This is one of those things I wish I hadn’t come across with the morning coffee. But I did, and there’s no getting the lid back on now.
Allow me to present the fragrant Mississippi state Representative Bubba Carpenter, here holding forth on that state’s recently passed abortion ban;
It’s going to be challenged, of course, in the Supreme Court and all — but literally, we stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi, legally, without having to– Roe vs. Wade. So we’ve done that. I was proud of it. The governor signed it into law. And of course, there you have the other side. They’re like, ‘Well, the poor pitiful women that can’t afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger. That’s what we’ve learned over and over and over.’
But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we’ve decided to do. This became law and the governor signed it, and I think for one time, we were first in the nation in the state of Mississippi.
Yep, you have to have moral values. Yep, you have to start somewhere.
Good thing this “war on women” thing is just a figment of our collective, feverish, we-just-love-big-gummint imaginations, otherwise, you know, something like this might just make a person want to mail this no-neck prick a coathanger.
What a shame we don’t know his address. Oh wait, someone in the comment thread over at TP found it. What a good idea….
8 Carpenter Dr.
Burnsville, MS
38833
Not that anyone would ever want to call him, but just in case; 662-427-8281
(h/t ThinkProgress)
That’s a bellyfull for me for the day —I’m off to take a bunch of tomato and poblano starts over to Mikey’s and stick ‘em in the ground, and man, they are looking good. Something sane and delightful as a palate cleanser.
Far be it from me to assume insight into the hon. Representative’s moral philosophy, but I guess it could be argued that ‘screw all the poor, pregnant women’ is a moral value.
It’s a shame that anyone connected with such a fabulous Shrimp company could sink so low.
This guy ought to be wearing a holly and hemlock wreath on his Bubba head.
This is clearly a ploy to try to fire up the spittle and brimstone hellfire fundy’s come November. And nothing else. If some poor women have to die from hideous infections and bloody hemorrhages to get that vote out, hey… you gotta start somewhere.
Bluth,
Sure, at some level. But maybe not this guy. I kind of suspect that for him, the posturing self-righteousness and especially the publicity he gets from it are their own rewards. Look at that adorable mug, fit his words to it, and tell me I’m wrong.
Nat,
No doubt whatever that what you say is true. But this particular Bubba is just a low-down bandwagon bubba. He’s getting his buttons pushed, and his eggings on, and the wheels for his bubba wagon from higher up the food chain. Somewhere aloft in the thin air where the strategizing bubbas fly.
As for this guy, I’m pretty sure if somebody hooked a coat-hanger down his throat they might just drag up out of that smug excuse for a neck some nasty kind of abortion. He looks like a baby-eater to me.
This is what we’re up against, folks. Because there are alot of Bubba’s out there.
If we let the Bubba’s take over this country people in a few short years US citizens will be queueing up outside the Indian embassy to try and get immigration visas.
It kind of makes you wish his mother had used one on him doesn’t it…
Trouble is, these people smell success, don’t they? They’re effectively reversing Roe v. Wade by stealth — and why isn’t this kind of thing being challenged? How can it be ‘constitutional’ for states in a federal system to effectively negate federal law?
(I realise that would. with the Repugs and TP in their present mood, create a lot of constitutional fire and smoke, but why should anyone imagine these reactionaries are going to stop with abortion? They seem to be intent on destroying or reneging on all kinds of federal provisions for the benefit of society.)
Squirrel,
don’t worry the law will be challenged. Unfortunately, that may well require a plaintiff who is pregnant and wants an abortion, which puts time strains on the system, not to mention psychological strains on the poor woman.
Bluth -
Well, i don’t know if that’s the situation in which it will be challenged, in those circumstances. If it’s someone with enough money to bring a suit, they can just go to another state to get the job done. I’d look to the ACLU maybe, or possibly a womens’ group.
Porn,
It will definitely be the ACLU either alone or with others, but even they still need a plaintiff. And the plaintiff needs to be someone with standing, which means, generally, that she (in this case) has to have a concrete stake in overturning the law, not a theoretical stake, or merely the same stake as any one of us might consider ourselves to have.
Roe v Wade, for instance, had an actual plaintiff. Ironically, perhaps, she has in later life come out behind the veil of anonymity and said she regretted doing it. Something the ‘pro-lifers’ like to ululate about. Of course her feelings were not the issue. The issue was the law. And at the time she was convinced that she wanted an abortion.
Also it can well cause a problem for whoever is trying to overturn the case if they find a plaintiff who is pregnant and wants an abortion and lives in Miss and they start the case and then… the plaintiff does indeed go to another state and abort. Because then the case will probably be dismissed, and they have to start all over again.
Bluth -
It’s a thorny one, isn’t it. Maybe their best bet would be a plaintiff or group who had already done the deed, and would have been far up a creek if they hadn’t. Someone with severe medical, health, or economic issues. The problem with that though – say with someone who was pregnant via a rape situation, or where the fetus had developmental problems – is that the law could be overturned only for specific instances.
It’s definitely thorny. Not least because someone who has already done the deed no longer has standing. She has got to be pregnant and in need of the remedy that she seeks. At least at the start. The court could agree to allow her to remain the plaintiff even after her need no longer exists -and given the time frames involved that is just about a necessity- point is there’s nothing that forces them to do that. So if the court simply wanted to avoid the issue… that might be a way out for them. And in the meantime the law would stand.
I’m not suggesting that even this court would be that irresponsible. Just pointing out some more thorns.
From the opinion Roe v Wade:
Of course the current court might disagree…
Nice!
I’ll leave the legals to you…
I’ve read the ‘statement’ again, and it still comes across as spiteful.
I just hope the ‘God’ he believes in makes him suffer when his time comes…
Off Topic but Breaking News:
Donna Summer has died.
One of the greats. Even now as I think about her I am itching – just itching – to get up out of my chair and DANCE!
Oh no!!!
RIP Donna.
Yes, RIP.