• frank-pitz

    Gives new meaning to Martin Niemoller’s quote, does it not?

  • arekushieru
    • A woman in Utah gave birth to twins. When one was stillborn, she was arrested and charged with criminal homicide based on the claim that her decision to delay cesarean surgery was the cause of the stillbirth.
    • After a hearing that lasted less than a day, a court issued an order requiring a critically-ill pregnant woman in Washington, D.C. to undergo cesarean surgery over her objections. Neither she nor her baby survived.

    So, here we see how the antis claims that protecting the fetus IS NOT actually their goal.  Women are forced to terminate their pregnancies, even when the life of the fetus is NOT at stake, only difference being that the name for the procedure was NOT abortion.  Hypocrites.

    • In Texas, a pregnant woman who sometimes smoked marijuana to ease nausea and boost her appetite gave birth to healthy twins.  She was arrested for delivery of a controlled substance to a minor.

    Yeah, these antis just love to punish women for their biology.


    In short, I think all this is exactly what antis want.

  • wiseoldsnail

    women who are married to male legislators need to refuse sex with their husbands until they quit demonizing and trying to control women!

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Such a sex boycott by the wives of these misogynists won’t work, because these creeps only have sex with hot hookers supplied by lobbyists.  These creeps haven’t had sex with their wives in years.  That’s why the wife of adulterous Speaker “Boner” lives in Ohio, not D.C.

  • Pingback: New Study Shows Anti-Choice Policies Leading to Widespread … | ChildBirth 101

  • Pingback: Should Pregnant Women Be Concerned With SCOTUS Review of DNA Testing?

  • mloustalot

    Thank you for these juicy bits of gossip, ladies, but this commentary is hardly anything more — or maybe I missed the footnotes. . . and the “personhood of women”? Really? When statistically 1/2 of all babies killed in abortions are female? Stop the baby-hatin’, please. .

    • http://twitter.com/bxgirlinseattle LB

      Not a “baby”

    • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

      Stop the woman-hatin’, please. Or whatever it is you call what you’re doing on a pro-choice website.

  • Pingback: Due Consideration « The Honest Courtesan

  • Maryanna Price

    Any and all restrictions on abortion are sex-based hate crimes. If you restrict abortion on demand at every stage of pregnancy, you keep all women from having any rights at all. This IS a black and white issue and I’m tired of “pro-choice” people saying otherwise; either women are people or not. There can be no “middle ground” on when I stop having human rights.

    • nettwench14

      You are absolutely right. This is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. Was it okay to have Jim Crow in some states while others did not?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

    Hey, women, guess what? If you’re a female of childbearing age, you’re public property, baby! Somehow, I feel like we haven’t come nearly as far as we thought we had. It’s beginning to look like we’ve got to gear back up and start fighting the good fight again.

  • nettwench14

    More and more I feel that women are having their basic civil rights violated by the constant attack on reproductive rights influenced by religious beliefs. Even with Roe. v. Wade, state legislatures could pass laws that put all abortion clinics out of business, and criminalize or refuse access to contraception. There needs to be some kind of FEDERAL statute that overrrides and makes unconstitutional all of these attempts to limit women’s access to whatever medical procedures and choices she has a right to, just like there had to be a FEDERAL law overriding states attempt to enforce Jim Crow laws. There’s a reason that many southern states still have to have any changes to voting procedures supervised by the Supreme Court. This is what needs to happen, or women’s reproductive choices will continue to be attacked. Religious beliefs have no place in medical decisions. Government pandering to these people comes up with disastrous attempts at compromise like allowing employers to refuse contraceptive coverage in women’s health insurance. That is blatant discrimination. An employer does not have the right to force his religious beliefs on his employees. It has to come down from the federal level or women living in certain parts of the country, or going to Catholic Hospitals will have different standards for medical care. Separation of church and state should absolutely be applied to medical care and insurance. Otherwise, it’s death by a thousand cuts.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

      These “religious” business owners have tortured and twisted logic so badly that it’s their completely insane position that leaving it to employees to make their own health care choices constitutes “discrimination” against the fundy business owners? Actually exercising your fundamental freedoms is somehow a threat to THEM? Those of us who aren’t completely batshit crazy really must prevail, because there’s just no compromising or common ground with these people.

  • Arandom Usero

    This is one of the worst articles I have ever read. It is clearly biased, consistently refers to a “study”, yet never tells what the actual study was about or provides a link to it (the one link at the top leads to a broken page), and neither does it provide links to any of these “stories” to which it repeatedly mentions. Whoever wrote this, please work on your writing/reporting skills to make your articles more believable.

    As for everyone else, don’t believe everything you see just because it is written down.

Mobile Theme