Archive for pro forced birth

Dear pro-forced birthers: "What causes more abortions than not having contraception?"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

abortion choice pro-forced birthers

Pro-forced birthers don't seem to have much depth, knowledge, or insight when it comes to how babies are made, how contraception works, or what women's health care agencies actually do.

Here's a tweet I just received, along with my reply:

Here is one of many excellent replies:

'Nuff said.

Sadly, "Franky's" tweet is typical of so many I receive from pro-forced birthers about women's reproductive rights, with one exception: He was civil.

With that, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Jonah Goldberg's column on the Hobby Lobby case takes as given the distortion of scientific facts at the core of the case. ("Alito agrees: Your birth control is not your boss' business," Op-Ed, June 30)

Overwhelming evidence has shown that emergency contraception does not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and does not cause the termination of an existing pregnancy. Therefore, emergency contraception it is not an abortifacient, contrary to what the Supreme Court justices and Goldberg contend.

Such uncritical endorsements of distorted science are the source of much misinformation, as I have discovered in my own research on barriers to access to emergency contraception. It is sad that the highest court in the nation has propagated this false belief and created another barrier for access to safe, effective and evidenced-based pregnancy prevention.

Tracey Wilkinson, MD, Los Angeles

..

Goldberg compares requiring employers to provide contraceptive health insurance to their employees to hypothetically requiring these companies to pay for their employees to attend a "Game of Thrones" convention.

Goldberg ignores the fact that every time a couple engages in unprotected intercourse, they are putting the woman's life at risk. According to a study published in the medical journal the Lancet, 18.5 women died in childbirth for every 100,000 live births in the U.S. in 2013.

The intimate relations between couples are no mere game. The ability to obtain and use contraceptives is a matter at the heart of family life.

Goldberg and the five men who make up the U.S. Supreme Court majority in the recent Hobby Lobby case have shown the world that they place little value on the lives of women.

Eleanor Egan, Costa Mesa

..

I suspect that because Hobby Lobby is so deeply religious, it would not support a woman's right to have an abortion. What causes more abortions than not having contraception?

Sarah Maze, Orange

Via .ecobumperstickers.com

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

SCOTUS rules for Freedom of Tyranny

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

women's rights vote 2014 scotus decision freedom of religion

Freedom, freedom, freedom schmeedom. The concept is losing its meaning, especially in light of the Supreme Court's warped perception of the word. My reaction to their ruling on contraception and "freedom" of religion is still hampered by my inability to respond with anything but sputtering noises and involuntary twitches, bursts of banging my head against the wall, and convulsing into tears of outrage. Freedom my ass. What about our freedom to not have your damned religion shoved up our atheist and/or non-Christian hineys?  Bam! And that was just a hiccup. I'm shutting up now.

By the way, conservatives, how's that outreach thing going for ya these days?

Anyway, instead of ranting, which would be nothing more than stream-of-consciousness outbursts at this point, I'll leave it to the Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because, despite evidence to the contrary, our voices still matter. The Times headline for this batch of letters is, notably, "Don't want more Hobby Lobby decisions? Then don't elect conservative presidents":

The U.S. Supreme Court's distressingly improvident 5-4 decisions in this year's religious rights cases should surprise no one. They are the price we have paid for suffering disproportionate conservative appointments to the high court from 1980 to 2008, when Republicans occupied the White House for 20 of those 28 years. ("Supreme Court, citing religious liberty, limits contraceptive coverage in Obamacare," June 30)

All who despair over the Supreme Court's unseemly bowing to religious zealots — especially when certain faiths' tenets are allowed to trump enlightened medical care — should remember this in 2016: If a Republican is elected our next president, look for the court's conservative judicial activism to endure far beyond his or her term of office.

Robin Groves, Pacific Palisades

***

I am losing confidence in our system of three branches of government. Two of them seem no longer to be working for us.

The Supreme Court increasingly seems to be operating as a political body, rendering decisions that make questionable judicial sense unless one happens to be a corporation that has taken on "person" status or a religious group that wishes to impose its specific beliefs on its employees. These decisions are becoming more questionable as our do-nothing Congress functions less like an elected body responsible to the people and more like a robot body created and manipulated by wealthy donors.

As long as our lethargic electorate keeps reelecting these legislators, our president is left to act alone and the court decides in an increasingly predictable way, we will see the continued eroding of our beloved constitutional form of government.

Bette Mason, Corona del Mar

***

If there's a silver lining to the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, it's that the decision will energize progressive voters to flood the polls for the foreseeable future as well as fuel boycotts against businesses that use religion as an excuse to discriminate.

Jerry Weil, Seal Beach

***

Will someone please explain to me how forcing your religious beliefs on others, who may or may not agree, is freedom of religion? Sounds more like tyranny to me.

