C'mon, man.
Look, Rivers is in serious trouble, given how she screwed each and every one of us out of $1600 in gas tax money here in Clark County while lying to us about it to get elected.
She's hearing it. So what's her play to try and restore her conservative cred... if that's possible?
This "hooray for me!" bill that even she acknowledges isn't going anywhere... which makes it nothing more than an attention getting device to try and calm down the conservative base howling for her scalp:
Each bill dropped in the legislature costs approximately $5000 in staff time and other administrative costs.
So, when a legislator drops a bill... which is the terminology used denoting the physical act of dropping the bill on the Bar, it's a $5000 or so chunk of tax dollars getting spent.
"Several other states" apparently are actually 7; Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Dakota. Illinois enacted a ban that was struck down in court.
Is this bill the right thing to do? It's as right as any other restriction on abortion. But it's also likely as survivable in this state as any other such effort; that is, not at all.
If this bill is an issue... that is, if it addresses a specific need... provable and quantifiable... then of course.
But under the circumstances, I see this as something just a bit more manipulative: specifically, an effort doomed to already acknowledged failure to trump up Gas Tax Rivers' sorely lacking conservative cred as she comes up for re-election having stiffed us with a $700 million bill which she promised she would never do as a condition of her election to the Senate.
You know, the people having spoken and her hearing us and all.
I admit to being something of a cynic. But if this bill is to outlaw a gender-specific abortion, how is it remotely enforceable?
If a woman is contemplating an abortion because of the gender of a child, and an abortion is outlawed as a result of gender identification of the baby... then what's to stop the mother from simply not indicating that is the motivating factor?
Nothing.
The only way this bill COULD work is if abortion were outlaw-able here in Washington and that's as likely as Chris Vance taking out Patty Murray this November: in short, not at all.
The bill, then, is a waste of time, effort and energy with only one single purpose:
To make Rivers look good to an angry conservative base still smarting from her betrayal on the gas tax and tab fee increases she voted for (after pledging not to do so) and to be used for her re-election effort as fodder for her mailers and TV ads.
To attempt to rehab a bruised and battered image.
All at the cost of roughly $5000 more to us.
I know it. She knows it. Her RINO posse knows it... and now YOU know it.
Meanwhile, every time I refill my diesel, I'm forking over dollars to the state thanks to River's betrayal of her district and this county that I otherwise wouldn't be handing over. And I will be for years to come.
And so will you.
And nothing she does... no matter how flashy or earned her media may be as a result... changes any of that.
Look, Rivers is in serious trouble, given how she screwed each and every one of us out of $1600 in gas tax money here in Clark County while lying to us about it to get elected.
She's hearing it. So what's her play to try and restore her conservative cred... if that's possible?
This "hooray for me!" bill that even she acknowledges isn't going anywhere... which makes it nothing more than an attention getting device to try and calm down the conservative base howling for her scalp:
Washington bill seeks to ban sex-selective abortions
Washington state is among a handful of states this year where lawmakers are seeking to ban abortions sought because of the gender of a fetus, something abortion rights groups say is a veiled effort to expand restrictions to abortion in the state.RACHEL LA CORTE Associated Press
Senate Bill 6612, sponsored by Republican Sen. Ann Rivers of La Center, would make it a Class C felony, carrying a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine, for a doctor to knowingly perform or attempt an abortion sought solely because of the sex of the fetus. A physician would also face losing his or her medical license.
The bill, which has a public hearing Tuesday morning, notes that the United States, along with other counties, "has petitioned the United National General Assembly to declare sex-selection abortion a crime against women" and that India, Great Britain and China have all taken steps to end the practice.
"The victims of sex-selection abortion are overwhelmingly female," the bill reads. "Women are a vital part of our society and culture and possess the same fundamental human rights as men.""I don't think this bill will go anywhere, but I would like to keep the profile raised on this very important issue," she wrote in a text message.
Rivers said she introduced the bill because several other states have already banned sex-selective abortions and she wanted to "have a collegial discussion about it."
"I don't think this bill will go anywhere, but I would like to keep the profile raised on this very important issue," she wrote in a text message. (My emphasis)
Abortion rights groups argue that sex-selective abortion is not an issue in the United States. Rachel Berkson, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington called the Senate bill "a Trojan horse to ban abortion."
"Of course, NARAL Pro-Choice Washington has long opposed and will continue to oppose reproductive coercion in any form, and that includes societal pressure to have a child of a particular sex," Rachel Berkson, the group's executive director, said Monday.
But Berkson said that it's impossible for doctors to prove the reasons for why a woman is seeking an abortion, and she said she believes it could cause doctors to stereotype women from countries where sex-selection abortion is a known practice.
"We think this would unfairly harm them and stand in the way of their access," she said.
Seven states currently ban sex-selective abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy group. According to the National Conference of State Legislature, at least four other states, in addition to Washington, have introduced similar measures this year: Indiana, Oregon, West Virginia and Missouri.
Even if the Washington state measure progresses out of the Republican-controlled Senate, it is not likely to gain traction in the Democratic-controlled House.
Each bill dropped in the legislature costs approximately $5000 in staff time and other administrative costs.
So, when a legislator drops a bill... which is the terminology used denoting the physical act of dropping the bill on the Bar, it's a $5000 or so chunk of tax dollars getting spent.
"Several other states" apparently are actually 7; Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Dakota. Illinois enacted a ban that was struck down in court.
Is this bill the right thing to do? It's as right as any other restriction on abortion. But it's also likely as survivable in this state as any other such effort; that is, not at all.
If this bill is an issue... that is, if it addresses a specific need... provable and quantifiable... then of course.
But under the circumstances, I see this as something just a bit more manipulative: specifically, an effort doomed to already acknowledged failure to trump up Gas Tax Rivers' sorely lacking conservative cred as she comes up for re-election having stiffed us with a $700 million bill which she promised she would never do as a condition of her election to the Senate.
You know, the people having spoken and her hearing us and all.
I admit to being something of a cynic. But if this bill is to outlaw a gender-specific abortion, how is it remotely enforceable?
If a woman is contemplating an abortion because of the gender of a child, and an abortion is outlawed as a result of gender identification of the baby... then what's to stop the mother from simply not indicating that is the motivating factor?
Nothing.
The only way this bill COULD work is if abortion were outlaw-able here in Washington and that's as likely as Chris Vance taking out Patty Murray this November: in short, not at all.
The bill, then, is a waste of time, effort and energy with only one single purpose:
To make Rivers look good to an angry conservative base still smarting from her betrayal on the gas tax and tab fee increases she voted for (after pledging not to do so) and to be used for her re-election effort as fodder for her mailers and TV ads.
To attempt to rehab a bruised and battered image.
All at the cost of roughly $5000 more to us.
I know it. She knows it. Her RINO posse knows it... and now YOU know it.
Meanwhile, every time I refill my diesel, I'm forking over dollars to the state thanks to River's betrayal of her district and this county that I otherwise wouldn't be handing over. And I will be for years to come.
And so will you.
And nothing she does... no matter how flashy or earned her media may be as a result... changes any of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment