Kicking Margaret Henbest and Wendy Jaquet out of the Female Party?
Posted by Adam Graham in : Abortion, Idaho Conservative, TheNicole LeFavour turned H0654-The Anti-Coercion Bill into a gender issue against the backers of the bill which forbid the use of physical force or the threat of physical force to coerce a woman into getting an abortion. LeFavour notes the bill doesn’t ban physical coercion to stop a woman from getting an abortion and then adds at the end:
“Nonini said this was about protecting women, about our safety and our rights. I would have to say I doubt that. This bill is about politics and religion, not about women. Only two men voted with the 9 women who voted no. “
So, now the bill has become about gender and an attempt by men to oppress (by forbidding men from using physical force or the threat of it against women to coerce women into getting abortions.) Also, while a brave young woman testified being coerced into an abortion before the legislature, the Democrats could produce anyone who testified to the opposite.
Most curious though was her attempt to turn this into an anti-woman issue. 9 Women voted against. There are 19 in the House. Janice McGeachin (R-32) was absent, but almost certainly would have voted for it. Which means that women were divided 9-9. Among those women voting in favor of the bill was retiring Rep. Margaret Henbest (D-16), Blue Dog Mary Shepherd (D-2), and House Minority Leader Wendy Jacquet (D-25). In addition, Assistant Minority Leader George Sayler (D-4) who scored a perfect zero on last year’s Idaho Conservative scorecard also supported it.
Wendy Jaquet and George Sayler have joined the anti-Feminist conspiracy? Where do I send the T-shirts. Do the voices Jaquet, Henbest, Shepherd, and the six other women who supported this bill not count to Rep. LeFavour? If so, they would join the victims of abortion coercion in Rep. LeFavour’s “doesn’t count” book.
![SaveForMike.com [Grassroots]](http://www.christianevents.co.uk/saveformiketicker.png "SaveForMike.com")
Comment by Ceecee
This feminist attack on those who want to protect women’s rights not to have an abortion, just makes me sick. How can they be for women’s rights if they won’t do anything about male violence against women, or worse, actively oppose efforts to protect women from male violence, just because that male violence is done to push an abortion?
But many pro-choicers will protest that they do a lot to protect women from male violence. Maybe so, but they quickly back away from promoting such protection for women when the woman is pregnant, wants to give birth and the male violence is “provoked” by the woman’s refusal to get an abortion. It’s like these so-called “pro-choicers” think that refusing to abort is asking for it, or deserving it, or that she’s betraying women by refusing abortion.
The more these women attack a woman’s right to choose life, the more hypocritical they sound when they march in the street for a women’s right to “choose.” If they really believed in choice, they would support the woman who wants to give birth, even if the circumstances are less than ideal, and even if others in the woman’s life wanted her to abort. They would certainly want to protect such women from violence.
It’s the pro-choice movement’s dirty little secret that the most frequent cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, usually in retaliation for refusing to abort. The silence of the “pro-choice” movement on this issue is absolutely deafening. Something to think about the next time you hear them prattle on about “choice,” or see them marching in the street to promote “choice.” There is only one choice they want to protect. If you want to make a different choice, you’re on your own. Don’t expect any help or sympathy from these hypocrites.