Anti-Choice Protester: Women’s Health Clinic Moving Next to WIC Center Like Putting ‘a Brothel Next to a School’


Women’s Health Specialists in Sacramento, California, is a full-spectrum reproductive health-care provider that offers abortion care, contraception, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, prenatal care, midwifery and adoption referrals, and well-woman care. The clinic is in the process of moving locations to a complex that it will share with a Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) center—a fact that is rankling local anti-choice activists, who are trying to force the owner of the complex to break Women’s Health Specialists’ new lease.

According to the local ABC affiliate, the protest is being organized by Al Rhomberg, who said of Women’s Health Specialists’ new location, “It just seems to be an outrageous thing, similar to putting, I don’t know, a porn shop or a pawn shop or something similar, a brothel, next to a school.”

WIC is a government-funded program that offers nutrition and other support services to low-income women and their children.

Ethan Conrad, the building’s owner, told the Sacramento Bee, “I’m bound to the terms of the lease. The protesters act as if I can break the lease, which is pretty mind-boggling. [They] want me to break the law and not perform the terms of the contract. C’mon.” But he added that the clinic’s lease includes restrictions on how many abortions it can perform.

“It’s not some abortion clinic that’s cranking out abortions,” he said. “They provide all kind of health services. Ninety-five percent of their services are non-abortion-related.”

Still, he said, he did negotiate with Women’s Health Specialists to place a “tight” restriction on the number of abortions that they could perform at the location. He declined, however, to specify the number.

Rhomberg, the lead protester, is a longtime anti-choice activist. He was arrested in the early ’90s for disrupting then-Gov. Pete Wilson’s inaugural church service, arguing that because the governor supported abortion it was inappropriate for him to have an event in a Catholic church. In 1992 he attempted to stop the city from allowing Planned Parenthood to lease space in its civic center; he said he and his supporters were “opposed to their [Planned Parenthood's] ideals.” And in 1996 he was involved in a special interest group called the U.S. Catholic Coalition, which ran ads stating that Catholics “may not vote for an abortion candidate—may not vote for Clinton.”

Although California politicians have generally not been hostile to reproductive rights, and some efforts are underway to expand abortion access, there has also been an uptick in local efforts to shut down providers in the state. Most recently, an anti-choice group in Bakersfield has been pushing for a citywide ban on abortions; the city council has rejected the move as unconstitutional.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • Valde

    Of course, because female sexuality = dirty.

    • L-dan

      I was thinking the same thing. It’s telling that all their examples are related to sexuality. Nothing like really letting slip where their hatred and disdain are actually coming from.

      • Valde

        They always deny it though. Over the past 24 hours I have been referred to as ‘babydoll’ and a ‘slut’ by people who uh, rather strenously claimed that they absolutely love female sexuality, and that babies are never, ever, punishment.

        • fiona64

          And had one man insist that no anti-choicer, ever, not ever, says things like that … only to have it belied by the poster right below him.

          His answer was then to use the tu quoque argument … which is pretty ineffective for anyone over the age of 6,

          • Valde

            Yeah, that was on LiveAction wasn’t it?

            The fucker who called me ‘babydoll’ kept bragging about how he was a ‘choctaw indian’ and that in the matriarchal ‘choctaw indian’ society, women who have sex without contraception are s1uts who should be forced to give birth – whereas women who use contraception and it fails should not be forced to give birth.

            He claimed that he was not pro-life, and that abortion isn’t murder…just that women who have sex without precautions are s1uts, and that all of the women on his reservation hate these s1uts…and consider them evil because they want to kill their babies…

            This was on Breitbart dot org and might I add, many of my comments over there were mysteriously deleted. I even posted a photo of a mere ZYGOTE, and that was deleted.

            Methinks they like to stick to a specific narrative ,and can’t have people using facts and stuff.

          • L-dan

            Wow, that’s pretty blatantly disgusting. And..how exactly would they weed out the contraception using ‘oops’ from the non-contraception using s1uts in this mythical Choctaw community? Or do they just figure it’s probably safer to assume that oopsies are so rare they can just consider anyone who’s pregnant is a s1ut?

          • J Rae

            ****all of the women on his reservation****
            Have to giggle a bit about this.

            Maybe he is married to an *Indian Princess* too.
            He has outed himself as a liar.
            Choctaw don’t have reservations. The were given land. Personal land that they owed outright, not as a collective. Land now owned by the tribe is land they bought. Not reservation land.

            Or maybe he has his own personal reservation?

          • Valde

            Take it with a grain of salt I was paraphrasing but I really don’t trust what he said.

            I seriously doubt that in a so-called matriarchal society that all of the women would have such extreme puritan values and hatred for women who have non-procreative sex without protection.

            link: http://www dot breitbart dot com/Big-Government/2013/06/25/Texas-Senate-GOP-passes-restrictive-abortion-bill#comment-990358336

            Name = MacDaddy12345

            “the Choctaw have decorum, our women would not have it otherwise we could
            become weak like the oka nahollo and wantonly destroy the gifts of
            Nanapesa. I speak in the manner of my people and follow their beliefs,
            not in the manner of one who wants to do only what they desire and to
            hell with the results! This is what the Choctaw women would call a
            Bopehali or in the language of the Oka Nahollo, a woman of loose morals –
            a slut.”

            “Baby doll, the more I read the more I am sure you are a liberal troll
            and probably not even a woman. If you are a woman and believe as you
            do, then yes, you are a SLUT!”

