Hobby Lobby Wants to Deny Insurance Coverage of Birth Control. It Should Stop Selling Knitting Needles, Too


Read more of our coverage on the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases here.

Hobby Lobby is the Oklahoma-based chain of craft stores that is challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), claiming that the health-care reform law violates the corporation’s free exercise of religion by requiring it to provide their employees with a health plan that covers the intrauterine device (IUD) and oral contraceptive pills. Hobby Lobby asserts, without medical foundation, that these contraceptive are really abortifacients.

While Hobby Lobby opposes offering contraceptive coverage, it does sell three types of knitting needles: single point, circular, and double point needles, ranging in size from 0 to 50. The needles come in a wide variety of colors and materials (including wood, plastic, bamboo, acrylic, and aluminum). They range in price from $2.59 to $13.99.

This is worth noting because, in the not-so-distant past, women who became pregnant and didn’t have access to legal abortion used a variety of objects, including wire coat hangers and knitting needles, to try and end their pregnancies themselves.

One of these women was Marla Elaine Pitchford, a 22-year-old white woman from Scottsville, Kentucky. The year wasn’t 1950, or 1960, or even early 1973 before the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. It was June of 1978, five years after the Supreme Court recognized in Roe that women have a fundamental right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.

According to numerous media reports, Ms. Pitchford was a religiously observant Southern Baptist for whom the idea of an abortion was repugnant. When she became pregnant, the predominant emotion she felt was shame. The only person she eventually told was her boyfriend, Dwight Mundy, who refused to marry her, and urged her to have an abortion.

Ms. Pitchford and Mr. Mundy visited an abortion clinic together. The clinic informed her that she was too far along in her pregnancy to obtain an abortion anywhere in the state. Ms. Pitchford later explained:

When I was examined they told me I was 24 weeks pregnant. Too late to have an abortion. I thought I was only 18 to 20 weeks at the most. I was upset and scared. The only place I could go that late in a pregnancy was New York, Kansas City or Atlanta. I had no more money and couldn’t afford that. I went back to my hotel room. I was very upset and crying. I had no way out. I felt like dying. The next morning when I got up, I thought I could give myself an abortion. So I put a plastic knitting needle in my uterus.

In her own words, Ms. Pitchford was “just desperate for a way out.” She didn’t tell anyone about what she had done, including her boyfriend.

As a result of this self-abortion attempt, she developed a high fever and became seriously ill. Her boyfriend thought she was miscarrying and took her the hospital.

At the hospital, Ms. Pitchford was given a labor-inducing drug. She delivered a stillborn child. She also delivered a six-inch, white plastic knitting needle that was embedded in the placenta. The delivery room staff notified the coroner who then alerted the police. Two days later, Ms. Pitchford woke up with two police officers at her bedside who were there to interrogate her.

Ms. Pitchford was arrested and charged with manslaughter and performing an illegal abortion. A court eventually dismissed the manslaughter charge, but the illegal abortion charge—with a possible sentence of ten to 20 years of incarceration—remained.

Compared to women who died from self-abortion, Ms. Pitchford was lucky; she lived. She survived her desperate self-abortion attempt and had the help of a dedicated public defender. Grounds existed to challenge the application of the state’s abortion law to the pregnant woman herself. Her attorney, however, believed that her client was too emotionally fragile to endure years of uncertainty while the case worked its way through the courts. They opted for a jury trial at which her attorney argued that Ms. Pitchford was temporarily insane when she attempted the abortion.

The strategy worked. After deliberating for barely an hour, the jury acquitted Ms. Pitchford.

Today, abortion clinics are being shut down and well-financed corporations are fighting to deny women health coverage for contraception and abortion services. Women who become pregnant and want to end those pregnancies have options other than the knitting needles that were often used before Roe, and sometimes after. For example, the drug, misoprostolwhen taken correctly, has an 85 to 90 percent effectiveness rate in safely ending an early pregnancy. That is, if it can be obtained and if women aren’t arrested for using it. Meanwhile, as abortion becomes less and less accessible and more and more stigmatized, no one should be surprised to find women once again using knitting needles to end their pregnancies.

On March 25, lawyers for Hobby Lobby will argue their case before the United States Supreme Court. If Hobby Lobby wins, more women will experience unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. At the oral argument, I hope at least one of the justices will ask whether the corporation, if it wins its lawsuit, plans to stop selling knitting needles to the employees who lose their contraceptive coverage and become pregnant.

The author wishes to thank Katherine Jack, JD, for her research documenting the Marla Elaine Pitchford case.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly noted the date of the Supreme Court hearing. It will be held on March 25. We regret the error.

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

  • radicalhw

    I don’t have Hobby Lobby stores in my area, but if I did, I might be tempted to print info about the Pitchford case onto stickers that I’d slap onto every single knitting tool.

