Okay, so I'm a little late on the promised update of the anti-abortion amendments filed in retaliation for the failure of SJR 7, but in addition to the six I posted about last Friday, we saw four more introduced on Monday.
One was a repeat, one was the same trick they've been trying for a while to close abortion clinics through an obscene amount of regulation without actually making it illegal, one says doctors would have to give abortion patients certain parts of the mandated information in writing (as opposed to orally, as is currently mandated. Because the patient will definitely change her mind if you hand her a paper that says "ultrasound imaging is available.").
The last tried to say that emergency contraception causes an abortion. Which it doesn't, by the way, but that's beside the point. (continued)
Somehow, through some magical mix of constituents, lobbyists, other caucus members, and probably some partisan dealmaking, none of these amendments passed. Some weren't called up for debate/vote. Others were, only to have the bill's original author thwart the actions of the amendment's author and pull the bill entirely. (No bill means no amendment. Unfortunately, it also means no bill. 3 of the 5 bills to which these 10 amendments were offered died.)
Which leaves me confused. None of the legislators offering these amendments are medical professionals. They're not motivated by patient safety--if they were, perhaps we'd see a health plan that actually passed our state legislature, with a budget, rather than posturing and finger-pointing.
And they claim to be religious folks but they don't seem to have much compassion for people who aren't just like them--and they claim to be patriotic, but trying to sneak these amendments in with no room or time for public discussion and open reasoned debate seems to me to be a direct hit on the democratic process.
And today, I read over at the Star that members of Indiana's Republican party--whom I always understood to be as pro-business as you can get--are trying to bully Indiana business leaders and dictate to them what their companies should or should not be saying?
I've spoken before about anti-sex politicians but even though I have this theory that their motivation is fear of sex/ people who enjoy having sex, I still don't understand their fear. Do they really think that sex is so bad? Do they really think they're gonna stop people from having sex? Do they really think that it would be a good thing to stop people from having sex?
Anybody else have some thoughts here? I'm at a loss. Please, somebody clue me in.