            “Believe it or not, I am not a pro lifer…I believe a woman should have
            the option of an abortion, but not as a result of carelessness. I do
            believe that after 5 months that the rights of what is now a baby should
            supersede the desires of the mother. But (as I pointed out earlier) I
            am not a participant in the Judeo-Christian myths/belief system, so I
            dislike being accused of being one of those rabid pro-lifers – just as I
            don’t want to be accused of being one of those rabid pro-choicers! I
            like our ways, we are not an overly contentious people and find the oka
            nahollo (white people) to be overly contentious, constantly fighting
            over things of little consequence.”

            “It is a Choctaw thing, I wouldn’t expect a clueless immoral Oka Nahollo
            to understand.. Thankfully the people of Texas are moral and understand
            the gift of Nanapesa should not be discarded.”

            “A woman’s right not to be pregnant ends when she doesn’t use
            precautions. After that Nanapesa can grant her best gift, a new life.”

            “Honey Child, bless your little heart – as long as you take
            responsibility for your actions and accept that abortions are not
            contraceptives but are serious and sometimes dangerous medical
            procedures, you have bodily autonomy. This is not an old white man
            telling you this but an old “red” man telling you this. You Nahollo are
            such contentious people, makes an old Choctaw’s head spin. If you
            don’t like what I say, it is your privilege but this is my final word
            on the matter. Ganela ganvhida ale tsudvdi.,”

            ———————-

            He ends every post talking about how wonderful a Choctaw he is. WTF?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, he’s about as ‘Choctaw’ as Mr_Cris is a Dutchman. These people really live in a fantasy world.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Wow…just wow. That is just beyond bizarre. It could just be me, but a lot of anti-choicers seem to be suffering from some sort of mental imbalance. One of the many, many reasons that I’m no longer on that side of the fence.

          • Valde

            It appears that I have been banned from posting on that LieActionNews thread.

            After some dude named Andrew J Corrales responded to every one of my posts quoting dr Seuss and basically calling me a murderer.

            I wonder if Fiona has also been banned.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Somehow I figured that LieAction wouldn’t tolerate alternate views for long–I’m not banned yet but I expect it to happen pretty soon. I was just reading some of Mr. Corrales’ drivel–that a man forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is being ‘tenderhearted’? Seriously? One has to wonder what planet these people actually inhabit.

          • Valde

            Oh, this guy is a real piece of work. He’s like Mr_Cris, only more grown up.

            I read all of his replies and basically: zygotes are people, women are sluts who viciously murder their babies and he’s smarter and wiser than all of us.

            I find it curious though that I was banned around the time he started replying. For all we know he’s a mod there or something. Rather convenient that I can’t reply to him, isn’t it :P

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I replied to his remark about how pregnancies are ‘chosen’ by women who have ‘irresponsible sex’ and I asked him about women who don’t ‘choose’, and he chose to make an assumption about me and my life. Very much like Mr_Cris. I don’t think I’m going to reply to him any more–he seems to be a rape apologist and conversations with those types always leave me upset and shaken.

          • Valde

            I hate the rape apologists more than anything. They leave me feeling sick inside.

            Btw, RHRC NEVER bans or edits anyone’s posts unless they are quite obviously abusive. I give RHRC props for that – but the forced birthers can’t have too much dissent, they need a strong echo-chamber.

          • fiona64

            MYINTX is boohooing over on sacbee dot com that she’s been banned here because “those people on RH whatever can’t stand the TRUTH.”

            ROFLMAO.

          • Valde

            Yeah, I am somewhat skeptical of that claim. I asked a mod, but no response yet.

            The thing is, some of the most offensive trolls have never been banned – so why would they ban her.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I’m skeptical about that too–I just think she’s afraid to come back here and challenge us.

          • Valde

            Myintx thinks that you are me:P

            I met her on yahoo comments – have known of her for months, and often tangle with her. She has a gang of stalkers who follow her around and call her on her bullshit. That’s how I found out she works for a CPC in Texas.

            She is profoundly ‘proud’ of her arguments, and believes that the ‘unborn baby’ meme is untouchable. So I told her to visit RHRC and PATHEOS to destroy all of the pro-choice arguments with her superior logic:P

            For some reason she thinks that you are me because I didn’t tell her who I am over here, and you were one of the first to encounter her.

            And I am not going to tell her, she can keep on guessing:P

          • fiona64

            Paranoia strikes deep …/Buffalo Springfield

          • Valde

            Fiona, for future reference, if they try to challenge you on abortion in 1800s and the efficacy of contraception, you may want to check out these two links:

            Study: http://feministing dot com/2013/08/07/why-young-women-are-still-relying-on-partners-to-pull-out/#more-66368

            and

            http://www dot americanprogress dot org/issues/religion/news/2013/08/08/71893/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

            Ignore, obviously, if you are aware of both articles. I have like, 80 fucken bookmarks that I can go to whenever I need to back up a claim. The problem being, however, I HAVE SO MANY I CAN NEVER FIND THE ONE I NEED :p

            And I showed you the one on NFP a couple of weeks ago – sperm can survive in the reproductive tract for a long time, that sperm goes bad, etc etc.

            Every single lie these idiots come out with is always always thoroughly debunked by actual science and research.

          • fiona64

            Yep, I have a bunch of them. One idiot tried to tell me that abortion didn’t exist anywhere until Roe v. Wade … and was suddenly very silent when I was able to prove her wrong with references. It is amazing to me what these low-information types are willing to believe.

          • fiona64

            I’m taking a class in social psychology, and the need for confirmation bias in low-information people seems to be very strong indeed.

          • Valde

            I can’t stand echo chambers. If RHRC and Patheos etc. were one big circle jerk I wouldn’t bother participating. I *enjoy* it when creeps such as Mr_Cris come along to ‘challenge’ our vicious, murderous, behaviour :P

          • fiona64

            How do we learn anything if we don’t question our beliefs? I don’t get it.

