Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
I'm With Stupid
The perennially embattled free speech zone over our chests
On April 29 a grassroots army of teenaged billboards, provocatively packaged in combed cotton agitprop, will be deployed across the land. Their goal? Raise consciousness, spark discussion, and, if all goes according to plan, get thrown out of class. The occasion is the sixth annual National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day.
“When school administrators harass students, tell them they can’t wear the shirt, it raises awareness,” says Erik Whittington, director of Rock for Life, the group that organizes the event. “The media gets ahold of it. The word gets out. The more people who hear the phrase on the shirt, the more we educate people.”
This year, Whittington says his organization has big plans. To promote Pro-Life T-Shirt Day, they’re creating a Rock for Life website where the young pronatalist participants can network with each other. It’ll be like MySpace or Facebook, except that instead of connecting over a common interest in drunken snapshots and copyright infringement, the teens will bond via a shared passion for fetuses. Even with such Web 2.0 accessorizing, however, the key to the event’s potency remains the all-powerful T-shirt. “It has abortion in big letters,” says Whittington of this year’s model. “Then we have three graphics side by side. The first two are images of small children in the womb at early stages. The third image is blank. Under those images, it reads, Growing. Growing. Gone.”
Considering all the incendiary polemics that characterize both sides of the abortion divide, this rhetorical dinger is fairly benign. Yet some kind of escalatory alchemy occurs when free speech is wedded to casual wear; the mildly provocative becomes untenable, the sophomoric too obscene to bear. Compared to sexier media devices like, say, the iPhone, T-shirts are pretty clunky. Their storage capacity is limited. They’re not Bluetooth-enabled. And yet they boast a sense of intimacy and authority few other content delivery systems can match. They come, after all, with a living, breathing byline attached. They’re far more mobile than other forms of meat-space spam, such as billboards and posters; they literally get in your face.
In January of this year, several visitors wearing T-shirts emblazoned with various impeach-Bush-and-Cheney messages claimed that security guards at the National Archives Building—the place where the original version of the First Amendment now resides—barred them from the premises. In 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War, the Kuwaiti government sentenced one man to 15 years in jail simply for wearing a Saddam Hussein T-shirt. Today in the United States, we’re far more enlightened: Selling a T-shirt inscribed with the names of military personnel who died in Iraq will only get you a maximum sentence of one year in Louisiana and Oklahoma.
Are you against sodomy or breast cancer? In favor of “hot moms” or John Edwards? In 2007 each of these convictions got at least one high school student kicked out of class. In Wisconsin, Edgerton High School enforces a zero tolerance policy against Insane Clown Posse T-shirts. In Aurora, Illinois, all it takes to earn a trip to the principal’s office is a T-shirt with a large dollar sign on it.
How did endorsing capitalism or B-list presidential candidates become so controversial? In the 1980s and ’90s, hoping to crack down on intracurricular violence and crime, a growing number of schools resorted to the sartorial communism of dress codes and uniforms. As President Bill Clinton put it in 1996, “If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.” In the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, message T-shirts and any other style of dress that undermined the notion that high school students were the new maximum-security inmates fell under suspicion. In the wake of 9/11—Columbine for adults—this attitude spilled over into our malls, airports, and presidential town hall meetings.
It’s not just high school massacres and terrorist attacks that have left us so intolerant of our fellow citizens’ chests. During the last decade, pretty much every major media innovation—Fox News, Google, Napster, iTunes, Digg—has involved filtering information more precisely, giving us more and more control over the data we ingest. But that uncompromising raw-foods zealot at the organic farmer’s market whose shirt reads “Chewing is murder”? Or the perky fetus hugger who wants you to know that “Mean abortionists suck”? Steve Jobs hasn’t figured out a way to delete them from your life yet.
“If people don’t want to listen to you, what makes you think they want to hear from your sweater?” the satirist Fran Lebowitz quipped in her 1978 essay collection Metropolitan Life, published when message T-shirts were enjoying their first wave of cultural ubiquity. What this sentiment doesn’t acknowledge is that it’s exactly because people don’t want to listen to us that the drive-by evangelism of T-shirts is so enduring. Body-borne messages can’t be muted, fast-forwarded, unsubscribed, banished to the “ignore” list, opted out of, or dumped in the recycle bin. Unlike telemarketers or Jehovah’s Witnesses, they don’t invade anyone’s privacy. Their zero-decibel proselytizing is simultaneously low-key and obtrusive, forcing any innocent bystander we share an elevator with to contemplate our thoughts on gun control, illegal immigration, and the availability of low-cost moustache rides.
