Vagina remarks, silencing of Michigan lawmakers draws firestorm online.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Suppose parents promise to pay for their daughter's college, providing she get's straight A's. She does, but she also get's pregnant. They rescind their contract if the girl refuses to get an abortion. This becomes illegal under the bill.

8 (ii) WITHDRAW, ATTEMPT TO WITHDRAW, OR MALICIOUSLY THREATEN TO
9 WITHDRAW FROM A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE THE
10 TERMS OF THAT CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT HAVING PREVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO
11 A CONTRACT OR OTHER LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT TO WHICH THE PREGNANT
12 FEMALE IS A PARTY OR BENEFICIARY.

8 (ii) WITHDRAW, ........................................FROM A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT ..........................TO WHICH THE PREGNANT FEMALE IS A PARTY OR BENEFICIARY.

Contract is a BIG word.

If a parent, in an emotional outburst, threatens to knock the girl into the stone age if she doesn't have an abortion, they would be guilty of a criminal act, under this bill. However the same threat with the circumstances opposite, "I'll knock to back to the stone age if you DO get an abortion" is not illegal under the bill.

So coercion is not a 2 way street. The rights of the girl are not being measured in this bill. Silencing the pro-choice argument is.

reply to post by windword

Contract is a BIG word.

If a parent, in an emotional outburst, threatens to knock the girl into the stone age if she doesn't have an abortion, they would be guilty of a criminal act, under this bill. However the same threat with the circumstances opposite, "I'll knock to back to the stone age if you DO get an abortion" is not illegal under the bill.

So coercion is not a 2 way street. The rights of the girl are not being measured in this bill. Silencing the pro-choice argument is.

OK, you have a great point here. I agree that language should be added to prevent coercion in either direction.

But I can almost guarantee there are numerous examples of young women who were forced by their parents to get an abortion under the type of situation outlined in your post.

One thing to consider is that young women would still be allowed to get an abortion with 100% confidentiality.. So those that had made up their own minds without the influence of family, friends, doctors, etc, might never encounter this situation. Of course young women who chose to keep the baby would have to disclose their pregnancy to parents, thus opening them up to be forced/coerced into getting an abortion.

That was stated badly, hope it makes sense.

I agree that the law should be written in consideration of both scenarios, but I think there is a practical reason that it is not. Not a nefarious reason.

This bill is subject to amendments when it moves through the Senate - this might be a good suggestion to write a Michigan State Rep about.

reply to post by windword


Explanation: I agree that in the scenerio you submited to break such a contract would be illegal and I see nothing wrong with that!

Personal Disclosure: Don't promise what you can't or wont keep to!

reply to post by TinkerHaus

BTW, I have no problem with regulating the industry to comply with basic medical practice standards, but I do have a problem imposing unnecessary procedures and monitors that only serve as roadblocks and added complications.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

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?

And im quite sure not a single F*** would have been given when the women saw another talking cock on the floor.
They are probably used to it by now.

Originally posted by The X

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

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?

And im quite sure not a single F*** would have been given when the women saw another talking cock on the floor.
They are probably used to it by now.

I'm confused by your divisive comment considering your avatar states "we are ONE close the distance"

Which is it? Men versus Women or We are ONE?

Originally posted by sputniksteve

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

I guess these lawmaker's Mommies and Daddies, against all expert advice, used words like "pee pee" when referring to body parts.

Teach children proper names for all body parts. Use words such as genitals, penis, vagina, vulva, anus, and private parts. Most children associate the uses for these body parts as related to bathroom functions. Explanations related to the sexual functions of these body parts need not be provided until the child is older or when the parents feel it is appropriate.

Michigan parent guide source

And again, l2DenyIgnorance. The ban on speaking WAS NOT due to the world "vagina" as they are trying to make you believe. It was because the comment was inappropriate. She wasn't talking in a medical context, she was accusing the floor of being interested in her lady parts.

Apparently you have the same problem those guys do. What she said is not inappropriate. It is you that are a prude and can't handle to hear the word.

People understand just fine what the issue is here, you don't need to explain it. People just disagree with YOUR opinion.

No, actually it's more than my opinion - it's outlined in the Michigan State House of Representatives House Rules

www.legislature.mi.gov...

Conduct in Debate.

Rule 28. When any Member is about to speak in debate or present any matter to the House, the Member shall rise and respectfully address the Presiding Officer, confine remarks to the question under debate, and avoid personalities. Members Called to Order.

Rule 29. If any Member in speaking transgresses the rules of the House, the Presiding Officer shall, or any Member may, call the transgressor to order, in which case the Member so called to order shall immediately sit down and shall not rise unless to explain or proceed in order.