            Of course, questioning my beliefs is how I stopped being anti-choice, so maybe I just answered my own question.

          • Valde

            Yep, completely banned from all of LAN.Can’t post anywhere. Alex Hunter is a good poster btw, makes some great points!

          • Jennifer Starr

            He’s very good–meaning that he’ll probably end up being banned as well. Unfortunate.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah he’s an uber-obnoxious high-school kid from Oklahoma, son of a ‘tea-party patriot’, and he thinks he knows everything. Don’t you just love how they think they know absolutely ‘everything’? Thinking back to myself as a teen and just have to cringe.

          • Valde

            I love when he told Alex Hunter that there would have been no financial crisis if all the babies killed after Roe V Wade had been allowed to live. Alex pointed out the whole ‘uh, resources aren’t infinite’ thing, and Andrew J Obnoxious comes back with some bullshit about how those babies would have grown up to be scientists who would ‘make more with less.’

            Ever notice how they literally have no plan for the future and just assume that everything will be OK as long as earth creates more and more people who will then MAGICALLY solve everything? Especially IRONIC given how they ignore scientists when it comes to things like pollution and climate change!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah I’ve heard that before–the whole ‘abortion caused the social security crisis’ thing, or ‘we could have killed the person who makes the cure for cancer’ and so on and so forth, ad nauseum–or ‘there’s no population crisis–you can fit everyone in Texas’–these people do not seem to live in reality. And I just love the people who claim that ‘God will provide, he won’t let any child go hungry’–conveniently ignoring all the children who do go hungry and die from starvation.

          • Valde

            Sorry, I can’t stop picking apart some of his bullshit. He claims to be some sort of expert on science, history, biology, anthropology and then comes out with this bullshit:

            Obnoxious wrote: War is risking your life, fortune, and sacred honor for hope of
            bringing liberty, security, and justice to people who need and deserve
            it.

            What an ignorant turd. Wars have been fought, and always fought OVER RESOURCES. If you look behind every religious war, and even tragedies such as the Rwandan genocide, you will see that, more often than not, overpopulation and scarcity of resources were behind it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sounds like he’s been overdosing on old war movies or something. He should talk to my dad and grandpa–both veterans–they could give him a dose of reality concerning how ‘glorious’ war really is. Gee, it must be wonderful, to be a 16/17 year-old expert on everything *snort*.

          • fiona64

            The dude definitely reminds me of my favorite Oscar Wilde quote: “I am no longer young enough to know everything.”

          • L-dan

            Even if some individuals fight for those reasons, just as many are in the armed forces for a paycheck, some career advancement, and a decent retirement. Few of them would pick that path in the middle of a war vs. that path in peacetime.

          • fiona64

            The majority of recruitment comes from economically depressed areas; it’s about a paycheck. (I’m a former DoD employee … my source is primary.)

          • fiona64

            My response to “abortion killed the cure for cancer” is “No, the woman who was going to cure cancer died of ex-sanguination due to placenta previa.”

          • Valde

            I’ve thought of that one too. And you know why they never think of the woman who may have died in childbirth? BECAUSE, WOMEN WERE NOT MADE TO CURE CANCER, THEY WERE CREATED FOR MAKING BABIES.

            That is just one example of the misogyny simmering right below the surface. The complete erasure of the woman as anything other than a broodmare.

          • Valde

            More gems from Andrew:

            “Not if we move our excess population into countries like Japan that face
            under-population or find out ways to have homes under the ocean floor,
            in the desert, on mountaintops, and in the extreme polar regions.
            Colonizing other planets would also help. You’ve got to remember that if
            we can make things as advanced as computers then there’s little we
            can’t accomplish.”

            “-Japan will be underpopulated before long unless they start reproducing.

            -What ecosystems? Ocean floor, yeah, but mountaintops? Ice caps? What
            exactly lives in those places? And what in the desert, apart from
            oases, is/are there to disturb? I’m talking about settling places where
            there are no lifeforms.

            -We might be sitting back for a while, but eventually we’ll get back up and keep moving forward.”

            ———

            What an idiot. And the Japan thing is funny. Anti-choicers assume that Japan, and even Russia, are not producing enough babies because women are stupid s1uts who want to work and not procreate. They couldn’t be more wrong. In Russia (and other eastern european nations) the problem is due to economic uncertainty and poverty. And in Japan it is much more complex – with both spouses working (they kinda have to, high cost of living) 6 days a week, 12 hour days – it is difficult to find the time to raise a child. I also understand that there is a certain amount of guilt over maternity leave – because the workers left behind have to pick up the slack.

            So, the reasons behind declining birthrates are far, far more complex than forced birthers are willing to admit. It’s not just a simple matter of ‘feminism BAD’.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Whoa–this guy is really not living in reality

          • cjvg

            Yeah, I heard that worked real well in the middle ages.
            No one ever went hungry for very long then either, mostly because god provided them with a quick and brutal death, but hey provide he did.

          • Wonder

            Fit all the people in Texas? That would be one crowded megalopolis for people for whom disdain of urban life is practically a shibboleth.

            Maybe their mythical city will be populated entirely with white Christians

          • CT14

            Fit all the people n Texas, but what about all the plumbing! All the electric production? All the farms/ranches? All the stores for necessities? All the schools? All the places of employment?

            I think the sewage situation is enough of a dilemma to thwart any attempt to corral 7 billion+ in Texas, but do they expect everyone to work from home and home school while supplies are air dropped from wherever things would actually be produced? By robots, I guess?

