Comments

  • They keep coming up with more Laws.

    How about enforcing the ones on the books.

    Then when they get bored and have the funds they can ifind new ones to make a name for themselves.

    March 9, 2011 at 12:17 p.m.
  • @Writein, Being pro-life is being consistent with the natural law, besides I don't know if Rep. Morrison is Catholic or not. Being a natural law issue, it is like the law against murder, stealing, perjuring, etc. I don't many people marching on the steps of the capitol to do away with these natural laws which are also shared among Judeo-Christian people.

    There is a relation to Christianity in regards to the human person. Before Christ, people were not considered persons. Personhood is a unique development with Christian thought. Personhood is the basis for each person being endowed with "inalienable rights," that is rights not given by the State, rather they are rights by virture of being a person.

    Re: education. I don't know much about the issue because I haven't researched it much. I do know one thing, schools need students. It is difficult to have students they are not given the chance to reach birth.

    March 9, 2011 at 12:04 p.m.
  • Jared.

    Let me add this too.

    1) If Geanie Morrison was so worried about the Unborn then shouldn't write a bill banning partial born abortions?

    2) Should she focus on the HIGH DROP OUT RATE in her hometown VISD? Drop out make more unwanted childern than those who stayed in school.

    WHere are you on that Jared? Lets not beat around the bush.

    - Williams

    March 8, 2011 at 6:33 a.m.
  • Jared

    The real reason why this bill was written because State Rep. Morrison is trying to ensure herself to another term in 2012. Hint of this is her unpopluarity within Ron Paul/Matt Ocker circle ( GOP Chairman election 2010)

    Second, your answer is untrue. You said "I am Catholic, but wouldn't favor the state forcing people to convert. " Here is my response, you may not force people to be Catholic, but thtough your comments/actions you are forcing people to be Catholic/Conservative Christian like.

    March 8, 2011 at 4:56 a.m.
  • Jared,

    You ask, "What is your stance on government intervention for the benefit of projects you favor?"

    It depends. The state has responsbilities that it should take care of, when appropriate it should. I would call the state to halt on some things that I favor as well. For example, I like mac-n-cheese, but wouldn't favor a mandatory eating of such. I am Catholic, but wouldn't favor the state forcing people to convert.

    You ask, "How is it any different than Planned Parenthood? Does it make any difference if it is local, state or national government?
    What you may not realize is that any time you give government the power to do your bidding, it will eventually do something you don't like." Yes it may, hence why I am active according to state in life. And a good reason for a checks and balances system, yet even then it can make mistakes.

    You state, "As for your comment “…a simple sonogram”, here is a description of the device used for the ‘simple sonogram’:
    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/en...

    I recall my statement, it appears it is not a simple sonogram. Is it any more complicated than say an abortion?

    You respond, "No, Jared, your attempts to clump Planned Parenthood and the action of the Texas Legislature together is misleading." How so?

    You say, "Think about it--Folks access all of the services offered by Planned Parenthood VOLUNTARILY.
    If a woman seeks an abortion WHICH IS STILL LEGAL, she is now MANDATED BY STATE LAW to have an invasive sonogram prior to that abortion. The invasive sonogram is not voluntary.
    That's the difference."

    My tax money goes to support an organization that is the number one provider of abortions, this is not voluntary on my part. Whereas a woman, at this time, can legally obtain an abortion voluntarily, her sonogram also becomes voluntary it appears.

    I can accept that my tax may need to help someone in medical need. But I have problems that I have to be taxed for things like abortion and contraception availability because some people wish to have no consequences for certain actions or cannot control their sex drive. Both of these don't seem to fit in the medical care need. What medical issue is solved with contraception or abortion?

    March 7, 2011 at 8:05 a.m.
  • Isn't the counseling at planned parenthood clinics responsible for talking some women out of abortions?

    March 6, 2011 at 12:15 a.m.
  • Here's the text of the bill thus far:

    http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/...

    Of course you can always stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la" thanks to the following:

    "Sec. 171.055. RECEIVING INFORMATION DURING SONOGRAM. The
    physician and the pregnant woman are not subject to a penalty under
    this subchapter solely because the pregnant woman chooses not to
    receive the information required to be provided under Section
    171.053."

    March 5, 2011 at 10:53 p.m.
  • Jared,
    What is your stance on government intervention for the benefit of projects you favor? How is it any different than Planned Parenthood? Does it make any difference if it is local, state or national government?