Instead of avoiding such encounters with the dye-sublimated Other, we should embrace them as a kind of civic spinach: While we may not enjoy them, they’re good for us. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that high school students have a First Amendment right to express political and social opinions in school settings, Justice Abe Fortas observed that “any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says that we must take this risk; and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom—this kind of openness—that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious society.”
In the late 1990s era of no-logo vogue, cultural commentators fretted that the once-democratic medium of the T-shirt had been co-opted by corporations, and that T-shirt buyers were concerned only with raising the planet’s Hilfiger consciousness and saving the FUBUs. “The slogans on contemporary T-shirts are increasingly meaningless,” the novelist and columnist Russell Smith observed in The Globe and Mail in 2000. “Most of them are simply the brand name of the T-shirt itself.”
Now that our T-shirts are so blithely outspoken—and deliberately offensive—on every issue from Medicare to Britney Spears, it sometimes seems as if we’d like to ban our way back to a more sartorially decorous era. Ultimately, however, the T-shirt skirmishes that continuously erupt are oddly reassuring. Can the public schools be as out of control as they’re often alleged to be if all it takes to get suspended from one is an “I ♥ My Wiener” shirt? Has our public sphere grown as hopelessly coarse as our loudest cultural scrub maids insist if a shirt featuring a faux fishing theme and the phrase “Master Baiter” is enough to make Southwest Airlines ground you?
Shouldn’t we take comfort in the fact that so many high school
students are ready to fight for their right to champion the unborn,
maternal hotties, and whatever else they can think of to test the
limits of Tinker v. Des Moines? T-shirts may intrude upon
our lives in the public sphere, but they’re also our most vivid
reminder that free speech is woven into the fabric of our
culture.
Contributing Editor Greg
Beato is a writer in San Francisco.
|3.27.08 @ 3:55PM|#
A friend of mine saw a guy wearing a kilt and walking around this snobby downtown area wearing a shirt that said "Jesus was a cunt." The entertaining part must have been waiting to see who would end up beating him up.
|3.27.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Can you sell a t-shirt with a message that, if written in a book or newspaper, would be libelous?
Brandybuck|3.27.08 @ 4:19PM|#
You do have the right to offend people, but you do NOT have the right for other people not get offended!
kinnath|3.27.08 @ 4:30PM|#
An emblazzoned T-shirt is no different from a printed sign. Anything with a remotely political message should be fair game.
|3.27.08 @ 4:32PM|#
Of course, if it weren't pro-life, Reason would be mocking the
issue.
Usually t-shirt stuff about kids being taken "to the woodshed"
usually only rates a snicker on these pages, like bongs for jesus
stuff, but it becomes serious news when it's pro-life.
Hmmmm.....?
I'm sure there is a perfectly good reason that this isn't a case of
"conservatarian" politics.
I just can't think of it right now.
(PS, pro-life, or bongs for jebus, I support kids in agitating the
adults in their lives)
|3.27.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Favorite T-Shirt line:
Jesus Hates Me.
The fact that it was on a fat, drunk guy puking in on the street
was just icing on the cake.
Kolohe|3.27.08 @ 4:41PM|#
I gotta say, regarless of my views on the issue, the "Growing. Growing. Gone." T-shirt as described is some damn good snark.
|3.27.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Mustache rides aren't as low cost as they used to be. The scarcity of mustaches coupled with rising inflation has allowed providers of mustache rides to set prices as high as an entire case of MGD.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 4:46PM|#
I'm not taking sides, but the Tee Shirt issue is more
complicated because it is about wearing the tee shirt to public
school.
I'm pretty sure the school would frown on Big Johnson Trucking tee
shirts, Big Beer, Big Wood tee shirts from Arrogant Bastard
Brewery, tee shirts that claimed Gun Control Means Hitting Your
Target, and probably would take issue with the girls that Tall Dave
linked to, if they showed up at the local Junior High wearing
them.
The real issue is dress codes and how much authority (arbitrary or
otherwise) our public schools are entitled to when it comes to our
kids.
I'm not clear about that even in my own mind. It is obvious that
schools go overboard continuously, but where is the logical line to
be drawn?
Said it before, but my kid got hassled big time for bringing a toy
rifle to school for use as a prop in a school play about Daniel
Boone and the movement west.
|3.27.08 @ 4:47PM|#
My favorite breast cancer shirt, which I was coincidentally
telling my girlfriend about this morning:
Save the boobies!
