Editor: I applaud our state legislators for recognizing the life of a preborn child and the attempt to preserve the right to life of these citizens. For those of you who would argue in favor of a woman’s “right to choose:” I only say I fully agree with the right to choose! I just disagree on when a choice has to be made and for me that is before a second life is involved, not to mention the rights of the father! Now I am awaiting legislation to call out the medical profession in defense of all the folks who have died over the last 14 months from fully treatable conditions and were denied care because doctors chose to stay home for most of those months and then had (have still) few hours when a patient is actually seen, in person! What happened to “first do no harm?”

Kathy Molzen

Lake Havasu City


(3) comments


Some questions for Republican busy-bodies -

If a fetus is a person at six weeks is that when child support starts?

Is that also when you cannot deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

Can a woman insure a 6 week fetus and collect if she miscarries?

Just thinking if we're going there, we need to go all in.


“I only say I fully agree with the right to choose!” No, you do not. The right to chose cannot come with any caveats, it is a woman’s very personal and private choice and not to be infringed by nosy busy-bodies.

You must be truly ecstatic about Tennessee’s interference in a woman’s right to make a decision regarding her body. Their new law allows a person to stop a woman who is pregnant with their unborn child from receiving an abortion. Let’s look at this mess –

The legislation would allow a person to petition the court to keep a pregnant person from getting an abortion, “A person may petition a court with jurisdiction over domestic relations matters to request an injunction to prohibit a woman who is pregnant with the person’s unborn child from obtaining an abortion.” The bill requires the petitioner only provide a “voluntary acknowledgment of paternity,” which is acceptable without the signature of the pregnant parent and does not require them to provide DNA evidence. The bill also does not make exceptions for rape or incest. So fundamentally a convicted felon serving time for raping a woman can force her to have “his” child. The same applies to the victims of forced sex at the hands of a relative.

And of course there are no provisions to provide the woman with any form of assistance for the child.

Objective Dialectic

BigBob [thumbup]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.