have added insult to injury, and piled grief upon grief. THAT is "completely irresponsible."


It's not about limiting a woman's right to her vagina, but rather about the law concerning what you can and cannot do to a fetus that was created through the free use of a woman's vagina.

Often it's not "free use" of a woman's vagina, is it? Women are raped. It appears this bill would ban the morning after pill, the pills given to women who have been raped.

But the issue boils down to this: you believe once a fetus has been created -- whether it is viable or not -- the woman no longer has any control over the uterus that carries it, and the vagina that will deliver it. Her rights end, and the fetus' begin. I understand where you are coming from; but, I disagree. Not only for the examples I've already highlighted. Also because the two lives are EQUAL. If the mother is going to die, and it's the fetus that is going to kill her, then the mother's life takes precedence -- even if it's after 20 weeks, and right up to 40 weeks. This bill would prioritize the fetus' life over the mother's, even if the fetus was going to murder the mother.

Yes, murder. I am not choosing overly dramatic words here. Every pregnancy is a balance between mother's life and fetus' life. The fetus is, essentially, a parasite that cannot exist without the mother's support system. The mother's body actually competes with the fetus all throughout the pregnancy.


Let's please stop trying to smear the words, and speak appropriately. Let's discard the buzz word labels and speak on the issue honestly.

Okay.....

Act like a child, get treated like a child. If you guys want to watch the whole session you can see MANY people use the word vagina, including Republicans and Democrats, and OBGYNs.

... then stop calling people "children" .. that is demeaning. It is offensive. It smacks of you thinking you know what is best for women, for all women, in what is a personal and private matter. Which is the problem here. You don't.

reply to post by sheba2011


Talk about splitting hairs!

No, actually I am a supporter of choice.. Again, had you read my earlier posts you would know this.

So no, I don't think I'm showing my personal bias. I support choice yet I disagree that this incident occurred over the use of the word "vagina."

When I said women can continue to be completely irresponsible with their vaginas, it was an extreme example.. But to that line of thought, the vast majority of abortions are 100% voluntary, and serve to abort an unwanted fetus due to irresponsible breeding habits of the mother. Basically the majority of abortions are party girls who don't want the party to end. Adoption is a legitimate solution.. And for those of you that would argue that a woman's body is different after childbirth.. Well, partygirl should have thought of that before she hooked up.

I am sorry to hear about your sister's situation, and I absolutely agree that if a mother's health is threatened by a pregnancy, that it should be aborted. I am glad she and her doctor's made the right choice and that she is still with us today.

I do NOT agree with what I will refer to as "casual abortion."

I do NOT agree with late term abortion where the fetuses body is literally RIPPED APART. In the event of a trouble pregnancy or health concerns for the mother, this belief can be altered. I am after all, a rational person. If tests have shown that fetuses who are spoken to and listen to music respond positively to it, how the hell can we also believe that they feel no pain when they are literally ripped into pieces during an abortion? I assure you, the fetus DOES feel pain just like you would if someone violently crushed your skull with forceps.

I do NOT agree with making a mockery of our political system by using inflammatory language and misrepresentation to serve a political agenda. I do not believe in speaking out of turn or yelling while The House is meeting. In my opinion, these women were acting for political reward and exposure, which they have received.

You are making assumptions based on my interpretation of the story presented in this thread, and I can understand that. You would assume someone that is pro-choice (for the most part) would agree, without thought, that these women were unfairly targeted. Well, I am for the most part pro-choice, and I still believe they were acting immaturely and were justifiably censured.

And again, it needs to be pointed out that they were not censured during the abortion rights discussion - they were censured the next day. Brown was unable to speak on some school referendum, and Byrum was unable to speak about her proposed amendment to the bill that would have required stiff penalties for vasectomies. (no pun intended, but laughingly welcomed!)

This amendment sponsored by Byrum alone is evidence of disrespect and abuse of Michigan State's judicial system. This women wants to tie up tax dollars with government sponsored abortion, and she doesn't mind wasting tax dollars on ridiculous, reactionary bills that have no practical use whatsoever. It would simply delay the legislative process... Your representatives at work!