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 4:49PM|#
If people don't want to listen to you, what makes you think
they want to hear from your sweater
Gotta love Frannie...........
|3.27.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Daniel Boone and the movement west without guns? And they call themselves educators.
kinnath|3.27.08 @ 4:53PM|#
I'm not taking sides, but the Tee Shirt issue is more
complicated because it is about wearing the tee shirt to public
school.
Given previous court rulings anything with a remotely
political message should be fair game. The Big
Johnson trucking company "T" wouldn't pass muster.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 4:59PM|#
The Big Johnson trucking company "T" wouldn't pass
muster.
How about the Gun Control T? That's directly controversial and
political.
|3.27.08 @ 5:01PM|#
If we're going to ban t-shirts, can I please ban those stupid fucking "Here, fishy, fishy" shirts?
kinnath|3.27.08 @ 5:01PM|#
How about the Gun Control T? That's directly controversial
and political.
In today's climate, this would cause problems, but it should be
allowed because students must be allowed to make politcal
speech.
|3.27.08 @ 5:01PM|#
"""In Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 case in which the
U.S. Supreme Court determined that high school students have a
First Amendment right to express political and social opinions in
school settings, """
I guess the current SCOTUS doesn't believe that drugs and religion
are "social opinions" since the Bong Hits for Jesus T-shirt was
shot down.
|3.27.08 @ 5:03PM|#
"The real issue is dress codes and how much authority (arbitrary
or otherwise) our public schools are entitled to when it comes to
our kids."
I agree TWC. I'm not sure, but I may be the only poster here who is
in favor of public school uniforms. No dress code "shades of
gray".
kinnath|3.27.08 @ 5:05PM|#
In Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 case in which the
U.S. Supreme Court determined that high school students have a
First Amendment right to express political and social opinions in
school settings, . . .
I imagine that any new lawsuit that made it to the SCOTUS could
result in reversal of this prior opinion (in the disguise of a
refinement). So, it would require a pretty dedicated student to
risk expulsion for wearing a controversial T-shirt then have to
wait years for a vindication which might not happen in the current
political climate.
kinnath|3.27.08 @ 5:07PM|#
I guess the current SCOTUS doesn't believe that drugs and
religion are "social opinions" since the Bong Hits for Jesus
T-shirt was shot down.
The student involved basically said he had no political message, he
was just trying to get on TV. If he had been vocal and adamant from
the beginning that he was trying to make a politcal statement, he
may not have lost.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Rana, your probably right about being the only school uniform
booster at H&R :-)
Tricky, that is correctomundo. As Nat Hentoff, formerly of the
Village Voice once remarked....
Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee
|3.27.08 @ 5:12PM|#
I think the worst thing we could teach our kids is that everyone should bow down to those who complain.
Nephilium|3.27.08 @ 5:17PM|#
The Wine Commonsewer:
Just a side note, the Arrogant Bastard shirts are from Stone
Brewing. And damn is Arrogant Bastard a tasty brew (along with
Double Bastard "Double the Bastard, Bastard the Double", and Oaked
Arrogant Bastard "This Bastard's got Wood!").
And for all the offensive shirts you could ever want, just hit
this link, NSFW.
And I was always fond of wearing my Lunch Money Humiliation shirt
(Jesus hates you, and so do I).
Nephilium
|3.27.08 @ 5:19PM|#
"""The student involved basically said he had no political
message, he was just trying to get on TV. If he had been vocal and
adamant from the beginning that he was trying to make a politcal
statement, he may not have lost."""
It does have to be political. In Tinker v. Des Moines, social
opinion was considered protected speech. In the Bong hits for Jesus
case, SCOTUS failed to recognize drugs and religion, or the
combination thereof, as a social commentary.
Jennifer|3.27.08 @ 5:20PM|#
Everything that's ever gone wrong in my life can be traced back to that tragic day when I was six years old and my virgin eyes were assaulted by the sight of a big fat guy in a T-shirt reading "Instant Asshole: Just Add Booze."
|3.27.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Having said that, you are probably right. If the kid's shirt said, Bush votes bong hits for Jesus, he probably would have won.
|3.27.08 @ 5:22PM|#
TWC,
Then it is settled.
Still, I dont know why Americans are against the idea of public
school uniforms? can someone explain?