Barbara Buckner, Laguna Niguel

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Wisconsin state Dem senator expects "all out hell" on GOP abortion bills

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

rachel maddow gop big government

Anti-abortion, pro-forced birth bills are moving right along in Wisconsin's state Senate, and Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach will do everything he can to prevent them... loudly and clearly.

If his name sounds familiar, it's because he was also very vocal during the enormous protests against Gov. Scott Walker a couple of years back.

The typically anti-choice, invasive, War on Women bills in question would:

--Ban abortions "that are solely based on whether the fetus is male or female,"  (AKA sex selection) but Democrats don't think Wisconsin needs a bill like that at all since there are very few, if any, of those procedures that are even performed.

--Prevent public workers' health insurance plans from covering abortions and exempt religious organizations from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives. Contraceptives would be available if they're needed for something other than birth control. This bill is the biggie.

Via Madison.com:

"Their morals are fine for them but not for the rest of the state," Erpenbach said after the hearing. "Government intrusion like this is shocking."... When asked after the hearing how he expected Tuesday's debate to play out, Erpenbach said, "All out hell. Seriously."

Republicans control the Senate 18-15. Gov. Scott Walker has said he supports both bills and will sign them into law once they pass.

Notice the report doesn't say "if they pass."

The hypocrisy by Republicans is astounding. They scream "Small government!" but their version of "small government" becomes hugely intrusive when it suits them."Governor Ultrasound" ring a bell? Sure, government is just small enough to fit into our vaginas.

Memo to Republicans: My body, my choice. Stay the hell out of my uterus and my birth control methods, GOP. Clear?

uncle sam gynecologist abortion

small government my ass

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: This would "probably be the top politics story in the country if #GOPshutdown were not happening."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

abortion ban cartoon choice  nebraska

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Nebraska anti-choice bill states that anyone under 18 who wants to have an abortion needs written permission from a parent or guardian or she can't have it. She would be blocked from getting an abortion.

Written consent from a parent or guardian is required.

A 16-year-old foster child in Nebraska requested to get an abortion without consent, but she can't, because her parents no longer have the right to be considered her parents. They abused her, so their parental rights were stripped by the state.

The teen felt she couldn't support a child financially or "be the right mom that she would like to be" and felt she needed to end the pregnancy, but no parents were available to give written consent.

Watch the video for more details, but the upshot is this:

A male judge was the one to decide for this high school student whether or not she could have an abortion, because she wasn't "sufficiently mature and well informed enough" to decide on her own.  So, again, if you live in Nebraska and you're under 18 and pregnant, you are forced to give birth against your will.

If you're under 18 and pregnant, Nebraskan legislators think you're too immature to have an abortion, but apparently not too immature to be forced to become a mother.

Abortion in Nebraska is legal for adults, but not for this teenager, because see, she was beaten up and neglected by her family, so the state made the decision for her.

And now, in addition to coping with her violent past, she must carry her pregnancy to full term, go through the trauma of a delivery and any possible complications, put the baby up for adoption, because, see, she's mature enough to handle all that-- all while trying to keep up with school and life in general-- but not grown up enough to decide what to do with her own body.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Judge rules bomb threat letter is "free speech" in anti-abortion case

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

what's the matter with kansas

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing our founders didn't think free speech meant writing a threatening letter to someone warning them that they were being watched and that their car would be bombed should they decide to continue their (legal) abortion training.

Did I say threatening? Pfft! Oh please. Nonono, there's no evidence of such a terrible, unChristian thing. The First Amendment covers all that, and besides, God said He was cool with it. We're good, go away.

Of course, this appalling story centers on the very same location where abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was murdered (in his own church, by the way).

Via CJOnline:

WICHITA — An abortion opponent’s letter to a Wichita doctor saying someone might place an explosive under her car is constitutionally protected speech and not a “true threat” under existing law, a federal judge ruled Thursday. [...]

It was a great victory for the First Amendment,” said her attorney, Don McKinney. “Obviously, we agree with the opinion. I appreciate the court held the U.S. Department of Justice accountable to the law and the evidence.”

Letter-writer Angel (yes, Angel) Dillard included this:

They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” the letter said. “You will be checking under your car every day <0x2014> because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.

Who could possibly interpret that as a threat?

But Dillard included her return address, see, a fact that the judge, in all his judgy wisdom, used to support his ruling.

Here's an excerpt from Dillard's deposition:

“I did what the Lord asked me to do. He impressed upon me that I needed to write the letter and I did.”

Well, hey, if the Lord asked you to threaten a life, who are you to say no? So much for that whole "pro-life" premise, huh "Angel"?

Please read the entire story here. And for some background: Kansas women’s clinic follows in Dr. George Tiller’s footsteps.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Take that! Judge's ruling keeps all four Wisconsin abortion clinics open despite new state law

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

curses foiled again

On August 1st I posted: Federal judge extends– for 3rd time– hold on WI law requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges.

In that post I reminded you of the many GOP-run states trying to eliminate women’s privacy and reproductive rights: WI GOP lawmakers pursuing change to state constitution to give fetuses a right to life.