          • L-dan

            Evidently they subscribe to the ‘infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters will re-create Shakespeare’ theory. Since our current batch of people haven’t solved everything, obviously adding more people will get us to critical monkey mass to solve everything…or just retype The Tempest, which doesn’t help much.

          • Valde

            LOL

          • Valde

            To start with, women evolved to give birth.,

            Oh, and that chaps my ass more than anything. Even more than the rape apologists. BIOLOGY IS NOT DESTINY YOU SEXIST FUCKS.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh yeah, those people are real pieces of work.

          • L-dan

            Yeah, and we evolved (kinda poorly) to walk upright. Does this mean that we should be forcing everyone with non-working legs to prop up on prosthetics, because dammit, we evolved to walk!

          • L-dan

            Well that’s some creepy, controlling shit.

            That’s right there with the followers of those ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’ parenting things, domestic abuse, etc. ‘I’m doing this for your own good. You’ll thank me later.”

            I really hope he doesn’t have anyone subject to his control in any fashion.

          • fiona64

            Because Jesus!

            (Who wouldn’t recognize his teachings in their mouths … but I digress.)

          • Valde

            Banned from LieAction how about you?

          • fiona64

            Yep.

          • Valde

            We are too aggressive. They don’t like that.

          • fiona64

            We’re too *honest,* and they don’t like that. They don’t care about “aggressive” — look at all of the anti-choice bullshit they permit. What they don’t like are actual facts, figures and references.

          • Valde

            Roger Resler replied to me one last time, and bragged about his ‘brilliant’ book that demolishes all pro-choice arguments:

            http://www.amazon dot com/Compelling-Interest-Real-Story-behind/dp/1618431137/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

          • fiona64

            Yeah, I saw that boast.

            Too bad he’s full of more shit than a Christmas goose.

    • myintx

      I’ll bet there wouldn’t be an issue if the clinic stopped killing unborn babies… just a hunch.

      • OldWoman

        I bet there wouldn’t be an issue if idiots could stop trying to use soundbites to impose their will on others. Just a hunch.

        • myintx

          Would it offend you less if I used more PC terms…. “I’ll bet there wouldn’t be an issue if the clinic stopped offering pregnancy termination”. That better?

          • OldWoman

            Actually … much better, as it is a statement of fact. There would be less of an issue if ONE of the choices was not the termination of pregnancy.

            Well done!

          • myintx

            Both of mine are statements of fact… One apparently you can handle better.

          • HeilMary1

            Would it offend you if I mentioned why you fetal idolaters also oppose all effective family planning in order to keep pedophile priests supplied with fresh victims?

            Would it offend you if I mentioned why the RCC banned priests’ marriages to “piles of dung” MOTHERS with obstetric fistulas?! (Hint: why do you think divorce and adultery are so high among anti-choice GOP bullies?)

          • fiona64

            I’ll bet there wouldn’t be an issue if anti-choicers would learn to mind their own fucking business.

            I think that’s pretty straightforward …

          • J Rae

            I’ll bet there would not be an issue is you kept your nose out of strangers vaginas.
            See?

            That works too.

      • L-dan

        Then they’d be lax in their job of providing a full range of women’s health services.

        And why are abortions an issue in that spot, and being compared to prostitution and porn? As if any of the kids going into WIC would know that there are abortions next door. Well…if it weren’t for the protesters shoving signs in their faces.

        I think the protestors are just miffed that they’re likely to get bad PR for shoving their propaganda at everyone coming to the building, when many of those coming to the building are simply showing up for WIC visits.

        • myintx

          Unless the mother’s life is in danger because of her pregnancy, abortion isn’t a ‘health service’. Pre-natal care is a health service.
          Abortions are an issue in that spot because its next to the WIC center.. Some may say that it’s taking a page out of the Margaret Sanger eugenics playbook.

          • Dez

            Yeah like you actually care about black women. LOL. The biggest lie coming from force birthers like you.

          • L-dan

            *eyeroll* Time to bring up Sanger as a silencing tactic.

            Yes, abortion is a health service. It is important to women’s health to be able to choose when they have children. Choosing whether to risk the potential effects on one’s health means that the decision to continue a pregnancy or not is, in fact, a health care decision.

            At least anecdotally, everyone I know with children has had long term health effects resulting from the pregnancy. Some are minor, some not. All were wanted children, so the changes to body and health were considered worthwhile. But that was their choice to make–whether to risk those changes to their health or not.

            Creating new lives should be a volunteer-only job.

          • Dez

            It’s funny that “pro-lifers” will mention Sanger but conveniently forget that slave owners forced black women as brood mares to be pregnant and give birth against their will.

          • L-dan

            What? You expect them to have an actual appreciation for history? To think about what it means when they try equating abortion to slavery (for the fetus, without a hint of irony), or harangue black women about the ‘genocide’ of black fetuses without considering the aforementioned element of forced-birth for slaves, or the long history of sterilizations against their will among various communities of color…or…ad infinitum.

            Note that I’m aware that I’m likely missing a lot of such context myself, but damn. I’d like to hope that I can at least miss the big obvious piles of horseshit, even if I step in some from time to time.

            No, no, Sanger once said some nasty eugenics-y things and is therefore to be reviled by everyone forever. Never mind that her actions and later history distanced her from those. Never mind that the modern movements that consider her one of their honored historical figures still don’t move in lockstep with her views or enshrine them as a holy text or anything.

          • Valde

            Henry Ford was an anti-semite and was admired by Hitler.

            The inventor of the transistor, William Shockley, was a racist white supremacist type.

