Dar’shun Kendrick And “The Testicular Bill Of Rights”

A Georgia House committee approved legislation last week to outlaw abortion after a fetus’ heartbeat can be detected. Yes, it’s a bad bill and almost certainly an un-Constitutional one.  My guess is that this law and a similar one in Tennessee are designed to give the Supreme Court yet another shot at over-turning Roe v. Wade.

In response, Democratic state Rep. Dar’shun Kendrick sent out this proposal on Twitter:

Is this woman as brick-stupid as this would suggest, or is she making some subtle point that her intellectual inferiors are too limited to grasp? It appears that she really thinks that this is a valid, even clever, analogy. Do abortion fanatics really think this way? Do they really not even perceive that sexual autonomy is just one half of the issue, and that without the half that they are ignoring, there would be no issue?

I nearly titled this, “Signature Significance, But Of What?” I don’t think anyone of even average intelligence could tweet this seriously, but then, nobody who could think like this is remotely qualified to serve in a state legislature. Incredibly, she has an MBA and a law degree—being able to formulate competent analogies is essential to the study of law.  She graduated cum laude from Oglethorpe University in 2004, in 2007 graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law, and Kendrick received an MBA from Kennesaw State University in 2011. Is this signature significance for the these schools, since if someone can graduate with her critical thinking skills this pathetic, they should all be reduced to landfill. Kendrick doesn’t appear to be making a joke; she stated that she introduced her bill to “…bring awareness to the fact that if you’re going to legislate our bodies, then we have every right to propose legislation to regulate yours.”  Does she know that the issue is legal protections (or not) for the lived of the unborn, not “legislating bodies”?  How do you have an intelligent discussion, much less a policy debate, with someone who isn’t mortified to tweet something like this?

What does it say about journalists who write something like this, from a CBS affiliate?

“State Rep. Dar’shun Kendrick is taking the stance of -one bad bill deserves another. In a very tongue-in-cheek way, she’s showing how men and women are treated differently when it comes to reproductive rights.”

No, in a very idiotic way, she’s showing that t some activists can only debate abortion  by refusing to address it. I know reality routinely offends the left, but the laws affecting men and women often have to be different because there a some material differences between them. Men don’t give birth. An equivalent “tongue-in-cheek” bill would require men to have the “right to choose” whether their offspring lives or dies….equivalently obtuse.

And how many feminists think like her…and what does that tell us?

21 thoughts on “Dar’shun Kendrick And “The Testicular Bill Of Rights”

  1. Wouldn’t the equivalent bill for the current status quo give a man the “Right to Choose” to pay child support? I mean, if he has no say over whether the child is born or not, why should he be forced to pay for the woman’s choice? I know the feminists will respond that he chose to have sex, but so did the woman. If women get to choose to be exempted from the burden of childbirth and child-rearing, why do men not have that choice?

    • I actually do think that men should get that choice if abortion is legal.

      Pro-life people are at least non-hypo critical in that regard. Don’t want to be a parent? Then address that preconception regardless of gender.

      Pro-choice folks are widely hypocritical on this topic. I’ve found it quite easy to bait pro-choice folks into making arrguments for men paying for children they do not want that are identical to those pro-life people use to argue against elective abortion.

  2. Do abortion fanatics really think this way?

    Remember this a few years back?

    “How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion — mandatory 48-hr waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he’s about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let’s close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.
    It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?”

    You’re right. The left can only discuss abortion by avoiding it and throwing half-truths, insults, absurdity, and hatred. The last sentence is especially rich – no one BUYING a gun ever killed anyone just by buying it, but everyone getting an abortion takes a life. There is no subtle point you are missing, and yes, she thinks she is clever, even brilliant, by making this comparison. As I’ve pointed out a few times, the liberals think they are the smartest people in the room, so how could the smartest person in the room not say something that was smart?

    BTW, bin Laden also apparently thought he was super-smart, to the point where he constantly recorded his thoughts. After all, when you’re the smartest guy in the Islamic world, you better record your thoughts, because at any moment a pearl of wisdom might drop and be lost if you don’t. Is this any different than all the liberal big mouths with blogs, who just shoot off their keyboards?

    • There is nothing stopping people on the left from holding pictures of murdered loved ones in front of gun shops.

      I wonder why they don’t….

    • This brings up a pet peeve of mine. I am unaware of any place the restrictions mentioned above on abortion actually occur. One of the biggest ones is that women don’t have access to abortion care. When they talk about only having one abortion clinic in a state, that may be true, but you can get abortions at places other than an abortion clinic. That’s like complaining that there is only 1 bone and joint hospital in the state, so everyone has to travel there if they have a broken arm.

      Especially in states where abortions aren’t celebrated, abortions are performed in doctors offices and hospitals. That is why the hospital and insurance code for abortion is the same as for a D&C, no one knows if you had an abortion or sought care for a miscarriage. It also makes it impossible to get statistics on abortions.

  3. I know several friends who have liked and forwarded statements like this on social media. Rep. Kendrick might have actually drawn her bill from one of those obnoxious social media proposals. There are some out there who truly think this way, but in terms of framing the argument, this is the clever way to do so.

    Abortionists do not want attention drawn to the fact that abortion kills a baby. They want focus on a woman’s right to choose, a woman’s socioeconomic standing, the abuse women suffer at the hands of men, anything as long as the focus is not on the baby. As soon as the focus lands on the baby, one of two things happens. Either one becomes convinced that abortion is wrong, because it is killing an innocent human life, or one becomes convinced that even infanticide is justifiable.