    What you may not realize is that any time you give government the power to do your bidding, it will eventually do something you don't like.

    As for your comment “…a simple sonogram”, here is a description of the device used for the ‘simple sonogram’:

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/en...

    March 5, 2011 at 9:06 p.m.
  • No, Jared, your attempts to clump Planned Parenthood and the action of the Texas Legislature together is misleading.

    Think about it--Folks access all of the services offered by Planned Parenthood VOLUNTARILY.

    If a woman seeks an abortion WHICH IS STILL LEGAL, she is now MANDATED BY STATE LAW to have an invasive sonogram prior to that abortion. The invasive sonogram is not voluntary.

    That's the difference.

    March 5, 2011 at 8:02 p.m.
  • EA and will, with all due respect, it is not apples and oranges. EA spoke about the State being in her uterus and PP receives State funding and a service they provide happens to be regulating uteran activities and actions directly performed in the uterus. PP is actually more in the uterus than a simple sonogram. I am not anti-government or anti-state, rather for appropriate government. I was hoping for consistency, but I think I am not finding it. Also, EA, you mention "reproductive rights," but as I mentioned earlier, reproduction has already occured. Your statement is misleading.

    Thank you Maryann, it is a natural law issue which many people find true, Catholic and non.

    March 5, 2011 at 7:15 p.m.
  • Abbey Johnson made the point in an interview with Raymond Arroyo that if the PP clinics would close, due to defunding, other health clinics are available which provide the same services and more, just without abortion.

    She has a book out, called UnPlanned. When I get it, I can tell you more, and maybe ask you four or more questions some time.

    Take care.

    March 5, 2011 at 12:47 p.m.
  • Here's another take on this issue...

    http://juanitajean.com/2011/03/05/hel...

    March 5, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.
  • maryann

    Fair enough but I'm getting some conflicting reports from some reliable people...IMO..You know me I need more that two converts...Hard data!

    I don't think you can use 6° Kevin Bacon logic to de-fund PP... That's probably moot point because democrats won't vote for it and I think president Obama would veto it.

    BTW On question #2 For some it's not exactly a either or when it comes to choosing a clinic i.e. The 75% that are in the 150% poverty level[ that's $33,525 for a family of 4.]

    March 5, 2011 at 12:36 p.m.
  • Oops. #3 should begin with No.

    Mike, you're tricky today :-} .

    March 5, 2011 at 12:24 p.m.
  • 1. Oh yea.

    2. Not sure. But the "help" that these women get could also be comprehensive help obtained at many health clinics that don't do abortions. In fact, they could get even more comprehensive exams, as PP doesn't do mammagrams, only breast exams.

    3. Yes. According to Abbey Johnson, a recent former Planned Parenthood director of a clinic in College Station, TX, PP relies on abortion as its "cash cow" AND she was told by PP to have a quota of abortions in 2010 because of the slumping economy.

    If abortions made up for only a small part of the PP economy, then she would not have gotten the mandate for more abortions.

    It was because of these tactics, contact with anti-abortion people, and helping out with an abortion that was done with a sonogram that she left PP.

    BTW, Planned Parenthood tried to take her to court to keep her from disclosing what went on in the clinic. Thankfully, she wasn't silenced. Along with Lila Rose, they are great new, YOUNG faces in the movement to end elective abortion.

    4. When it involves killing innocent human life, sure, we should legislate morality. Also, with stealing, enslavement, etc.

    March 5, 2011 at 12:21 p.m.
  • RE:maryann

    I have 4 questions if you don't mind.

    1. Do you support legislation by the GOP to de-fund Planned Parenthood ?
    2. Is it true that 20% of all women have received help from Planned Parenthood at some point in their lives.
    3. Do you disagree with Planned Parenthood's website statement"Abortions account for only a small fraction of the services provided by Planned Parenthood — mainly providing contraception, screening for cancer and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Many of the clients are low-income women with few other options for non-emergency health care."
    4. Are we supposed to be legislating morality?

    March 5, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.
  • That should be www.godlessprolifers.org

    March 5, 2011 at 11:39 a.m.
  • Hello WWW,

    According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 54% of women who sat in the Planned Parenthood's own waiting rooms for an abortion were using birth control. Looks like when the birth control fails, abortion takes care of things.

    Not everyone is secular-minded like you Windy. We all come from various backgrounds on here, and I welcome Jared's point of view, just like I welcome others.