Even for practical reasons: kids dont have to worry about what to
wear everyday and how to impress their friends; parents dont have
to spend ridiculous amounts of money so that junior stays in
fashion; and kids may actually learn to make a statement or express
their individuality through means other than wearing a stupid
t-shirt.
|3.27.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Correction: It does have to be political. Should have said, it doesn't have to be political.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 5:26PM|#
the Arrogant Bastard shirts are from Stone
Brewing
Uhhh, I knew that.....
I blame the fact that I momentarily stepped outside of my
specialty
|3.27.08 @ 5:28PM|#
"""Still, I dont know why Americans are against the idea of
public school uniforms? can someone explain?"""
If you can't understand the freedom aspect of the debate, I'm not
sure if anyone here can help.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Still, I dont know why Americans are against the idea of
public school uniforms? can someone explain?
My dad used to say it was the school's job to teach and his job to
clothe me and to decide when I needed a haircut. [shrugs]
I'm not against uniforms per se, but I don't really see the
utility. Not that I care very much.
|3.27.08 @ 5:43PM|#
"If you can't understand the freedom aspect of the debate"
TrikyVic. Freedom? Are you refering to the "freedom aspect" of
someone expressing an opinion on a t-shirt or the "freedom aspect"
of being required to wear a uniform to public schools? Because if
it is the latter, I dont see a big infringement on anyone's
freedom. Since when does the Constituion protect a person's right
to wear? And if you want to argue this point, then why stop at
uniforms or dress codes? Shouldn't students be allowed to wear
ANYTHING they pleased to school? including just a bikini? or simply
underwear?
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Tinker v. Des Moines, social opinion was considered
protected speech.
That's an example of my whole bitch with the entire legal system,
it's all about technicalities and not about getting to the truth.
This whole ruling is like being kind of pregnant. You either have
free speech or you don't.
Course, if I were king, public schools would be abolished tomorrow
and all this stuff would be moot. Rana could send her kid to a
school in uniform, and the Pro Lifers could wear their tee shirts
to school, and guys like me would pick a school where the rules
were somewhere between sensible and tolerable.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 5:47PM|#
including just a bikini? or simply underwear?
Like the late 1970's? Hot pants sans undies. Those were good days.
:-)
|3.27.08 @ 6:11PM|#
If I thought public school administrators were actually smart
I'd say school dress codes are really a clever way to channel teen
rebellion.
BTW, the whole egalitarian argument for public school uniforms has
a big hole. Unless the uniforms are in fact uniform - all issued
from the same supplier - you can still separate the rich kids from
the poor kids. Designer shoes vs Payless. Ralph Lauren Polo vs
WalMart polo.
Bingo|3.27.08 @ 6:39PM|#
What if I want to wear a snorg tee's girl tshirt while she's still wearing it too?
|3.27.08 @ 7:28PM|#
rana-
Even for practical reasons: kids dont have to worry about what
to wear everyday and how to impress their friends
Which merely changes the focus from 'their clothes' to their:
jewelry, shoes, accessories ("Oakley sunglasses", etc.), tech
gadgets, and/or if mom and dad will pay for your first 'boob job'-
among other equally trivial nonsense.
(See also "MattJ" above...)
|3.27.08 @ 7:39PM|#
TallDave-
Hey! I finally found a Presidential ticket I can totally
support!
You "blew" the link-
now you should probably just tell us about the weed!
MattXIV|3.27.08 @ 7:44PM|#
I'm fond of my copy of this Buzzcocks one. Not sure if it's work-safe too look at (depends on how your employer feels about strategically placed smiles), but I'm pretty sure it's not work-safe to wear.
|3.27.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Is this article even about t-shirts? Isn't it just the issue of public schools making laws that are at odds with the constitution? It's framed as if wearing a controversial t-shirt anywhere will get you in trouble when that does not seem to be the case, except in that bizarre Louisana example you gave but unless I missed something did not elaborate on.
Paul|3.27.08 @ 8:08PM|#
The entertaining part must have been waiting to see who
would end up beating him up.
...peaceloving Christians?
|3.27.08 @ 8:10PM|#
"""TrikyVic. Freedom? Are you refering to the "freedom aspect"
of someone expressing an opinion on a t-shirt or the "freedom
aspect" of being required to wear a uniform to public
schools?"""
The right to choose is the essence of freedom. If you don't believe
that people should have a right to choose, then no one can convince
you that the schools are wrong.
I believe that the ability of others to restrict your ability to
choose is a serious matter. Freedom oriented people place a very
high bar as to when a restriction is ok, some may never agree. So
the question to examine is why the schools want to do it. Then we
can determine if those reasons rise above the bar. I have heard no
reason why the schools should require uniforms that reach the
bar.