            I don’t see forced birthers refusing to drive Ford vehicles or renouncing all electronics!

          • fiona64

            A whole slew of them are big ol’ homophobes, but they still use their computers. /Alan Turing reference

          • HeilMary1

            And let’s not forget Sanger’s colleague, childbirth-ruined Mary Ware Dennett.

          • Valde

            I always inform pro-lifers of that when they criticize Sanger for ‘genocide.’

            I also ask them if the black slavewomen who dared to abort their forced pregnancies were ‘genocidal maniacs’ who have committed a worse crime than the rapist slaveowners. They never answer. They just continue talking about ‘genocide’ – so I, and others, ask them why black women choosing to use contraception/abortion OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL IS GENOCIDE.

            As usual, they don’t have a good answer. They are idiots who have memorized the same iinsulting talking points.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayinde-Truxon-Flores/1196187056 Ayinde Truxon Flores

            Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. accepted the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood. If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me. It’s funny how you people who are pushing this issue probably are against any and all remedies for racial discrimination.

          • HeilMary1

            Google obstetric incontinence to get a small clue why all pregnancies are risky for women’s health and marriages.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The funny thing is, if most ‘pro-lifers’ had their way, there would be no WIC. They’re all for forcing women to give birth, but don’t want to do a damn thing to help those kids once they are born. The first thing that our ‘pro-life’ Governor Bob McDonnell wanted to cut in our state’s budget? Education–specifically early childhood education.

          • fiona64

            I know that you phony volunteers at the CPCs like to pretend you’re health care professionals instead of just dunces holding clipboards … but the reality is: you’re not a doctor. It’s not your call as to whether a woman “needs” an abortion. I don’t care whether she wants to terminate because her life is in danger, or because the smell of baby lotion makes her puke. It’s none of your business.

            You and your little adoption mills for the right* kind of infants being placed with the right** kinds of families make me sick.

            * Caucasian
            ** Christian

            For those who don’t know, myintx works for White Rose Women’s Center, a CPC that is associated with a Catholic adoption mill called St. Joseph’s Helpers. Their website touts a great deal of misinformation, including the discredited idea that abortion causes breast cancer. That’s what our little troll here represents.

          • HeilMary1

            Anti-choicers also love denouncing the pill for allegedly causing breast cancer, but they never respond to the far greater danger from actual pregnancies, especially with female fetuses.

          • lorimakesquilts

            Of course it’s a health service. It doesn’t take a life-or-death situation to make a procedure necessary and what is deemed necessary is between the patient and doctor.

            So according to you it’s not okay to “murder” someone except when it could save someone else’s life. In that case, why is there such a long wait for transplant organs? Surely those matching transplant recipients can just be killed and their organs harvested, after all someone’s life is in danger.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ayinde-Truxon-Flores/1196187056 Ayinde Truxon Flores

        We saw your comment already. Now you are trolling.

      • Arekushieru

        Abortion isn’t killing.

        Legal/medical definition for killing? Cause of death. Cause of death for a fetus after abortion? Incompatibility with life upon separation from the uterus NOT a pregnancy termination involving a temporary organ.

        If it were killing, you might be able to make a legitimate claim that fetuses are babies. Since, y’know, abortion would involve more than just a temporary organ, then, because “a blastocyte, zygote , embryo, fetus …. inability to continue their existence when not actively nourished
        and supported by the body of an actual living woman is what clearly sets
        them apart from a baby.”. But that temporary organ exists, after all, BECAUSE a fetus needs to be nourished and supported by an actual living woman’s body. Therefore, the fetus, ITSELF, provides the very reason for why it cannot be legally/clinically classified as a baby.

        And, please, stop conflating three percent of an organization’s services with the rest of its services. The false equivalency fallacy has had its day.

        • Valde

          Good breakdown. I have used that one myself (though not as eloquently) and been told that abortion is then the equivalent of taking a newborn out and letting it die in the snow. STILL MURDER!

      • belgianchic

        oh please get over yourself, it would do everyone so much good

  • cjvg

    Maybe they should consider that if women find out that they might actually be able to feed a child resulting from an unexpected pregnancy they will carry it to term!

    • liberaldem

      Since the clinic offers a full range of women’s health services, including adoption referrals, it might be helpful if Mr. Rhomberg actually paid attention to that fact.

    • OldWoman

      I’m loving the convenience for someone with children that the parent is having difficulty feeding: She can feed her current kid(s), and within a short distance is a way to prevent ones she cannot afford.

      Win/Win all around.

      • myintx

        Not a win for the unborn baby.

        • cjvg

          No “babies” are involved in abortions.
          Plenty of babies are involved in situations that are actually harmful like hunger, abuse, neglect,

          • myintx

            That’s why I said ‘unborn baby’ :)
            Plenty of wanted babies are involved in those things… Plenty of wanted babies die by drowning, SIDS, cancer, etc too.. so what? Doesn’t make killing them before they are born right. Plenty of babies also overcome obstacles in their lives and become productive adults too – unless, they are killed before they are even born.

          • L-dan

            Still, not a ‘baby’. Tossing unborn in front of it, doesn’t change the fact that you’re calling a zygote, or embryo, or fetus, a ‘baby’ in an attempt to make an emotional, rather than logical argument. It’s a tactic that’s generally seen as manipulative rather than arguing in good faith. This tends to get annoying.

            Regardless of terminology, it’s still not a being with the right to commandeer the unwilling body of another as life support.

          • myintx

            Many fetal homicide laws in this country use the word ‘unborn child’ in legal documents. Therefore, it is legally correct. – e.g. Arizona refers to the “unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development”. That Castro guy was charged with murder for killing the unborn child of one of his victims. Does picturing an unborn child make you think twice about supporting the KILLING of that unborn child? Is that why you hate the term?