This entry explains the justification for censuring Byrum based on her "VASECTOMY" outburts.

Personal Privilege and Conduct.
Rule 74. (1) Matters involving personal privilege are limited and include only the
following:
(a) Anything tending to subject a Member to ridicule or contempt;
(b) Charges in news media accounts relating to a Member in his or her representative
capacity only;
(c) News media accounts attributing to a Member remarks he or she has not made;
(d) Accusation by another Member in debate of intentional misrepresentation;
(e) Assault on a Member for words spoken in debate; and
(f) Arrest of a Member except for treason, felony or breach of the peace.
(2) A Member shall not use his or her position in any manner to solicit or obtain
anything of value for himself or herself, House employees or any other Member which tends to
influence the manner in which the Member performs his or her official duties.
(3) Sexual harassment of Members or House employees is prohibited and will not be
tolerated by the House.
(4) A Member shall not convert for personal, business and/or campaign use, unrelated
to House business, any supplies, services, facilities, or staff provided by the State of Michigan.
This includes, but is not limited to, telephones, telecopy machines, computers, postage, and copy
machines.
(5) A Member shall not solicit or accept any type of campaign contribution in any
House facility or building.

Please point your attention toward Rule 1, part d - and Rule 3. Representative Brown clearly violated both rules.

And for the sake of being thorough, please refer to Rule 29 posted above, which deals with how any transgression of the rules should be dealt with.


And because I know some of you will attempt to dispute this, here is a legal definition of sexual harassment:

Sexual Harassment

noun 

Harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks

I'm sorry, you're wrong. Have you read the entire thread? I'm certain it's been clearly demonstrated that the word "vagina" was not the issue, it was the context and innuendo under which the word was used.

I have no problem with the word "vagina." What I do have a problem with is a representative making obscene accusations toward her colleagues. Silly how many people jumped on this bandwagon without understanding the bills being discussed, the actions that took place, or the code of conduct under which all of these representatives agree to abide by. I hate to sound like a broken record but DENY IGNORANCE.

This is just getting foolish now.

It's interesting you called me a prude.. If you only knew.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


The Detroit Free Press is one of the most liberal papers in the U.S. I take it with a grain of salt the way liberals take Fox news.

Ms. Brown got a little mouthy and a little emotional and when she used the v word. It was in deference to one of the senators essentially telling him "no" I'm not available to screw you. Not very professional.

Also Ms. Brown mentions that in the bible abortion is alright if it saves the life of the mother. This is true. However, saving the life of the mother can include just about anything including suicide. She means anything.

Not sure about the disposal of the fetuses and some other strange add ons but this is quite a reversal from the brazen sexual behavior we see in Hollywood. I think it is a recoil for the moral standard decline we have seen since 1973. Lucky me, my graduating year. What a wonderful time to be in love.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Just wanted to say thanks TinkerHaus for trying to educate the willfully ignorant. I could only look through 3-4 pages of you having to repeat yourself and people STILL not getting it.
Feminist pro-abortion types just love to make this a big deal to prove how evil and forceful men are, but a "funny" shocking comment where you imply someone else wants you sexually is out of line.
"Hey don't rape me, I know you want my penis" is inappropriate, clearly
"I don't think it's necessary to have a mandatory, invasive penis examination" is appropriate, medically.
The two usages are entirely different, and anyone who equates the two is wrong. If they try to play it off, it's only because it serves their agenda.

Learn to behave and you wont be censored. Crazy right?

I also would like to applaud Tinker...Your responses were correct and well thought out! Again, the word "Vagina" is not the problem here, it was the inappropriate connotation. I think it should be easy to see really. I understand this was an emotional topic, however...the way she and others went about it was completely unprofessional

On a personal note: Tinker...I don't know who you are, but I certainly have respect for you as an individual. You stood your ground and you provided evidence to your points! Not too many people do their research these days...even if it is ATS. It's too bad this story got so much attention, as I would have assumed, most could see it for what it really was. Apparently not so...

Anyway....I applaud your style....ATS needs more people like yourself!!!!

Keep on Keepin on

reply to post by Destiny10


Destiny, is it safe to assume you're female? I only ask because it has been asserted in this thread that this is a men versus women argument, if you are female that kind of proves that it's less about sex and more about interpretation of events..

So do we really have a female here claiming that this isn't a women's rights issue, and is more an issue of conduct?


Also, thanks to all of you who voiced your support of me here - I was starting to think I was all alone and perhaps a little crazy. =]

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Also, thanks to all of you who voiced your support of me here - I was starting to think I was all alone and perhaps a little crazy. =]

You ARE all alone and VERY crazy!

Seriously, I also appreciated you candor in our conversation, as well.