Conformity is not a reason to give up choice is it? Nor is saving
the parents money on clothes. For better security? Well we know
what Ben Franklin had to say. But to entertain the security
argument, we would have to rationally assess how bad the security
problem is. A couple of kids mugged for their $200 sneakers should
be a lesson of don't bring your $200 sneakers to school, and that
it. A school rioting over $200 sneakers may warrant a restriction
of choice. But only where the problem exists.
Disruption of the class is a valid reason to remove a student from
the class. But I question if any of these clothes have ever
actually caused a real distruption, or just complaints. Certainly
people complaining or disagreeing, are not reasons to supress
choice.
|3.27.08 @ 8:26PM|#
"""Since when does the Constituion protect a person's right to
wear? And if you want to argue this point, then why stop at
uniforms or dress codes? Shouldn't students be allowed to wear
ANYTHING they pleased to school? including just a bikini? or simply
underwear?"""
If it's allowable to wear in public and does not cause a real
disturbance, it's fair game. If someone has a complaint, tough
shit, get over it. Having said that, bikinis in an all girls school
might not be a big deal. It would have certainly caused real
disruptions where I went to school, but then again, nerds were a
disrtuption, or the jocks beating them up depending on how you want
to look at it. I'm not sure which group needs to be banned, since
that would cross the disruption bar too.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 9:59PM|#
But I question if any of these clothes have ever actually
caused a real distruption, or just complaints
I'll tell you what clothes caused real disruption in class. Patti
Connelly's micro mini skirts in 10th grade geometry. No complaints,
but I could not get geometry.
Thank God that the school required all girls to wear skirts and
dresses. Loved that dress code.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.27.08 @ 10:54PM|#
Are you against sodomy or breast cancer?'
Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?
An adam|3.28.08 @ 8:34AM|#
To be fair, all high schools should enforce a zero-tolerance policy against people who wear Insane Clown Posse t-shirts.
|3.28.08 @ 9:54AM|#
Lawrence, you used tampon:
First, your premise that Reason is anti-abortion is totally
wrong.
...the teens will bond via a shared passion for fetuses...the
perky fetus hugger...
You ever hear the anti-abortion crowd use the word "fetus" like
that? In their vocabulary it's always a "child" or a "baby."
Challenge you to provide examples of Reason being
anti-abortion.
Of course, if it weren't pro-life, Reason would be mocking the
issue.
Wrong, again. Reason consistently defends first amendment rights of
everyone, even if they later mock the sentiments being
expressed.
Usually t-shirt stuff about kids being taken "to the woodshed"
usually only rates a snicker on these pages, like bongs for jesus
stuff, but it becomes serious news when it's pro-life.
Wrong, yet again. Reason consistently defends the free expression
rights of students in public schools.
And all you Urkobolds(tm) are on report. Two major trolls
unchallenged, Reinmoose misses a totally obvious "Blade Runner"
ref. Slackers!
|3.28.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Fletch,
I went to school in Purto Rico and both private and public schools
wore uniforms. In fact, the ONLY school on the whole island that
did not use uniforms was an American school for children of mostly
Americans living in PR who did not want their kids mixing with the
Ricans or speaking Spanish (this is my biased assumption). Anyway,
you are correct that kids would find other ways to show if they had
money or not (watches, shoes, backpaks, etc). I also went my last
year of highschool to a public school in the U.S., and I can tell
you that, by comparison, the difference in social status was felt
greater in the U.S.- and clothing, fashion, did play a BIG role in
that (of course, I dont deny that other factors influenced- the
type of car you had, where you live, etc).
I'm not trying to debate the "freedom" aspect that trickyVic so
greatly cherishes- good for him. From my personal experience,
wearing a school uniform was positive and practical, many "dress
codes dilemas" were avioded, and students found other, I would say
more creative, ways to express their individuality and opinion.
Yes, being required to wear a uniform might restrict your choice,
but I believe the benefits outweigh the costs.
Also, in Venezuela all elementary and highschools require uniforms
and it hasn't caused a big infringement of their personal freedom
of choice- Chavez has taken care of that. ;-)
|3.28.08 @ 2:56PM|#
BTW, the whole egalitarian argument for public school uniforms has a big hole. Unless the uniforms are in fact uniform - all issued from the same supplier - you can still separate the rich kids from the poor kids. Designer shoes vs Payless. Ralph Lauren Polo vs WalMart polo.