          • cjvg

            Exactly

          • cjvg

            The is a reason medical science has a distinct and different name for human cells that are slowly developing into what is commonly called a baby after birth.
            a blastocyte, zygote , embryo, fetus are not at all the same as a baby, their inability to continue their existence when not actively nourished and supported by the body of an actual living woman is what clearly sets them apart from a baby.

          • HeilMary1

            Wish my abusive “pro-life” mom aborted me instead of disfiguring me as her birth-control-by-abstinence excuse. Would you consider me a productive adult now that I am vehemently pro-choice?!

          • cjvg

            I do

          • HeilMary1

            Thanks, but my question is probably making the troll reconsider the unintended consequences of saving every blasted blastocyst.

          • fiona64

            There is no such thing as an “unborn baby.” Infants are born entities.

          • Arekushieru

            See, you are trying to justify forced birth by the outcomes of parenting but for those who want to justify a woman’s right to choose, that is not a topic for discussion? Wow, hypocritical much?

        • fiona64

          Says a woman who works at a so-called “crisis pregnancy center” and lies for a living …

        • Arekushieru

          Hmm, do you lack reading comprehension? Feeding ones current kids vs
          not being able to feed ANY kids. That IS the implication being
          presented, here. So I can’t understand how this could not be a win for
          ANYONE, including an ‘unborn baby’.

    • xanaxnation

      WIC (Women, Infants and Children) is a local form of Social Service, aka: Welfare. It provides food vouchers for women, infants, and here’s the shocker, children. To qualify for the program, you have to be dirt ass poor. The give their clients vouchers for specific food products, milk, bread, cheese, etc. Then the women take the vouchers to stores that accept them, get their stuff, and pay for one. item. at. a. time. With the corresponding voucher. The people in line behind them glare and mutter curses, undoubtably causing shame. So no, it’s not some magical free way to provide for all of the needs of babies that might have otherwise not been carried to term. It’s welfare. And the women that have to use it do not relish the idea, they do it to get through a tough spot in life, it’s only valid until the child is 5 years old.

      • cjvg

        I actually do not understand what you are trying to tell me, i’m well aware what WIC is and believe it is a needed and underfunded program.

        My statement was no slam against WIC but against those who feel that every child must be born, however once born there apparently is no pressing need on their part to ensure that every born child is ensured food safety!

  • Valde

    http://2 dot bp dot blogspot dot com/-jVLuNwdY3mY/UgAJ9o5EPII/AAAAAAAA3fA/GHyGsWJ58rI/s400/sargent+cartoon dot jpg

    hahahahahaah

    • fiona64

      Ain’t *that* the uncomfortable truth …

  • HeilMary1

    Did you include any links? — I stopped adding links to avoid being filtered as spam.

  • Jennifer Starr

    It was happening to me all last week–contacted RH Reality check but never did find out what was going on–all seems to be normal now but it was still frustrating.

  • cjvg

    that seems to be going around.
    I had it all day yesterday from people responding to me or my own.
    Dont’t know about today, have not done much yet

  • fiona64

    I know, right? I’ve almost got a blackout on my forced-birther BINGO card thanks to the LieAction Fiano article; if they don’t step it up, I’ll never win my free toaster!

    • L-dan

      Whoa, there’s toasters?! Mine’s on its last legs and there’s toaster-prize forced-birther BINGO I’m missing out on? What’d I buy that Powerball ticket for?!

      :p

  • Arekushieru

    And, yet, they are the ones who oppose BDSM as a legitimate practice. Probably because it involves all these issues of consent, ya know?

  • Jennifer Starr

    Good to see you :)

  • fiona64

    It’s the “free space” on my forced-birther BINGO card, because it comes up so often.

  • belgianchic

    Wow, government assistance for women who already have children that they need to feed next to a a health care center that would possibly prevent malnourished infants? And a woman in need of financial assistance might carry a pregnancy to term if she could secure aid.

    • Valde

      Morality trumps quality of life, yo.

      /snark

  • Betty Eyer

    Well, that proves what they are really upset about. Women having free range sex.

  • Michael J. Simmons

    So a Woman’s Health Clinic is going to go up right next to a center which will proved services for a woman who has decided to proceed based on her choice/decision to have a child. This I do see as a win for all parties involved.

  • justmehere

    I’m just curious to know what the real reason is as to why people don’t refrain from having sex when they don’t want to get pregnant? What is the real reason that you can’t stay away from it?

    Abortion is quite expensive, especially if you’re poor. Birth control can be expensive, too, and it doesn’t always work. However, if you don’t have sex at all, you’re guaranteed to never be pregnant. It seems that not having sex would be the best option because it’s totally free and guaranteed to keep you from getting pregnant, so why not go with that?

    • Ella Warnock

      Well, just me, I’m MARRIED, so I LIKE having sex with my HUSBAND. I had to rely on inferior birth control for nine years before an ob/gyn would ALLOW me (fluffy pink ladybrainz and all) to have a tubal ligation. But that legal piece of paper really doesn’t make much difference, you see, because we were going to be together, marriage or not. And since we love each other, we, oh, you know, like to express that in an intimate way. And since we never wanted kids and BC fails from time to time, well, you figure it out. I can’t even believe I have to explain these things in such excruciating detail, like it’s not achingly, painfully obvious to anyone who’s even halfway paying attention.