    Even too much time spent trying to dehumanize the unborn fails, because most honest people flinch at the idea of killing a baby that can feel pain, or killing a baby when one can detect a heartbeat. Once we have nerves and circulatory systems, we’re far more recognizable as a human being than some amorphous blob of cells. Better for the abortionists is to ignore the baby being killed altogether, and make it seem like abortion is nothing riskier than a pap smear, and not substantially or morally different.

    As far as laws differing based on sex, is it any wonder that the Left is also trying to destroy sexual distinction altogether? After all, according to them, men can give birth. They are transmen, not cismen, but transmen are real men, and anyone who says differently is a transphobic bigot.

    • After all, according to them, men can give birth. They are transmen, not cismen, but transmen are real men, and anyone who says differently is a transphobic bigot.

      I recently saw an article on a trans man who gave birth. He was quoted as saying something along the lines of how being pregnant and giving birth didn’t make him feel like less of a man. Now, if being pregnant and giving birth doesn’t make you feel like less of a man, I have to seriously question your understanding of what it means to feel like a man. Consider: I certainly can’t go around claiming I know what it’s like to be a woman of color. It isn’t just absurd, it would be regarded as offensive, an illegitimate appropriation of the lived experiences of others. So when a transgender person announces that they feel like a member of the opposite sex inside, how is that different?

      • So when a transgender person announces that they feel like a member of the opposite sex inside, how is that different?

        A protected class can identify as a non-protected class, but a non-protected class cannot identify as a protected class. I thought that rule was spelled out clearly, right after the rule that minorities cannot be racist and women cannot be sexist (unless they are Republican).

  4. I suspect this bill is offered in the spirit of that old joke, where the young college grad tells the hiring manager he’s looking for a salary in the $90k range. The manager offers him full benefits, a country club membership, and a corner office. The young candidate says “Wow, are you serious?” and the manager replies “No, but you started it.” It isn’t meant to be analogous, it’s meant to be hyperbolic.

    Which is, like so many other “symbolic” acts of so many legislative bodies, a waste of the taxpayers’ time and a dereliction of a legislator’s duties. But not an indicator of bat-feces insanity.

      • I’m just saying my vote is for bad satire. People who take themselves too seriously can’t do humor, whether they’re authoritarians or the perpetually aggrieved (though these may be the same thing).

  5. I say call her bluff. Agree to the part about mandatory DNA tests for pregnancies. A shocking number of men are unwittingly providing for kids who aren’t theirs, which is why feminists generally oppose paternity testing. (They oppose anything that benefits men in any way, even if it’s obviously the right thing to do.)

    • I’ve seen a number of blog posts directing a shocking level of venom at men who are relieved of child support obligations through DNA testing. He’s ‘taking food out of a child’s mouth’ ‘Only the welfare of the child should count’, it’s for the children! Contacting the real father and having him step up is not mentioned. It always struck me not as being against something that would benefit men, but as a knee-jerk reaction to something that could hurt women, even if those women were lying and defrauding men. If it hurts women, it’s automatically bad, no questions asked.

      Too many men with a better job or better living conditions than the real father get their names written on birth certificates without their knowledge. It’s very hard to fight it after months or years have gone by. Estimated figures for paternity fraud range from 4-10%. That’s a lot of men paying for kids that aren’t theirs, and a lot of women who could find themselves up the creek were paternity testing instituted.

      • Wow. How does “it’s for the children” apply when you’re trying to rope in a man- via deception- who has NOTHING to do with that child? You might as well just ask the mother to point to whatever male on Earth she wants to support her child for life, and go with that.

        I can’t believe anymore that they actually care about children. It’s 100% about gender warfare. On this topic I think the MRA-types have a very good point (mostly because they’re the only people who really talk about this issue.) Bad women want to sleep around with “bad boys” but then seek out a “good boy” to pay for everything if they have a baby. They know, as a collective, that most “real fathers” are probably broke and irresponsible drifters, and the best bet to keep the cash flowing in is legally snare a gentle, rule-following, taxpaying man into thinking a baby is his.

        I say this as a happily married guy with no personal stake in any of these types of situations. It’s just objectively horrible.

        • There are all kinds of MRAs and people who call themselves MRAs. The MGTOW movement was started by men who got totally taken to the cleaners in divorces, and were basically given the shaft in family court regarding custody and child support. That has been two of their main points, as well as the justice system, specifically the sentencing discount for women.

  6. I think I’d have a lot more respect for the pro-abortion crowd if they’d just honestly admit they know they’re killing a defenseless human being, but they don’t care because having the baby isn’t what they want to do. The whole ‘clump of cells’ debate seems ridiculous when that clump has a heartbeat, same as all other living humans.
    “Conservatives only care about children in the womb, but attack children after they’re born.” This is a standard liberal argument whenever social welfare cuts are suggested. This is not only false, but it’s also dishonest and lazy. I believe children are a gift, and should be treated as such, whether in the womb or out. Implying that I want children to starve because I don’t want to pay for people who won’t work is ridiculous. I don’t want children to starve. I want parents to provide for their children. It’s not a complicated concept.

  7. “…that her intellectual inferiors are too limited to grasp?”

    She doesn’t HAVE any intellectual inferiors.

  8. First they came for the personal pronouns. I didn’t care.

    Then they came for the separate bathrooms. I went outside.

    Then they came for the urinals and asked me to pee sitting down. I continued to go outside.

    Then they came for the testosterone. I took pills.

    When they came for the……..ARRRRGHH!!! I can’t finish!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.