South Dakota passes Menstrual Inspection Act, will imprison women who miscarry

Comments

11 comments posted
I thought

this was the launch of South Dakota's stem cell research program.

dblhelix's picture
Posted by dblhelix (not verified) on 15 March 2006 - 11:02am
maybe they can adapt

some less-used milking stalls on some farms to automate the process ... maybe some enterprising farm boys can set one up as a 4H project.

Worship the "baby" ...

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 15 March 2006 - 11:11am
Don't Give Them Any Ideas...

...Please. I don't want to wake up one morning to hear HRC talking about how so many of us find menstruation a "sad and tragic" event.

alsis39.75's picture
Posted by alsis39.75 (not verified) on 15 March 2006 - 11:45am
Honestly, don't joke: to

Honestly, don't joke: to some people, that's actually perfectly reasonable.

This is a description of life in Romania under Ceausescu. It's horrifying to think that this was happening just over 20 years ago:

"In 1984 the legal age for marriage was lowered to fifteen years for women, and additional taxes were levied on childless individuals over twenty-five years of age. Monthly gynecological examinations for all women of childbearing age were instituted, even for pubescent girls, to identify pregnancies in the earliest stages and to monitor pregnant women to ensure that their pregnancies came to term. Miscarriages were to be investigated and illegal abortions prosecuted, resulting in prison terms of one year for the women concerned and up to five years for doctors and other medical personnel performing the procedure. Doctors and nurses involved in gynecology came under increasing pressure, especially after 1985, when "demographic command units" were set up to ensure that all women were gynecologically examined at their place of work. These units not only monitored pregnancies and ensured deliveries but also investigated childless women and couples, asked detailed questions about their sex lives and the general health of their reproductive systems, and recommended treatment for infertility.

Furthermore, by 1985 a woman had to have had five children, with all five still under her care, or be more than forty-five years old to qualify for an abortion. Even when an abortion was legally justified, after 1985 a party representative had to be present to authorize and supervise the procedure."

Rachel's picture
Posted by Rachel (not verified) on 15 March 2006 - 12:42pm
California provides Infanticide Amnesty Act, permits baby murder
The new law permits women who's fetuses have escaped during childbirth to abort the baby even outside of the womb. Many California mothers have complained that it is not fair that they can't kill their children whenever they want, even if they are not as forward-thinking as mothers who abort while their children are still in the womb.

"It's not fair," a local woman states. "What's the difference if it's outside of the womb, or inside? I don't want to have to take care of a baby."

Some women have dreamt of a method of reinstalling babies back into the womb to kill them prior to this new law, but the Infanticide Amnesty Act provides them with a way that is much more comfortable. And who wouldn't choose murder over a loss of comfort?

Yes, I made that up. Now that's not so far-fetched now, is it?

media boy's picture
Posted by media boy (not verified) on 15 March 2006 - 2:35pm
is it hard to type

with your pinhead rammed that far up your ass?

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 15 March 2006 - 3:26pm
I don't see anyone arguing that

Except change the gender, and you have your basic men's rights advocates' position.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 15 March 2006 - 4:04pm
Hi there, Mr. Misogynist!!
...mothers have complained that it is not fair that they can't kill their children whenever they want, even if they are not as forward-thinking as mothers who abort while their children are still in the womb.

i.e: aborting a pregnancy at 6 weeks = ZOMG BABY MURDER!!!!11! sob sob. Yeah, exactly the same! Wow! Awesome argument you've got there, guy - really original too!!!

"I don't want to have to take care of a baby."

i.e: Women abort because they can't be bothered to look after a child - okay, so this really smart theory can't account for people who do have babies and then neglect them, but hey! No-one's perfect! Specially not the tool who wrote that post!

"And who wouldn't choose murder over a loss of comfort?"

i.e: [yawn] Women terminate their pregnancies because they don't want to endure the, er, "discomfort" involved in growing a new organ, having every single one of their bodily systems affected, and risking permanent injury or death - all for the sake of a blastocyst that we never invited in. The cheek of it!

We're such a bunch of lazy, self-obsessed bitches, ain't we?!

Retards like this remind me why I'm so lucky to live in the UK, a country where it's taken for granted that I am allowed to make the decisions about what happens to my body.

Rachel's picture
Posted by Rachel (not verified) on 15 March 2006 - 6:42pm
Cue the rabbinic panels

a la Orthodox Israel, in the most extreme sects.

Worship the Baby, worship the monthly slough!

Exp if there is a bidness aspect to it all.. and Religion is God's own Bidness.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 15 March 2006 - 2:36pm
S. Dakota menstruation act

If true, my thought was: eugenics can't be too far behind...

Joan Conde's picture
Posted by Joan Conde (not verified) on 16 March 2006 - 10:28am
LOL

Bwahahahaa.

April's picture
Posted by April (not verified) on 30 March 2006 - 11:49pm