      What you’re saying is that couples should only have sex if they’re willing to procreate. Wow, like we haven’t heard THAT ad nauseum. The reality of the BC/abortion situation is that children are optional. Can’t unring that bell, so it might be helpful to your state of mind if you made some peace with the idea that others don’t have to live as you wish them to. Why you would want someone who doesn’t want kids to have a kid is anybody’s guess, but there are a lot of you out there. What that really means is that it’s not about the kid, or obviously you’d know better than to wish it into a sub-par familial situation. Nope, as usual, it’s about kids being “consequences,” and everybody knows that means it’s about the woman doing the very thing you suggest she not do – have sex and enjoy herself. That’s the real “crime” here, so can the disingenuous pussyfooting. Your “curiosity” is just another term for some mighty judgmental bullshit. A 24kt-goldplated turd is still a turd, after all.

      • justmehere

        Wow, Ella, nice. I’m not pussyfooting. I’m not swearing at you or anyone else. I really am curious because it seems the most logical that when people don’t want to have a baby, and they want to save money, and they want to be guaranteed not to get pregnant, they won’t do the activity that gets them pregnant. I’m not saying that they HAVE to go that way. I’m saying that it seems to make the most sense.

        Also, just because a child is not wanted by their biological parents doesn’t mean that the rest of the world won’t love them, or that their life will be horrible. The beginning of their life does not have to define how the rest of their life will go. There are many people in the world who were abused as children, born into poverty, etc., but they refused to let those things define or control the rest of their lives, and they did what was necessary to make their lives better. That doesn’t erase the past or what may have been done to them, but we all have a choice in life: let our past define and dictate the rest of our lives, or do what we can to make the future better for ourselves in spite of our past. I’m not saying it’s easy to do, but it is doable.

        • Ella Warnock

          It doesn’t make the most sense, because it’s the LEAST realistic thing to expect. I do urge you to not have sex, you know, never, if that’s what it takes for everything to be done what you consider the “right” way. If sex and kids and procreation need to be a complicated, drama-filled thing for you, hey, knock yourself out. Since I’m all about choice, I’m all about whatever kind of choice you believe you need to make, no matter how ill-advised I think it is. That’s just it; I actually won’t judge you for it. I’ll assume you’re a grown-ass woman who knows her own mind. That’s a hell of a lot more than you’d ever grant me, so if I were you, I’d take support wherever I could bloody well get it.

          The minutiae of anybody else’s past has zero impact on my decisions. I’m not overly concerned with others’ choices, because I’m ASSUMING that they’re as competent to make them as I am. And “I” am very, very competent. You might like for me to find a way to accept the notion of having a child, especially if I’m going to be having sex. Because obviously I cannot exist as a sexual being separate and apart from motherhood. That was never going to happen, which I suspect is probably the most offensive discomfiting thing.

          Look, I could never have had the life I have now – the one I wanted and planned for and worked my ass of for – if I had a kid. Because I didn’t want THE KID. And yes, if I had ever gotten knocked up, that would have been a sacrifice worth making. I have no qualms about admitting what my priorities were and are. Of course, there’s no danger of pregnancy now, and I’m old enough to be feeling those sneaky, creeping little “regrets” and “what if’s” . . . aaand nothing. Not one damn regret or fleeting scintilla of sorrow. Just me, I think you need to be aware that there are more of us out there than you might have imagined. We’re not cowed or apologetic about the lives we’ve crafted. You have nothing to offer that countless others who have marched in here – slinging and flinging self-righteous indignation – haven’t tried and failed to peddle. You have to convince your audience that they WANT what you HAVE. Well, time and time and time again, no one has managed to create that want.

          That someone else chooses to have a more difficult or challenging life because she chose to have a kid, well, that is HER CHOICE. The ultimate outcome of that choice belongs to her, so I hope all the other choices she makes will be ones that benefit the life she brought into the world. It is NOT, however, MY obligation to birth a kid I never wanted just so I could hand it over to a “good christian couple” who couldn’t grow their own. I’m not in the martyr business. If you are, again I say, bully for you! Do it the “right” way! Don’t, however, worry overly much about what someone like me did. I’ve got a great life, and I built it on, mostly, my terms. A lot of people don’t like women like that.

          With the way sexual and relationship politics and sociology are headed, though, they probably ought to start getting accustomed to a future that looks lot different from what their churches and mommies and daddies told them it would be. And you know what? It more than likely won’t actually kill you at all.

          • Valde

            U r a selfish s1ut

            Just sayin’ Ella :)

          • Ella Warnock

            Aaargh, I’ve been s1ut shamed!

          • Valde

            Which is far far more damaging than being s L …ut shamed :P

          • Valde

            Speaking of which, I find it most curious that the S word is censored here…but not over on LieActionNews:P

          • Ella Warnock

            That is weird. I think they like for us to use “vulgar” terms to illustrate how morally bankrupt we are. Or something.

          • fiona64

            Well, see, they have to be able to use that word to tell pro-choice women that we’re dumb tramps … even if we’ve never had an abortion. Anyone who is okay with other women making their own medical decisions clearly doesn’t know how to keep her legs together. ;->

        • Valde

          If only the scumbags on this forum had your self-restraint justmehere

          There is nothing remotely unrealistic about a married couple never ever ever having sex for the 30+ years of marriage if they don’t want to have kids.

          Nope, NOTHING UNREALISTIC ABOUT THAT AT ALL

          Thank god people such as yourself are living in the real world.

          Show these baby killers what real life is all about!

