Friday, 31 August 2012

Definition of Insanity

Back in May, Chantal Hébert predicted that the failure of Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion 312, would be a 'crushing defeat to the anti-abortion cause'.

Not if events in Colorado are any guide.

We remember Colorado, don't we? Where twice so-called personhood initiatives have suffered what any sane person would call 'crushing' defeats -- like 3 to 1 votes against?

The monomaniacs are at it again only this time they failed to get the required number of valid signatures to put the initiative on the November ballot.

(One reason that Colorado keeps getting targetted, I learned, is that the required number for such a ploy is relatively low, compared to other states. Personhood failed in ultra-conservative Mississippi by a majority of 55 per cent in 2010. Surely, it can't be good for the cause to continue to get stomped by such wide margins in a more liberal state like Colorado? But then, as the M312 fiasco here has demonstrated again, intelligence is NOT fetus fetishists' strong suit.)

They needed 86,105 signatures and submitted 112,121. But a bunch were deemed invalid.

How many were 'invalid'?
The State of Colorado rejected 23,873 signatures as invalid. By my math, that is 21 percent of the signatures.
That's a whack of dishonesty and/or incompetence. Or, of course, both.

And a look at the actual text of the amendment reveals more of the usual chicanery.

The amendment’s text would make it illegal to intentionally kill “any innocent person”—with “person” defined as “every human being regardless of the method of creation,” and “human being” defined as “a member of the species homo sapien[s] at any stage of development.”

But the proposed text doesn’t define what to my theological ears is the more provocative term: “innocent.” 

Presumably, its use here is meant to do several things: (1) portray the fetus as an agent with moral standing, one in need of protection; (2) allow for the taking of guilty human life (since many social conservatives support the death penalty while also being opposed to abortion); and (3) contrast the innocence of the fetus with the guilt of the father. Indeed, on the last point, the amendment draws this contrast specifically: “No innocent child created through rape or incest shall be killed for the crime of his or her father.” 

But notice, where rape and incest are concerned, it is only the fetus’ innocence that’s stipulated.
They've gotten around any difficulties with the death penalty but kinda left somebody out of this careful moral balance, haven't they?

As per fucking usual, the woman is nowhere to be found.

Well, as we now know from wingnut science, if a woman gets pregnant from rape, it wasn't a legitimate rape. She must have enjoyed it, at least a little, eh?

Now that they've lost three times -- twice in thundering electoral failures, once caught in flimflammery -- they'll give up, right?

Personhood USA vowed to fight the Colorado rejection in court. The group argues some of the signatures were improperly rejected, including some on which a notary public changed a date.

"We are going to be filing to have those ballot signatures recounted, and we are confident personhood will be on ballots this fall," Mason said.
To those of us who've been thinking that a MASSIVE defeat on Woodworth's Wank will shut our fetus fetishists up for a while, I have three words: Not bloody likely.

Reminder: the final hour of debate on M312 is scheduled for September 21, with the vote on September 26. If you haven't already done so, shoot your MP a little note about how you'd like her or him to vote.


Anonymous said...

Concerning the number of invalid signatures, it is very common to have many signatures that are not validated. The 21% invalid signatures is not out of the ordinary. The petitioners should have collected more.

If you are going to claim corruption, it would be more likely at those validating the signatures than those collecting the signatures. Signatures can be invalidated for a variety of reasons such as unreadable, not in proper county, non-registered voter, etc. One of the bigger fears is valid signatures get marked invalid. So when you say dishonesty and/or incompetence, you are probably unintentionally referring to the qualities of the county workers responsible for validation and marking to many as invalid.

Personally, I see the 21% as in the proper range and would not make such accusations.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Stupid is as stupid does.

And why are You People so Hitler against good, right-wing Xtians???

fern hill said...

Well, according to this expert, an average of 19% of signatures is found to be invalid. So, you're correct, 21% is not wildly out of line.

But these people have been around this block TWICE already. They should have figured the process out by now and, as you say, they should have collected more.

So why didn't they? I suggest they really really really tried -- being indefatigable fetus fetishists after all -- and the good people of Colorado, who are sick to fucking death of this folderol, told them where they could shove their petitions.

Funny. You chastise me for making accusations, yet have no problem accusing county workers. IOKIYAFF

But thanks for dropping by.

Beijing York said...

Not only should they know how to collect valid signatures, Personhood USA uses the services of our slimy buddies Front Porch Strategies. The group that provided GOTV call services for 13 CPC riding campaigns and had the chutzpa to actually go door knocking with Fantino in violation of Elections Canada laws regarding foreign involvement in election campaigns. So yes, I believe it's possible they cooked the extra signatures.

Post a Comment