Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Tom Brinkman's abortion bill
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Archive
Pkemp22402
You are not going to believe what is being proposed in Ohio. This is sick, sick, sick......

QUOTE
Best of Cincinnati for September 8, 2005 

Brinkman vs. Roe 
      
Brinkman vs. Roe

Ohio considers banning nearly all abortions

By Stephanie Dunlap



By Woodrow J. Hinton
When State Rep. Tom Brinkman Jr. introduced a bill banning all abortion in Ohio, he knew it violated Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion. That's exactly why he did it.

By introducing House Bill 228 to the Ohio House of Representatives April 28, Brinkman (R-Mount Lookout) joins pro-life lawmakers across the country who are pushing anti-abortion legislation. Their hope is that at least one bill will end up in front of the Supreme Court in three or four years, by which time they expect President Bush to have appointed at least one justice sympathetic to their cause.

The movement isn't terribly organized, but there's a reason for differences between his sweeping bill and, say, South Dakota's more tempered one, according to Brinkman.

"If we all passed the same (bill), then when they knocked out one of us they'd knock us all out," he says. "So it's our opportunity to put different ones across the plate, hoping that one will be the magic bullet."

Woman as vessel
He points out that even overturning Roe vs. Wade wouldn't end legal abortion; the decision would just revert to the states.

The decision Ohio would make is little in doubt, according to a 2004 NARAL Pro-Choice America report called, "Who Decides?"

Based on the political leanings of their governors and legislatures, Ohio and 18 other states would quickly ban abortion, says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

In only 13 states would abortion probably not be at risk, she says.

Anticipating that, Brinkman's bill also prohibits transporting a woman across county or state lines for an abortion. Doing so would carry the same charge as an in-state abortion: first- or second-degree felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Only when it's medically necessary to save a woman's life would Brinkman's bill allow abortion. But that never happens anyway, he says.

"It's a fallacy perpetrated by the Planned Parenthood people," Brinkman says. "My doctors tell me they're never in that type of dilemma."

"Isn't that nice, coming from a non-medical person?" says Debi Jackson. "Like he would know."

Jackson heads Cincinnati Women's Services, which takes what she calls a "holistic approach" to abortion. About two-thirds of the 1,200 pregnant women who come to her every year were using some form of birth control, she says.

She thinks the tenor of current legislative dealings bode ill for women's rights.

"It's not possible for something to be living inside you and have equal rights," she says. "It's becoming quite clear that a woman is just a vessel until the child is born."

Jackson is embroiled in a lawsuit opposing yet another state bill that tightens informed consent requirements, effectively making it harder for battered women to get abortions.

Nor is this Brinkman's first attempt to restrict abortion. Last year the state legislature passed his bill requiring the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone, also known as RU-486, to be administered in a dosage widely recognized to be three times higher than medically necessary -- rendering the procedure three times more expensive. That bill is also tied up in lawsuits.

Last week another state representative, Michelle Schneider (R-Madeira), introduced a bill prohibiting the use of public funds or facilities for all abortions except to save the life of a mother. That means rape victims on Medicaid are triply out of luck.

Meanwhile, a bill sponsored by State Sen. Teresa Fedor (D-Toledo) that would require insurance companies to cover contraceptives can't even get a legislative hearing.

'I was abstinent'
So what would Brinkman say to a young girl pregnant by her uncle?

"I would just tell that 13 year old -- I know they're (going) through a traumatic situation -- number one, it's not the baby's fault," he says. "Number two, we should have adoption choices available."

He also points out that not all women who become pregnant by rape or incest want abortions.

That's very true, says Ann MacDonald, executive director of the Rape Crisis and Abuse Center of Hamilton County, formerly Women Helping Women, which provides crisis intervention and support services for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking. But that doesn't mean they should be denied the option, she says.

The agency doesn't do pregnancy counseling, though, so MacDonald doesn't know how many of the at least 1,000 rape victims she sees yearly end up facing that decision.

"Women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and incest have just had a horrific, traumatic experience which was out of their control," she says. "It's important for them to have the ability to make their own decision about an unwanted and uninvited pregnancy."

Paula Westwood, executive director of Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, uses different logic to argue that men win and women lose when a child of rape is aborted.

"What has happened is, men know, 'Well, if I happen to rape a woman, I can have her get an abortion,' and then even if he goes to prison he's free of all responsibility," she says. "If (victims of rape) can carry the child to term, they're free from any guilt from an abortion and they're also freer because the man really has no hold on them, because even though the man fathered the child the woman has some victory over it."

