Feast your tired eyes on this:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... sum+HB1677
That's right. If you have a miscarriage, and don't tell the fuzz about it within *12 hours*, you go to jail.
Compassionate conservatism at work.
See here for more:
http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com ... e_sen.html
Including the fun fact that among the dozens of pieces of information you are required to furnish is the weight of the dead fetus. I'll leave *that* post-miscarriage household chore to your imagination.
Ryan
Pro-Life Insanity in VA
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Pro-Life Insanity in VA
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
Living in Virginia sometimes makes me want to puke. If I didn't grow up here, and my wife and my family weren't from here, and the weather wasn't so nice, we would have left. The sad and simple fact is that most of the people in power positions calling the shots, both Democract and Republican, are social conservative assholes. Visiting other areas in the country, even bordering states such as North Carolina and West Virginia, I'm reminded of how prickish, uptight, and unfriendly our good people of Virginia can be.
Of course, everyone's not like what I described. However, it tends to concentrate up at the top, and trickles down to other people in positions of authority.
The legislation you showed above comes from some right-wing religious nutjob who probably thinks the world was created in 4004BC. That's the kind of people who are most electable here at the local level. They run on a semi-religious platform, and once they're elected they think they'll pass (slip through) all kinds of tricky legislation which will bring God back into the mix. The only people who are saving us are the northern Virginia contingent, of which Gov. Warner (D) is a member. How he got elected, I don't know, because he's not overtly religious and he's a Democrat to boot. Look for him to possibly make a run for President in 2008.
Of course, everyone's not like what I described. However, it tends to concentrate up at the top, and trickles down to other people in positions of authority.
The legislation you showed above comes from some right-wing religious nutjob who probably thinks the world was created in 4004BC. That's the kind of people who are most electable here at the local level. They run on a semi-religious platform, and once they're elected they think they'll pass (slip through) all kinds of tricky legislation which will bring God back into the mix. The only people who are saving us are the northern Virginia contingent, of which Gov. Warner (D) is a member. How he got elected, I don't know, because he's not overtly religious and he's a Democrat to boot. Look for him to possibly make a run for President in 2008.
Here we go again, more insanity. Predictably, it's the Democrats from Northern Virginia who stand up against the bigotry and intolerance of gays and lesbians.
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:
Senate approves measure banning gay marriages
It's expected to pass in the House and then would be put to voters
The Virginia Senate approved 30-10 yesterday a measure that would make same-sex marriages in Virginia unconstitutional.
The House of Delegates put off until today its version of the proposed amendment. The measure is expected to pass overwhelmingly in that conservative body, where all 100 seats will be decided by voters in November.
On an issue involving gays that the House did vote on yesterday, delegates voted 71-24 in favor of requiring social-services agencies to take into account whether a couple that wants to adopt a child is gay.
In a sometimes-emotional Senate debate on its marriage amendment, which restricts the recognition of marriage to "a union between one man and one woman," critics said the measure recalled the Holocaust and Virginia's past support of segregation.
Proponents argued that the protection of traditional marriage needed to be enshrined in the Virginia Constitution to put the "faith and credit" of the state behind a possible legal challenge.
Virginia already has a law banning same-sex civil unions; it was passed last year after the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a ban on same-sex marriages there. A number of states have since put or sought to put bans in their constitutions.
An amendment to the Virginia Constitution must be approved by two legislative sessions with an intervening election for the House before being put before voters in a referendum. The earliest such a referendum could be scheduled is November 2006.
Ten Democrats voted against the measure yesterday. All 24 Republicans were co-sponsors, and all voted for it, as did six Democrats.
The two Democrats seeking their party's nomination for attorney general split. Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, D-Bath, voted for it. Sen. John S. Edwards, D-Roanoke, spoke and voted against it.
"This is not about a particular lifestyle," Sen. Stephen D. Newman, R-Lynchburg, the chief sponsor, said during debate. "It is about protecting marriage."
Referring to Virginia's past support of segregation, Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple, D-Arlington, said, "This commonwealth seems to be entrusted to a future of intolerance that mirrors its past."
Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, said Virginia would be stigmatizing gays, just as Hitler stigmatized Jews in Germany before World War II.
"It is xenophobia that led to the rise of Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy," Locke said. "It is homophobia that brings us to this place in time today."
"God made us all in his image -- man and woman, black and white, straight and gay," Sen. Janet D. Howell, D-Reston, said in the course of her argument. Howell said Jews in Nazi concentration camps were forced to wear yellow patches, while gays wore pink patches.