        • Ella Warnock

          Ak-choo-lee, ya know what? Couples who aren’t having kids should not only abstaaaaain, they should also probably sleep in separate bedrooms. No, wait, hold the phone, they should probably live in separate abodes! And while we’re getting all judgy about people’s personal reproductive choices, we probably shouldn’t allow those childfree assholes to buy houses. Only “real” families (the kind with chirrun) deserve single-family dwellings. We can just, oh, live in tent cities, or something. Heeey, should we even allow these non-procreating losers to vote? Real murcans have kids; the cheerfully childfree are CLEARLY communists and should move to a communist country. Like Canada. You know those freaks to the north are all godless heathens.

          So, yeah, I think I’ve just single-handedly solved all of the nation’s problems. If we drive out the childfree, we drive out SATAN!!!eleventy!!!

        • fiona64

          Also, just because a child is not wanted by their biological parents
          doesn’t mean that the rest of the world won’t love them, or that their
          life will be horrible.

          Tell that to the 100K children currently available for adoption in this country, per AFCARS stats.

          • justmehere

            So there’s no one that loves them or is trying to adopt them right now, and there is no one who will ever do that?

          • fiona64

            The majority of those kids will age out of the system without ever having been adopted. I suggest a visit to afcars dot gov for a look at the reports. You will find it enlightening.

          • Valde

            And many of them, in foster homes, will be physically and sexually abused.

          • Ella Warnock

            It’s not a question of someone, somewhere loving any random kid; it’s about the fact that no woman is obligated to actually birth one just because someone else wants it. If she doesn’t want to, then she doesn’t want to.

        • L-dan

          ” because it seems the most logical that when people don’t want to have a
          baby, and they want to save money, and they want to be guaranteed not
          to get pregnant, they won’t do the activity that gets them pregnant.”

          You realize that this is basically saying that sex is only for non-poor people? Just how realistic is it to say tell someone that if they’re poor, they shouldn’t have sex, ever?

          It’s also saying that people who don’t ever want children should commit to celibacy? Why? I mean the clergy does it as part of their faith and devotion, and even *they* frequently don’t stick to that standard.

          Those with health conditions that mean pregnancy is dangerous for them? Same standard?

          All of which ignores that sex does not equal consent for pregnancy any more than kissing equals consent to sex. Use of my body requires my active consent. I don’t see why that’s unrealistic but lifelong celibacy is a totally realistic standard.

        • lorimakesquilts

          “There are many people in the world who were abused as children, born into poverty, etc., but they refused to let those things define or control the rest of their lives, and they did what was necessary to make their lives better.”

          And there are exponentially more that simply cannot do that.

          Childhood abuse, neglect, poverty, etc., has a physical and mental impact that isn’t going to get willed away. A child raised in that kind of environment is guaranteed to be at a disadvantage. It isn’t ethical to force someone to bring a child into a bad environment.

          As for celibacy — perhaps it makes sense for you, but humans have a biological imperative to reproduce. Most fertile women who feel secure and have a mate, are not going to be celibate. And that’s why it doesn’t work. Surely you’ve read something about the failure of abstinence education.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Sex is not only for procreation. Sex is pleasurable and fun, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to enjoy a healthy sex life with your spouse or partner and not wanting to have children. My parents had three children by the time my mom was 26 and they decided to use contraception and not have any more kids after that. Did they stop having sex? Of course not. It might shock you to know that they still enjoy a healthy sex life today and that they are as much in love as they were when they married in ’71. And it might also shock you to know that not all married or committed couples want children, and that’s okay. And furthermore, no one is obligated to continue and gestate a pregnancy to give a baby to someone else. Contrary to what some people say, having sex does not mean that you must be open to pregnancy and babies.

    • Valde

      it’s because they are heathens who can’t keep their legs closed justmehere

      they are inferior beings, unable to control themselves

      if only more people were as saintly and capable of self-controlled as you, the world would be a better place

      you are truly a beacon for all of humanity

      may we wash your saintly virtuous feet?

    • fiona64

      What is it with you anti-choicers and your nosiness about peoples’ bedroom habits?

      BTW, “if you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex” — which is what you’re really saying? Proves that this is not and never has been about the fetus. It’s about controlling women.

      Any and all forms of contraception, including surgical sterilization, can and do fail.

      The answer is that people’s sexual habits and medical decisions are none of your damn business.

      I swear, the low-information, bad manners set abounds where the anti-choice congregate.

      I’m married, and almost at the end of my reproductive life. How often I bonk my husband, and what I will do if I fall pregnant at age 49? Are both none of your concern.

    • Amanda Kazarian

      I’m not going to refrain from sex in my marriage because it will give you peace of mind. My god, getting involved in other peoples sex lives is just creepy.

  • fiona64

    Reply to “one of the sheep,” in moderation: that photo is NOT what you claim it is. The woman was anesthetized, and so was the fetus, for a uterine surgery. The hand flopped out and the physician put it back. You can read all about it here: http://www dot snopes dot com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

    The gullibility of the anti-choice never ceases to amaze me.

  • fiona64

    Really, sweetie, you need to learn that biology is not destiny. Just because someone possesses a uterus, that does not mean that they have the desire to be pregnant or a parent. It’s not automatic. Thinking people know that …

    • fiona64

      Reply to “one of the sheep,” in moderation.

      I’m glad you chose celibacy for yourself. I support your right to do so.

      Since you seem to be big on the “guess what” game, let me play it, too.

      Guess what? No one else has to make the same choice.

  • Valde

    Women have the ability to incubate, however, they are NOT incubators.

  • Valde

    How about not forcing women to remain pregnant against their will?

  • Jennifer Starr

    Nice to know that you view women as little more than livestock and walking incubators.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Choosing celibacy is obviously the best choice for you, and I support and respect your choice. Please let other people make the best choices for themselves.