Additionally, this amendment is TOTALLY counter productive if this woman truly does believe in personal choice. The problem is, she doesn't. She wants women to be able to have unrestricted, unquestionable rights to abortion but she wants men to be unable to prevent a pregnancy from happening in the first place? So if men couldn't get a vasectomy, we could expect more pregnancies over time, and if abortion wasn't at all regulated, we'd see more abortions too.. Does this women fight for women's rights or does she just love abortion?

I'm not criticizing these women for their beliefs.. Rather, I'm disgusted how this event was spun and told untruthfully, and how ATS members eat up the media-cake without second thought. So much for Deny Ignorance.

The way I see it is that those male legislators are using this as an excuse to exercise their dominance over women.
Don't you wonder if it were a male legislator expressing the thought, would he have been banned?

It does seem that this whole issue of women's rights, including the abortion issue is rising again under male dominance. This could be the step that eventually takes us on the road to Shariah law. It certainly conforms their way of thinking.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by sheba2011

 

Talk about splitting hairs!

No, actually I am a supporter of choice.. Again, had you read my earlier posts you would know this.

I've read all of your words. You are for choice, provided it fits within your definition of choice only. It's not the same. You are making blanket judgments about "party girls" and "irresponsible" women, when you have absolutely no idea why any woman would get an abortion, what the circumstances of her life and her heart are.

When I said women can continue to be completely irresponsible with their vaginas, it was an extreme example.. But to that line of thought, the vast majority of abortions are 100% voluntary,

Aren't we glad for that? If the vast majority of abortions were coerced or forced, that would be a bad thing, no? We do not want to coerce or force anyone into anything now, do we? Isn't that the definition of "choice"? The choice you say you are for?

and serve to abort an unwanted fetus due to irresponsible breeding habits of the mother.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that you continue to use inflammatory word choices that I could easily call offensive. "Breeding" habits? My dear, women do not "breed" -- dogs breed.

Basically the majority of abortions are party girls who don't want the party to end. Adoption is a legitimate solution.. And for those of you that would argue that a woman's body is different after childbirth.. Well, partygirl should have thought of that before she hooked up.

I am in my late 40s. I am no party girl; I'm a mother of two teenagers. I am still fertile. I cannot use any form of b.c. except condoms. Should I accidentally get pregnant, my doctor will insist on a therapeutic abortion, due to health issues I am considered "high risk." Adoption? Very likely any child I might conceive would have chromosomal abnormalities, at this age. But, you think I am a party girl ........

I am sorry to hear about your sister's situation, and I absolutely agree that if a mother's health is threatened by a pregnancy, that it should be aborted. I am glad she and her doctor's made the right choice and that she is still with us today.

If you agree with that, then you do NOT support the Michigan bills.

I do NOT agree with what I will refer to as "casual abortion."

My dear, there is no such thing as a casual abortion. You have obviously never been pregnant.

I do NOT agree with late term abortion where the fetuses body is literally RIPPED APART.

My sister's situation was even worse than that; she got a course of chemo after. Her baby was treated like a cancer.

I do NOT agree with making a mockery of our political system by using inflammatory language

Then stop using inflammatory language yourself.

and misrepresentation to serve a political agenda. I do not believe in speaking out of turn or yelling while The House is meeting. In my opinion, these women were acting for political reward and exposure, which they have received.

They were, rightly so, drawing attention-- National attention-- to the slippery slope we are about to descend down, the one that will lead us right back to 1950s and back alley abortions with hangers. Be silent, your rights are taken away. It's not about their individual political exposure and reward. It's about calling attention to an issue.

You are making assumptions based on my interpretation of the story presented in this thread, and I can understand that. You would assume someone that is pro-choice (for the most part) would agree, without thought, that these women were unfairly targeted. Well, I am for the most part pro-choice, and I still believe they were acting immaturely and were justifiably censured.

edit on 18-6-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

You're not pro choice, sorry. If you were pro choice, you'd say that abortion should be legal, and that we should protect and defend anyone attempting to erode those rights, as they are trying to do around the country. That even if you personally would not get an abortion, or do not agree with a woman's choice to do so, it's simply none of the government's business. Because it's a private matter between the woman, her partner, the unborn fetus, her doctor, and God (if she believes).

When I saw this on the news, I wanted to stand up and applaud this lady. I think it's funny how all these stuffed shirts got offended by her lewdity!