"In Virginia today, we do not require pink triangles. We stigmatize and marginalize people in other ways, as we go down a path that we don't know where it will end."
Victoria Cobb, executive director of the Family Foundation, which applauded the vote, called those remarks "offensive" and demanded an apology for Virginians.
"The citizens of Virginia clearly support traditional marriage," she said.
Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, D-Fairfax, called his colleagues hypocrites and said if they were really interested in protecting marriage they would look to the high rate of divorce.
"It's not what gay people are doing to marriage, it's us," he said.
Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, said the amendment was needed because of "the tyranny of [federal] judges."
He said homosexual activity had been illegal in Virginia since its founding until the U.S. Supreme Court decided laws banning sodomy were unconstitutional. The House sponsor of the adoption issue, Del. Richard H. Black, R-Loudoun, said the measure would protect children. Opponents have contended the bill also marginalizes gays and lesbians and is unnecessary because state law already requires investigators to check out the backgrounds of potential adoptive parents.
Originally, Black's bill called for barring gays and lesbians from adopting children, a proposal that a House committee weakened last week.
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:
Senate approves measure banning gay marriages
It's expected to pass in the House and then would be put to voters
The Virginia Senate approved 30-10 yesterday a measure that would make same-sex marriages in Virginia unconstitutional.
The House of Delegates put off until today its version of the proposed amendment. The measure is expected to pass overwhelmingly in that conservative body, where all 100 seats will be decided by voters in November.
On an issue involving gays that the House did vote on yesterday, delegates voted 71-24 in favor of requiring social-services agencies to take into account whether a couple that wants to adopt a child is gay.
In a sometimes-emotional Senate debate on its marriage amendment, which restricts the recognition of marriage to "a union between one man and one woman," critics said the measure recalled the Holocaust and Virginia's past support of segregation.
Proponents argued that the protection of traditional marriage needed to be enshrined in the Virginia Constitution to put the "faith and credit" of the state behind a possible legal challenge.
Virginia already has a law banning same-sex civil unions; it was passed last year after the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a ban on same-sex marriages there. A number of states have since put or sought to put bans in their constitutions.
An amendment to the Virginia Constitution must be approved by two legislative sessions with an intervening election for the House before being put before voters in a referendum. The earliest such a referendum could be scheduled is November 2006.
Ten Democrats voted against the measure yesterday. All 24 Republicans were co-sponsors, and all voted for it, as did six Democrats.
The two Democrats seeking their party's nomination for attorney general split. Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, D-Bath, voted for it. Sen. John S. Edwards, D-Roanoke, spoke and voted against it.
"This is not about a particular lifestyle," Sen. Stephen D. Newman, R-Lynchburg, the chief sponsor, said during debate. "It is about protecting marriage."
Referring to Virginia's past support of segregation, Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple, D-Arlington, said, "This commonwealth seems to be entrusted to a future of intolerance that mirrors its past."
Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, said Virginia would be stigmatizing gays, just as Hitler stigmatized Jews in Germany before World War II.
"It is xenophobia that led to the rise of Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy," Locke said. "It is homophobia that brings us to this place in time today."
"God made us all in his image -- man and woman, black and white, straight and gay," Sen. Janet D. Howell, D-Reston, said in the course of her argument. Howell said Jews in Nazi concentration camps were forced to wear yellow patches, while gays wore pink patches.
"In Virginia today, we do not require pink triangles. We stigmatize and marginalize people in other ways, as we go down a path that we don't know where it will end."
Victoria Cobb, executive director of the Family Foundation, which applauded the vote, called those remarks "offensive" and demanded an apology for Virginians.
"The citizens of Virginia clearly support traditional marriage," she said.
Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, D-Fairfax, called his colleagues hypocrites and said if they were really interested in protecting marriage they would look to the high rate of divorce.
"It's not what gay people are doing to marriage, it's us," he said.
Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, said the amendment was needed because of "the tyranny of [federal] judges."
He said homosexual activity had been illegal in Virginia since its founding until the U.S. Supreme Court decided laws banning sodomy were unconstitutional. The House sponsor of the adoption issue, Del. Richard H. Black, R-Loudoun, said the measure would protect children. Opponents have contended the bill also marginalizes gays and lesbians and is unnecessary because state law already requires investigators to check out the backgrounds of potential adoptive parents.
Originally, Black's bill called for barring gays and lesbians from adopting children, a proposal that a House committee weakened last week.