She also likes the simplicity of Brinkman's bill.

"Having abortion-ban legislation that bans all abortion on demand and then saying, 'Ah, here's an exception,' it's kind of inconsistent," she says.

Brinkman himself talks up the consistency of his pro-life platform, which includes opposition to the death penalty. Yet the only sex education he condones is for what he calls "the only 100 percent effective birth control" -- abstinence.

"I was abstinent," he says.

That discrepancy is why people such as Sue Momeyer, president of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, accuse Brinkman of caring more about pandering to extremist politics than about the health of half their state's constituents.

"They're using women's health and women's lives as political football," Momeyer says. "If they are serious about wanting to prevent the need for abortion, they need to focus on preventing unintended pregnancy. This is the same legislature that cuts Medicaid for women and children and that decimated the state family planning program."
heritage
Brinkman ran in the primary to replace Portman. He didn't win. I posted lots of stuff on Brinkman awhile back... probably in a forum under Ohio. He is far right.
Pkemp22402
QUOTE(heritage @ Sep 8 2005, 09:40 PM)
Brinkman ran in the primary to replace Portman. He didn't win. I posted lots of stuff on Brinkman awhile back... probably in a forum under Ohio. He is far right.
*



Thanks. I just took a look at what you posted. This guy is really extreme and it is clear that his constituents don't listen to him or respect his politics. I have to agree with NARAL that it is disturbing there are people out there that would introduce something this sweeping and downright controlling of women. This not only would hurt women, but it keeps a women's husband from protecting her in this situation as well. If something like this ever passes, we would move out of the state as soon as possible, no questions asked.

What can be going through this guys head? I think this issue needs to go away simply because it is just getting sick and too extreme.

Another thing, I want for some of these conservative men to feel the same way they are making women feel as all of these graphic and extreme measure bills do.

I want someone to introduce legislation to the state legislature, stating that no man can get a vasectomy, as this would be a method of birth control. I would like for this bill to state specifically what can and cannot be done to a man's penis, in respect to getting a vasectomy, and why. I would like all of the church leaders to come out and support this, gather together marches, support groups, print articles, form coalitions, make a huge deal out of it and embarass the royal sh%^ out of the conservative men who keep proposing these bills. I would also like the bill to state that if a man's wife drives him over state line to get a vasectomy, she will get thrown in jail. I want for the men that are so good at trying to propose these bills and intimidate women with their proposals, to feel the exact same way they make women feel. It seems, for some of the conservative men, the only thing they can do to make them feel powerful is to control women with proposals such as these. This "controlling" attitude is also found in the same mindset of someone who abuses women as well. Why can't all of this "abuse" of women stop?

I am really starting to think if this issue doesn't go away, women on the whole are going to have a case for psychological abuse. There is another bill that should be presented to the house, prevention of psychological abuse of women by pro-life politicians. I think there is a case for it honestly, because IMO the debate of this issue has been the equivalent of war and they are not letting up. I think at some point women on the whole should be compensated for damages over the extreme right's behavior on this issue because their actions are crude, insensitive, and unbelievably diminishing of civil rights for women, and that is being generous.

Also, I keep reading that there are 1 million abortions per year in this country. I guarantee that number is highly exagerrated. There are procedures that are performed after a women miscarries on her own that are considered abortions as well and are done quite frequently. I have no doubt that these numbers reflect the procedures done after a women miscarries also and not the true number of intentional abortions done while the fetus is still alive. I would say the number of intentional abortions per year is probably more like 25,000. That is pretty low for a country as densely populated as ours. Why can't they give credit where its due and realize that most women don't have abortions for the most part; and, they are spending a lot of time, money , and burning many political bridges by taking the issue any further? anger.gif anger.gif anger.gif
Alexander38
anger.gif
QUOTE
Only when it's medically necessary to save a woman's life would Brinkman's bill allow abortion. But that never happens anyway, he says.

"It's a fallacy perpetrated by the Planned Parenthood people," Brinkman says. "My doctors tell me they're never in that type of dilemma."



Let me see now, becourse his ortodontist and plastic surgeon tells him this there are actually people that beleives that dripple!!!.
My mom would have died or been very close to it at a least two occasions when she had a pregnancy outside her womb, so that Bull**** is enough to make me %&#"%&#¤&", not to mention that i would turn him upside down and give him a serious spanking in his ass. And beleive me i could and would, unfortunantly that sick fuc* would probably find it exceiting anger.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.