    BTW, Jared's point of view is not just a Catholic point of view. His natural law ideas are also held by people who are not religious but respect the dignity of the human person.

    That's why there are pro-life atheists out there - www.godlessproliders.org

    Also, I'm in a bible study right now with Catholic and Protestant friends. The book we use is by Nancy Campbell, a pro-life, natural family planning non-denominational Christian. Catholic she ain't.

    But I enjoy her point of view and think she has much to offer.

    I think we can go beyond, "You're Catholic (Jewish, Buddhist, agnostice) therefore you're ideas don't count."

    March 5, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.
  • Jared..."EA, regarding Sid's hand in your uterus. Do you support defunding planned parenthood for it too receives tax money for use in uterus' and for giving contraceptives away?"

    Can you not understand that giving contraceptives to women actually helps to PREVENT pregnancies that might otherwise end in abortion? Not everyone is catholic and not everyone -- even all catholics -- share your catholic sense of "morality" that says that the use of birth control is immoral. If you want to talk about what's immoral, it's the bringing into the world children who are not wanted to parents who either cannot or are unwilling to house, feed, clothe and raise them to become healthy, productive citizens who are assets to the community. Not every sex act, regardless of what some old batchelor in Rome says, should end in the woman becoming pregnant, or in the risk that she will become pregnant. Sex if FAR more than the method of continuing the species.

    March 5, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.
  • Jared—
    You’re mixing apples and oranges here. Yes, it’s all fruit, but what Sid and Geanie and 32 other states want to do is insert themselves in the middle of my doctor/patient relationship—without my asking them to. The State’s assumption that I need help with this decision is incorrect.

    My decision to seek services of any kind at Planned Parenthood would be a voluntary one, unlike the scenario above. There’s the difference.

    I have a brain. I can think for myself. I find it very amusing when some folks accuse the current administration of trying to be a nanny state when they make health suggestions as to what to eat or whether to vaccinate your child, yet these same folks have no problem with a small group of others trying to legislate how women take care of their reproductive rights.

    Figure out what you want, please! Some don’t like anchor babies, families on 2nd and 3rd generation welfare and Medicaid, but you want to eliminate a LEGAL means to perhaps help some of these folks? You cannot have it both ways.

    You question about PP being defunded—I have no problem with PP receiving funding at this time.

    Thank you, will--excellent comment. But remember--we weren't really allowed to see those dead bodies. The White House limited what we could see. On the other hand--we get to view Wm. Paul Tasin's signs whether we want to or not.

    March 5, 2011 at 10:57 a.m.
  • Jared, Planned Parenthood is more about womens health than JUST ABORTIONS. They the help uninsured with all kinds of female health issues including healthy women exams that the women may not be able to afford otherwise.
    My TAX dollars went to help murder thousands of living children who suffured things you would not be able to handle, in Iraq.

    March 5, 2011 at 10:39 a.m.
  • EA, regarding Sid's hand in your uterus. Do you support defunding planned parenthood for it too receives tax money for use in uterus' and for giving contraceptives away?

    March 5, 2011 at 6:53 a.m.
  • Ponderthat, I wonder if George Bush would look at the sonogram of the thousands of living breathing babies he killed mamed and burned to death in his illegit war? Why arn't we dealing with this issue? A single cell begets so much emotion, but once the babies are born, the bubas dont want to foot the bill of welfare and medicaid and other social programs that burden those of us that pay taxes..
    You bible and guns republicans are hypocrites.

    March 4, 2011 at 6:43 p.m.
  • Sid Miller needs to get his hand out of my uterus. Geanie Morrison should do the same.

    On the other hand, maybe now they can concentrate on the real pressing issues of the state like the deficit and being so near the bottom on mental health issues and education.

    March 3, 2011 at 10:30 p.m.
  • Perhaps she wants the sonogram in 3D with a full sound system....

    March 3, 2011 at 3:02 p.m.
  • It is nice to know with the state deficit, rising cost of living, problems paying for education and all the other issues we face that Too Much Makeup Morrison is working so hard on this issue!

    March 3, 2011 at 2:41 p.m.
  • And...what made this State Rep. think she can dictate to all women what they should do? Is this an issue of "GUILT" she wants to impose? Of couse it is. She should have lived at the "turn of the last century" when women were fighting to simply vote; she might not have supported those women? While I don't support that all women should have an abortion because they just want to, I think that this should be an individual right. Why make this a political issue?

    March 3, 2011 at 11:59 a.m.