The Australian schools I went to made a big to-do about that whole
egalitarian thing. Uniforms there were a blazer and slacks with
shirt and tie for boys and a blazer over a tunic and blouse for
girls.
Trouble was that you could tell which kids had parents with money.
If you saw one boy in a new custom made wool blazer and trim neatly
creased wool slacks next to one in an obviously year (or more) old
polyester blazer (probably handed down from an older brother*) and
worn, sometimes patched, pants you'd know the difference, wouldn't
you?
Sorry, that whole, poor American and French children have to suffer
the indignity of being identified by their clothes was a load of
cobblers.
And, to make it worse, the uniforms are expensive. When I was there
for a visit in '94 the Hobart Mercury had a sob story
about a welfare mom who was all upset because she didn't have the
money to buy her kid a uniform to start high school with.
I have never been able to determine the class of kids at American
or Canadian schools by their clothes alone. And I've never seen a
story about a mother who couldn't afford to clothe her kid to go to
school.
*or to make it even more embarassing from an older sister. And,
yes, not only are Australian kids not more any egalitarian than
American kids they're also not any less cruel.
|3.28.08 @ 3:56PM|#
"""I'm not trying to debate the "freedom" aspect that trickyVic
so greatly cherishes- good for him."""
Contempt of freedom is the essences of almost all our problems in
America. My cherishing freedom is not just good for me, it's good
for the well being of our nation. It's good for all nations that
claim to be free. Your not free if you can't exerise freedom.
|3.28.08 @ 5:18PM|#
TrickyVic,
I do not contempt freedom. In fact, I cherish it more than you can
imagine given the present situation of the country in which I live
(Venezuela). And while I see your point, and therefore, am not
looking to debate it, I still believe that requiring uniforms is
not a big a deal as denying freedom of speech. I mean, really get
some perspective...
michael Douglass|3.29.08 @ 8:54PM|#
|4.1.08 @ 10:14PM|#
Senators Introduce Bill to Protect Pregnant Women
(Washington, D.C.)4/1/08 - U.S. Sens. David Vitter, George
Voinovich and Sam Brownback this week introduced the Pregnant Women
Health and Safety Act, which would require physicians who perform
abortions to hold admitting privileges at a hospital that the
physician can travel to in one hour or less under average travel
conditions.
"This legislation is so important because it provides common sense
qualifications for abortion providers," said Vitter, the primary
author of the bill. "As with all medical procedures, abortions
carry a risk, and doctors who provide them should, at the least,
hold admitting privileges at a hospital in close vicinity to the
abortion clinic."
The bill also requires that physicians notify patients as to the
location of a hospital where they can receive follow-up care from
the physician in the event that complications arise. Further, the
bill requires that any abortion clinic that receives federal
funding be licensed and comply with current requirements relating
to ambulatory surgery centers.
The bill also provides that any physician who does not hold
clinical privileges may only perform or induce an abortion in order
to avert the imminent death of the pregnant woman.
"Patients need to be aware of the possibility of complications
arising from abortions," Vitter said. "This bill requires abortion
providers to make sure that a woman is aware of the location of the
hospital at which she can receive treatment for any complications.
It is time that we took the appropriate steps to provide for the
safety of the women who undergo abortions."
"We must do all that we can to restore our nation's once cherished
culture of life," Voinovich said. "I have always said if I had a
magic wand the first thing I would do is reconstitute the American
family. We will never be able to do that until we respect life -
especially the lives of the most vulnerable among us."
Brownback said, "While we are working toward the day when every
unborn child is welcomed and loved, we are unfortunately not there
yet. The Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act will provide
oversight of the abortion industry, which is badly in need of
improved supervision. Too many abortions are performed under
unsafe conditions, and too many women's lives are at risk. As a
compassionate society, we must work to ensure that women are
adequately cared for." ...........
http://www.kalb.com/index.php/news/article/senators-introduce-bill-to-protect-pregnant-women/5429/
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Greg Beato
- In Defense of Extreme Pornography, Greg Beato, October 27, 2009
- Fading Print, Greg Beato, October 22, 2009
- Smile, You're on Hidden Camera, Greg Beato, September 22, 2009
Related Articles (Abortion)
- Now Playing at Reason.tv:, August 3, 2009
- Do Skin Cells Have Souls?, Ronald Bailey, July 7, 2009
- 30 years ago in reason, June 29, 2009
- Rhetoric vs. Reality in the Health Care Debate, Ronald Bailey, June 23, 2009
- The O'Reilly Factor, Brendan O'Neill, June 1, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245