This is really going to blow up in their faces though.

Now, more than 2,800 people say they plan to attend a protest at the Capitol tonight, with many of those taking to a Facebook page created for the event to share their plans.

One man posted a picture of cupcakes decorated like vaginas he said he plans to bring, while a woman suggested showing up wearing tampon jewelry to the play, "The Vagina Monologues," which will be performed on the steps of the Capitol at 6 p.m.

"Bring signs, bring your vagina, bring your outrage, bring your humor," said the play's author, Eve Ensler.

reply to post by sheba2011


You misunderstand, yet again. Here we go off on a tangent only slightly related to the point of the thread. Oh well, here goes.

If you read my words then what aren't you understanding? I don't think people should go out and get pregnant, knowing they can just get an abortion and literally KILL the problem. I do believe in second chances and I realize people make mistakes, but a lot of people habitually get abortions. I know some of them.

Aren't we glad for that? If the vast majority of abortions were coerced or forced, that would be a bad thing, no? We do not want to coerce or force anyone into anything now, do we? Isn't that the definition of "choice"? The choice you say you are for?

Yeah, it's great people can choose abortion. I wasn't saying abortions should be forced, what I was saying is that the vast majority of abortions come because of irresponsible sexual habits, not because of a health concern. Are you misunderstanding on purpose, to fool those with poor comprehension skills who may be reading this? Or did you just not understand?

Why is it ok to abort a third-term fetus but not a 2 month old? They aren't that much different..

I think it's absolutely hilarious that you continue to use inflammatory word choices that I could easily call offensive. "Breeding" habits? My dear, women do not "breed" -- dogs breed.

Women breed. Females breed. When two humans have intercourse that results in a pregnancy, that is breeding. I'm sorry that you are offended by scientific terminology. Interesting that the premise of this thread and the position that most have taken is that this Michigan Representative was censured for using the appropriate terminology for the female reproductive organ, yet when I use a scientific term for reproduction you chastise me. Hilarious!

I am in my late 40s. I am no party girl; I'm a mother of two teenagers. I am still fertile. I cannot use any form of b.c. except condoms. Should I accidentally get pregnant, my doctor will insist on a therapeutic abortion, due to health issues I am considered "high risk." Adoption? Very likely any child I might conceive would have chromosomal abnormalities, at this age. But, you think I am a party girl ........

Did I accuse you of being a party girl? No, you projected that onto yourself. Despite common misconception, there are plenty of options for birth control for women over 40. This is the irresponsible and uninformed breeding I mentioned earlier. Thanks for giving us a real world example. If you don't believe me Google it, or call your doctor.

My advice to you is don't "accidentally" get pregnant.

If you agree with that, then you do NOT support the Michigan bills.

There are multiple bills, the one you are referring to that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of gestation is still being reviewed. Nice try though.

My dear, there is no such thing as a casual abortion. You have obviously never been pregnant.

There most definitely is. I can assure you there are a lot of women who view abortion as an easy option. Just to give you an idea of the type of industry it is, take a look at some ads for Michigan State abortion clinics here.

They look a lot like the ads you see in the back of men's magazines, they are marketed toward young ladies. Abortion clinics are a for-profit industry, and because of the ability to have an abortion on the taxpayer's dollar, many women have had multiple abortions. I've never been pregnant because I don't have the equipment for it. That doesn't mean I don't have a lot of real world experience.

They were, rightly so, drawing attention-- National attention-- to the slippery slope we are about to descend down, the one that will lead us right back to 1950s and back alley abortions with hangers. Be silent, your rights are taken away. It's not about their individual political exposure and reward. It's about calling attention to an issue.

Again, more reactionary and misleading rhetoric. The bill that actually passed serves to ELIMINATE shady, unclean, quick-profit, shoddy clinics. So far nothing has been done to make abortions illegal or harder to get. The bill that moved forward will:

The bill would impose new insurance and licensing requirements on abortion clinics that bill opponents said could force them to close. It also would regulate the disposal of fetal remains, require some physicians who perform abortions to carry $1 million in liability insurance, ban the use of teleconferences to prescribe abortion medication, and force doctors to screen women for coercion before providing abortions.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

And yes, I am pro-choice. Because I personally don't agree with something doesn't...