And I also reminded you of Rachel Maddow’s astute and eye-opening segment: Bye-bye women’s rights: “If you live where the Republican party is in control now, right now, this is your life.”

Of course, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker signed an abortion bill requiring women to undergo unnecessary ultrasounds. Plus it “requires doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of where they perform the procedure.” See how he's reaching out to women voters?

Well, Scotty, you've had another setback. Per The Cap Times:

The state’s four abortion clinics — two of which were slated to close — will remain open following a preliminary injunction issued late Friday by a federal judge in a case involving hospital admitting privileges for abortion doctors.

U.S. Judge William Conley’s ruling will keep Planned Parenthood’s Appleton abortion clinic and the Affiliated Medical Services clinic in Milwaukee open to perform abortions.

Conley wrote, “On this record, the admitting privileges requirement is a solution in search of a problem. Devoid of any documentation of a medical need or purpose in Wisconsin, the governor nevertheless signed the act on July 5, 2013.”

Oh snap.

The trial begins at the end of November, and the clinics will remain open until the case is resolved.

Kansas, Tennessee, Utah, Arizona, North Dakota all have similar laws, but the court blocked Alabama's efforts. Please watch Rachel Maddow's segment on the growing number of states trying to deny women their rights.

So, GOP, how’s that extreme makeover thing workin’ for ya?

abortion GOP elephant hangers

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: Texas state troopers caught on camera probing genitals of women at routine traffic stops

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

welcome to texas

So you thought Gov. Bob "Ultrasound" McDonnell and the Republican party were the only ones who probed women against their will? Think again.

Did I say "probe"? No, more like rape. Forcible entry.

I nearly didn't write this post, because it was so disturbing that I wasn't sure I could bring myself to get past my anger and was momentarily frozen in disbelief, outrage, shock. I got over it. I'm writing about it. Women-- women who posed no threat to anyone-- have been systematically violated by state troopers, right out in the open on Texas roadsides.

This has become all too common, sadly. When will it become illegal to penetrate women's genitals, humiliate them, treat them as less than human? And publicly, without shame (!), both politically (in the case of forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds, which are proudly touted as "safety measures," but used as a deterrent to shame women who feel they need legal abortions) and physically (in both cases).

Just read and watch what's been going on during routine traffic stops:

extremumspiritum:

Jul 5, 2013: BRAZORIA COUNTY, Texas -- Two women subjected to body cavity searches on the side of Highway 288 have filed a Federal lawsuit against the officers involved.

David Schechter:

Published on Dec 18, 2012: First search occurs at 2:52

In a new lawsuit, Angel Dobbs and her niece Ashley Dobbs, of Irving Texas, say they were searched inside their underwear by female Texas Trooper, Kelley Helleson, after a routine traffic stop in Dallas in July.

The trooper who pulled them over, David Farrell, says on tape he saw them throw a cigarette butt out the window and smelled marijuana when he pulled them over. No drugs were found and they were released with a warning. The cousins say the trooper who performed the search used the same pair of gloves on both women. The cousins are now suing the Department of Public Safety.

Story on WFAA.com: http://bit.ly/TXZuNP
Lawsuit: http://bit.ly/UaSOPN

"Cavity searches," my ass. These women were assaulted.  Via The Daily News:

Multiple highway patrol officers in Texas have been captured by dash cams doing 'unconstitutional' cavity searches on women's genitals during traffic stops. Lawyers and civil rights advocates say the 'mind-boggling' searches are all too common.

The first video was graphic enough. Two women, as shown in a Texas state trooper’s dash cam recording, are probed in their vaginas and rectums by a glove-wearing female officer after a routine traffic stop near Dallas.

A few days later, a second video surfaced. It was an eerily similar scenario, but this time the traffic stop was just outside Houston, and with different troopers. Two women, pulled over for allegedly speeding, are subjected to body cavity searches by a female officer summoned to the scene by a male trooper... In both invasive incidents, the female troopers don't change gloves between probes, according to the horrified victims.

Standard practice: Check.

In full view of passing motorists: Check.

Unconstitutional: Check.

Unsanitary: Check.

Lawsuits filed: Check.

Trooper indicted for theft over missing bottle of Vicodin belonging to one of the women, suspended: Check.

Mind-boggling: Check.

They didn’t even search my socks or my shoes,” [Angel] Dobbs said. "I just couldn’t fathom how you could search someone’s butt and their vagina, and not search their socks or shoes... Until the news got involved, nothing happened.

In the other case cited, Officer Callous expresses his crass disdain as he passes the rape baton to Ms. Ogyny:

She is about to get up close and personal with some womanly parts,” Turner tells Hamilton. “She is going to search you, I ain’t, because I ain’t about to get up close and personal with your woman areas.”

How professional. What a gentleman.

Do you know how violated I feel?” Hamilton pleads.

WTF: Check.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare