« Ohhh-bama | Main | Where In The World Is Barack Obama? »

The New SJR7 :: Bank Teller's Babies Bill

Did Eric Miller take a vaycay? It certainly seems like this would have prompted him to crawl out of the woodwork. For those of you living under a rock, mom-to-be Katherin Shuffield was shot in the stomach while she was simply doing her job as a bank teller on April 22. Days later, her twins died at five months gestation, two months shy of the point required by Indiana law to bring forth a murder charge.

Today State Rep. Mike Murphy (R-Indy), Senator Jim Merritt (R-Indy) and Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi  held a press conference announcing their plans to pursue legislation criminalizing fetal homicide at any point during the pregnancy. The announcement piques the interest of pro-choice advocates and media guardians the state over.

So, how many legislators do you think will file similar bills criminalizing the murder of an unborn fetus in any circumstance? Wingnut roll call! Jackie Walorski? Jeff Drozda? Marlin Stutzman? Jeff Thompson?

Worse: how many legislators would actually vote for such a bill? I don't think we want to go there. Will this be the next SJR 7 or SB 345? How will Speaker Bauer handle the issue? Let us not forget there will be a new chair of the Courts and Criminal Code Committee this year as State Rep. Phil Hoy (D-Evansville) isn't seeking reelection. Might there be a chance, assuming the Democrats retain their majority, that State Rep. Nancy Dembowski (D-Knox) will be handed the committee? I imagine she would skillfully guide the issue through committee.

For those of you who think "pro-choicers" are baby killers, think again. This unfortunate instance serves to illustrate the point that the real baby killers are the criminals who sauntered into a Huntingdon Bank on a breezy Tuesday morning. And according to tonight's WISH-TV poll, 90% of us want the Brizzi/Merritt/Murphy proposal enacted. Perhaps what WISH-TV should've asked was, "Should the proposal become law even though it could compromise your right to choose?" I fear the hypothetical numbers would be much higher than we might think. Whether or not that will be the deciding factor for the Speaker's veto (essentially), we will have to wait and see.

Posted by: divanongrata

Comments

This guilt-by-association game is getting ridiculous. But linking the current Planned Parenthood agenda to eugennics, because of Ms. Sanger's alleged side interest in that subject, is just silly.

She's been dead for 32 years. Wag on about PP all you want--but I think I could probably find some pretty insane side interests of the original 1966 founders of Right to Life.

As for "Supreme Beings," I, too, get most of my fortitude from one Supreme Being. Back away from the narcotics, 11:07. It encourages you to make tall leaps with a single bound. Without logic attached thereto.

The Supreme reference was clearly to the currently-comprised Supreme Court. Which, to most court observers, is off its rocker, oh, 35-50% of the time.

Or worse.

And it's the prime reason I will vote for either of the two Democratic presidential candidates in the fall. We cannot afford for the sure-to-come Supreme vacancies, to be filled by Grandpa John McCain. Pardon the reference, but:

God forbid.


"The rights given to us by the Supremes.."??? What!?! Are you kidding? You get your rights (not to mention your morality) from folks in black robes? They decide your inalienable rights, huh? My rights and moral compass are established by THE Supreme, and if that makes me a wing-nut, then YESSIR! But statements like that quoted above should give even the most liberal posters here pause...

"Planned Parenthood's original mission was eugenics?"

Nah. But, eugenics was near and dear to Margaret Sanger's heart. She wasn't exactly progressive when it came to race relations, which is almost always conveniently left out of the discussion.

Interesting post, tdwblog. But please, for the sake of everyone, no more abortion posts.

I've learned a lot reading these postlets.

And most of it goes into the mental trash can. It's a tough issue, and it involves, mostly, the rights given to us by the Supremes...whose future is Issue 1 for me when I vote for president.

Planned Parenthood's original mission was eugenics?

just a guess that Terri isn't the president of the 08ama fan club.

Well, the guy who caused the death of the twins should be prosecuted for double homocide, if Obama had his way though, you could have the babies born, lay them on a self to die, and STILL not face any sort of criminal charges. He voted twice blocking the bill for the infants born alive protection act, that even HRC, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all signed! I hope that Indiana has their say in this political process, some of these super delegates think the process should be cut short, like Joe Andrew! I think not only should it not be cut short but it should go to convention. Obama had a free pass for too long. And why not debate HCR, why because he will lose like he did the other debates, in which the questions had to be tossed to him, and handled with kid gloves. THIS is a time in history, to say no to a anti American, racist liar, to finally send the message that regardless of your skin tone America finds that behavior unacceptable!

maybe both sides could work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduce abortions too. that is the goal of the pro-choice folks I know.

the pro-life camp always seems to want to couple abstinence only sex education. seems counterproductive to me.

Good call, Indygirl! Note the change...

Btw, divanongrata, used in the context of your posting, "peeks" is actually spelled "piques".

John M is right on and Chris is obviously missing a few key ideas behind this movement. Sure Republicans may have had control, but it's more complicated than that. CONSERVATIVES would have gotten the job done, but LIBERALS (including liberal Republicans) dropped the ball during those years of control. Given your inhumane viewpoint regarding innocent life, maybe you should be applauding those that stood in the way, instead of attempting to divide the R party.

We already provide plenty of resources (much more than we ever did before gov't supported abortion) for babies that are not aborted. Just because we're saying that every life has the right to not be killed, doesn't mean that we need to provide some sort of extemporaneous service that life may need beyond it's most vulnerable years of development. Let's give those fetuses the chance to survive first, then we'll talk about ensuring their standard of living. They need to LIVE first. Let's start there.

The decline continues. Just a few weeks ago, this blog was a must-read outlet for wit and wisdom.

"For those of you who think "pro-choicers" are baby killers, think again. This unfortunate instance serves to illustrate the point that the real baby killers are the criminals who sauntered into a Huntingdon Bank on a breezy Tuesday morning."

That makes no sense. No act of the Indiana General Assembly is going to overturn a right that the USSC says is guaranteed by the US Constitution. You describe the bank robbers in question as "baby killers," yet you oppose a law that would characterize them as such, mainly because of a vague, unfounded belief that such a law will somehow undercut abortion rights. It just isn't so. If your concern is that such a law will lead to more people considering fetuses of five months gestation as "babies," well, your choice of words makes pretty clear that the ship has sailed.

"I doubt abortion will ever end up being totally illegal."

You are right. The Republicans, for all their lip service to the horrors of abortion have no intention of ever making it illegal. If they make it illegal, then they lose it as an issue to hold over voters. The Republicans have no intention of fixing what they decry, they just want to make sure that everyone remains scared so they continue to vote Republican.

Don't believe me? For 6 years the Republicans controlled all of Congress and the White House, that was plenty of time to make a change if they actually wanted to.

Wingnuts AWAY!!!

Now that they've officially shown up, let me ask them. Do you also support universal healthcare and mandatory health insurance on every child?

See this is where it gets sticky for them, they want everyone to have these babies, yet they care not for actually taking care of the baby after it's born.

That's not pro-life, it's pro-birth.

So now that he killed two babies and threatened the life of the mother, there should be no dissent when seeking to abort him from society's womb.

I heard the perpetrator of this crime was an African American. It certainly isn't right, but if Planned Parenthood was doing what it originally intended to do at its own inception (eugenics), he may not have even been born to commit this crime. Think about that.

"This unfortunate instance serves to illustrate the point that the real baby killers are the criminals who sauntered into a Huntingdon Bank on a breezy Tuesday morning."

What is even more sick is that this same killer could go on and kill 1,000 people in armed robberies all over the country, and the same people cheering for abortion would be protesting when the state decided to abort his life via the death penalty. Talk about two faced hypocrites. Killing innocent would be humans morally righteous. Killing an already born human who has taken the life of hundreds, even thousands, morally wrong.

And the pro-abortion people are going nuts already. Give me a break. Killing a fetus is already illegal, abortion is still legal. I saw nothing in the press conference where they were going to repeal IC 35-42-1-0.5. I know, I know, this could be a stepping stone to outlaw abortion. Oh, the horror of millions of would be humans not being killed. I doubt abortion will ever end up being totally illegal. For me, keeping abortion legal pretty much backs me when it comes to issues like guns, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. etc.. Everyone wants to act like a human life is "priceless." Sorry, you can put a price tag on a human life. If preventing a would be human life (in the vast majority of abortions, there would more than likely be a perfectly fine human being born) only costs say $1,000, then that is the starting price of what a human life is worth. So when the progressives start screaming about confiscating my guns, which have killed no one, due to the sole fact that a few thousand criminals kill each other off, I just roll my eyes. How can a person sit there and champion the legality and morality of ending a would be human life, for a fee, then turn right around and say that every single life is precious and you can't put a price tag on a human life? They want to tax us more to provide for the layabouts and bums, so they don't starve or die of sickness, and they want even more taxes to make sure would be humans do die before they are born. They like to play both sides of fence. Time to stop being hypocrites.

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Find Stuff

  •  

Buy Stuff

Fun With Numbers