Jindal: No abortions, no exceptions.
Feb 5th, 2007 by Daniel Z.
One of the reasons that “Jindal is Bad” is his stance on abortion. Louisiana is a conservative state and there are many people who are “pro-life”. However, many pro-lifers will make exceptions for several circumstances; life, health, incest and rape.
Bobby Jindal is not one of those pro-lifers. If Bobby Jindal had his way, all abortions would be banned. This means that if a 12 year old girl is raped by some thug, and impregnated, that the 12 year old girl would have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, expose herself to the increased risk of health problems by being delivering at such a young age, and basically have her rape extended for 9 months.
Just think about that a second. If your 12, 13, 14 year old daughter comes home raped by some jerk who refused to take no for an answer, do you want her to go through the emotional and physical pain that comes with childbirth at such a young age? Do you want her to have the increased health risks that come with young pregnancies?
The stance of “no abortions, no exceptions” is absolutely disgusting. Regardless of the current ban on abortions, I do not think that we should be electing people who hold such disgusting beliefs as “no abortions, no exceptions” to office. In my opinion, if you vote for Jindal knowing this stance, you are supporting this stance. Yes, that is an extreme statement but “no abortions, no exceptions” is such an extreme stance that you would have to support it if you knowingly vote for someone who supports it. And that would make you disgusting as well.
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Loading ...
I agree, although I do not advocate abortion it sholud not be legislated and tacked down to something so cut and dry. Every situation is different. Every person will have to answer to God for their choice. He is the judge on this.
I wonder if Jindal has any idea that when a woman is about to die and they do a c-section to deliver a baby that is below 30 weeks, technically it is classified as a termination of the pregnancy even thought the hospital will do all they can to save the baby. He also will need to let all of the married couples who are counting on in vitro to have a baby that they are out of luck. His position may sound good to the extreme crowd but it does not show any understanding of the broad definition of abortion.
I do not know what Congressman Jindal’s stance on IVF is. In reallity, IVF has nothing to do with the medical definition of abortion (the termination of a pregnancy).
Unfortunately, some in the extreme religious right wing try to frame the “abortion debate” to include “discarding unused embryos” when performing IVF… completely ignoring the number of embryos that are naturally discarded via natural conception practices.
Jindal has gone on record in the past supporting the use of the “Morning After Pill” in cases of rape, something extreme groups like the “American Life League” opposes. Unfortunately, many rape victims do not seek medical help immediately after being attacked and the opportunity to use the MAP goes away. In these cases, Jindal is clear. These women will be forced to have their lives altered for 9 months just because some creep couldnt understand what “no” means. It’s just disgusting to force a rape victim to do that.
As I said, there are just some policy stances that should make people completely reject you as a candidate, and this issue is one of them. Anyone who holds the view of “no abortions, no exceptions” has no business serving the public.
I agree Dan that last post is a good one. Sounds to me like the Congressman forgets what he stands for when the crowd changes.
Dan you have any link sources for the Jindal talks about MAPs?
Sure!
“Mendell’s note referred to Gambit Weekly’s Nov. 4 endorsement of Bobby Jindal, which noted that Jindal supports making what this paper called “emergency room contraception” available to rape victims. These events illustrate the general confusion surrounding emergency contraception.”
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2003-12-02/feat4.html
And this just goes to show that Jindal is willing to misuse terms in order to make his point. Instead of calling it the “Morning After Pill” (which many confuse with RU-486… a completely different pill), he incorrectly calls the MAP “emergency room contraception”.
I asked him a question on WTIX 690 when Jeff Crouere had him on as a guest. I asked him about what he felt about a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. The procedure that Jindal described in an endorsement of treatement for that condition was the most invasive of all the available procedures. The only reason he supported it is because that procedure did not “target the embryo, so it wouldnt be considered an abortion”. In reallity, an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, regardless of the cause.
So he doesn’t use the correct definition of abortion and he doesn’t know the correct term for the morning after pill. Some healthcare expert, huh?
Ooooh that would be a great blog post!!!
Which would? The fact that Jindal, the supposed medical expert, doesn’t even know simple medical terms and definitions?
Or the fact that many on the right wing wrongly refer to the morning after pill as “RU-486″ in their efforts to mislead the public?
I think both would make great blog posts
I was thinking more on the lines his stance on RU-486 vs. his stance on abortion.
Well, I am sure his stance on RU-486 is the same as his stance on abortion (since RU-486 is the “abortion pill”). I have never heard him (or read about him) incorrectly mistaking RU-486 for the morning after pill.
[…] This cannot be further from the truth. First of all, if Bobby Jindal wasn’t an extremist woman hating social conservative, he would not have been embraced by the Republican party as much as he was. And had Bobby Jindal not lied about being a “born again Christian”, perhaps people in the north would not have voted for the Catholic Jindal. […]