    • expect_resistance

      Great idea!

    • Othelie Moor

      Sorry to be so ignorant, but what is the Pitchford case? Tried googeling it, but unless it has something to do with people getting bit by a dog then I can’t find it.

      Edit: Never Mind, my google-fu is back

  • By The Way

    I’m not really sure this is the case that you should be using to try to make your point. For one thing, the case itself is pretty demeaning to women. Either she was only acquited because she was it was easy to play it off as insane because the jury easily would dismiss her as insane (in much the same way the sexist men write off women as being “hysterical”), or (and I’m not sure which one is worse) she actually was insane and isn’t a great benchmark to measure off of. Also this woman was 5 months pregnant when she preformed the procedure on herself. She wasn’t acquitted because she didn’t commit a crime she was acquitted because it’s easy to dismiss women as insane in a patriarchal sexist culture.
    Honestly the more i look at it, this is probably the exact case the many anti-abortion people would use to argue for stricter controls. She was a 22-year-old college student studying psychology studies. If you were attending college in the 70′s you weren’t struggling to get by, in all likely hood she was probably relatively affluent. There is no discussion of whether her sex was consensual, and the only reason she didn’t get a legal abortion is because she didn’t know how far along she was. This sound like fodder for anti- abortion groups. I hear the argument focusing on a middle class elitist who doesn’t care about the life inside her so much that she would even go past 5 month mark just for convenience sake, which is the reason Mundy encouraged her to abort. How Mundy didn’t receive any attention is beyond me, but that’s neither here nor there.

    • fdt

      This comment is fascinating, particularly the suggestion that we shouldn’t use bad cases as exemplars of injustice. This is the same thing that was said about Jennie McCormack’s case, which was reported here — she induced an abortion with misoprostol just a couple of years ago and was charged with a crime. Her case, also too unattractive, too complicated, led to a ruling that criminalization of women for illegal abortion constitutes an “undue burden” and is therefore unconstitutional.

      Unfortunately, prosecutors don’t only prosecute women who make attractive test cases and defense attorneys don’t only win on the ideologically preferable grounds. For real women and their actual lives, having their fate hang in the balance for years may not be feasible. This is why Ms. Pitchford’s case is the exact sort of story we have to tell: if abortion is a crime (as it still is in many states, and as it will be again if some people have their way), your case goes to trial, good, bad, or ugly.

      • By The Way

        Oh let me clarify. The courts should absolutely look at this case. My point was that a commentator who is trying to argue a philosophical point would perhaps be better served using a case that was more clear cut in making their point. This case was only used because the woman in question used knitting needles, and the group involved in the case produces them, but the argument is that a person who was deemed insane by the court was the one who put knitting needles into their uterus. It seems more like a cheap shot at the expense of women rather than a reasoned an convincing discussion that will inform and guide people in taking the issue of health care for women seriously.
        Also, I just want to put this out there before there are any misconceptions. I am not an abortion supporter. I don’t like to use any of the terms used in this discussion because I believe that all of them are incomplete PR devices used to sway peoples emotions. I will say that I believe that the abortion industry needs some sort of regulation, and certainly more than it has now. I consider myself a moderate, and I don’t agree with the rhetoric Republicans, or Democrats on this issue. I joined this forum so I could learn more about the other side of the debate, and this website had the most reasoned discussion of an opinion differing from my own.
        My problem with this post is that it didn’t help me understand this topic any better (maybe that’s not the purpose of it, but it seems that the author is trying to sway people to her side). This woman was committing a crime, and a crime that I haven’t heard anyone but the most hardened abortion advocate support: The idea that a fetus that has developed for 5 months should be allowed to be legally terminated. So what does this article add to the discussion, how is this going to either reinforce people who agree with her stance, or raise questions for people who don’t?
        Again I joined to understand the other side, so maybe this is obvious to some of you, but it is escaping me.

        • lady_black

          Just go away.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Second that.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          “I am not an abortion supporter.”
          …………
          What a surprise.

          • lady_black

            It’s the concern troll in another sock puppet, encouraging itself while typing one-handed.

          • By The Way

            Wow, I’m more than a little disappointed. I genuinely thought I would get at least a few well thought out responses before it degraded to masturbation jokes and complete dismissal. Are you really so sure of your position that you will so quickly dismiss me. I am acknowledging that there is some form of intelligence on the other side of the debate, but you will not? Or is your uncertainty about the topic what makes you so hostile to a different viewpoint.

          • lady_black

            Nobody is pro-abortion. Not even women who have them. You have previously posted that “a fetus that has developed for five months should be allowed to develop (at least you didn’t say “baby”)” and called abortion “a crime.” Your feelings about 20 week fetuses do not take into account fetal anomalies, damage to the health of the woman, and little 11 and 12 year old raped babies who may not realize they’re pregnant until someone sees them showing. Like most anti-choicers, you take your little eraser and erase the woman from the equation until all you see is fetus. Even if the fetus is doomed, and the mother doesn’t want to continue carrying it. Look, doctors aren’t fools and neither are women. We don’t need you telling us what to do. We KNOW what to do, and when to do it. How about you mind your own business?

          • anja

            I’ve always objected to the “nobody is pro-abortion” line. If believing that women need the option to have an abortion if they want makes me pro-abortion than I’m fine with it.

          • Arekushieru

            I have an objection to being considered Pro-Abortion because I am not anti-choice. If Pro-Life means illegal abortion, then Pro-Abortion can only mean mandated abortion, if we are going to use the terms in the manner they relate to each other. Which is the only thing for which I can accept them being applied because there is no indication that that title is being used to identify something in a different manner than the titles Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are used to identify something. Given how and where I see it being used, that only confirms to me that this IS the manner in which the term is being used. Iow, I believe that being called Pro-Abortion UNDERMINES the Pro-Choice movement. Because it allows the Pro-Life movement to cast us in the wrong light and undercut the very foundation upon which our beliefs rest, one of choice and bodily autonomy rather than mandatory and forced abortion.

          • Shan

            “If Pro-Life means illegal abortion, then Pro-Abortion can only mean mandated abortion”

            Thought-provoking comparison. Thanks for doing that.

          • pitbullgirl1965

            I believe that being called Pro-Abortion UNDERMINES the Pro-Choice movement. Because it allows the Pro-Life movement to cast us in the wrong light and undercut the very foundation upon which our beliefs rest, one of choice and bodily autonomy rather than mandatory and forced abortion.
            I don’t give a s**t about being cast in the wrong light. You know what playing nicey nice has gotten us with the anti choice (it’s not prolife btw, it’s forced birth) side?
            Nowhere, worse then nowhere, because they have been emboldened by the tip toeing around of pro choicers and keep moving the goal posts.
            I want abortion to be safe, legal and available to whomever wants one for whatever reason, be it medical, or you hate children, or it is inconvenient.
            Better that then some kid born to a parent that hates it.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I am PRO abortion for/with any woman who wants an abortion. I am ANTI abortion for/with any woman who wants to give birth.

          • pitbullgirl1965

            And that is how I feel. With the world population climbing, I wish more women would choose abortion.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I am with you. I am with women.

          • Arekushieru

            You, of course, TOTALLY missed my point. If you haven’t realized, with your disagreement towards my post, you’re essentially saying that you want to be identified as ANTI-CHOICE. Not that you are for abortion in the cases that women want it and against it in cases that women don’t. Which does WHAT, again, to advance the Pro-Choice cause against the anti-choicers? Nothing, worse than nothing, to paraphrase you. It actually helps THEIR cause, more.

            Now, that you have (hopefully) read that, perhaps you would like to go back and re-read what I ACTUALLY said. Kthxbainow.

          • lady_black

            I agree 100%. I can’t very well be called “pro-abortion.” I’ve never had an abortion, nor have I ever insisted it was the only right decision. Furthermore, “pro-abortion” describes China’s family planning policies, with their strict one child policy enforced by forced abortion. Since I agree that forced abortion is every bit as heinous as forced gestation, I cannot, by definition, be “pro-abortion.” I am pro-choice, and the opposite of pro-choice is NO choice. Anti-choicers can be pro-abortion (as in China), or pro-forced gestation (as in the USA). If you think about it those are two sides of the same ugly coin. I believe pregnancy ought to be a voluntary undertaking, and every child born a wanted child.

          • pitbullgirl1965

            No I TOTALLY didn’t miss your point. I am tired of abortion being DEMONIZED so I call myself PRO ABORTION.
            There is nothing wrong with it, and playing nicey nicey doesn’t work with forced birthers. If I was for mandatory abortion, I’d call it FORCED ABORTION.
            Kthnkbye (All caps looks ridiculous doesn’t it?

          • pitbullgirl1965

            I forgot to add: they already believe we force women into abortion, so no amount of tip toeing or trying to assure them we don’t hasn’t worked and doesn’t work. You’re talking about knuckle dragging, Obama is going to put us in concentration camps TeaHadist types.
            I assume bad faith on their part.

          • lady_black

            That makes you pro-choice, not pro abortion. Unless you go around encouraging women to have abortions. Just saying.

          • By The Way

            I called it a crime because it is and was. She was past 24 weeks which is the current cut off, unless I am mistaken. If you want to discuss what should be a crime and what shouldn’t go for it. But I sincerely doubt you want to do that. It would probably be easier to call me “IT” and take cheap shots about masturbation (I really can’t get over how quickly what looked like an intelligent mature group turned into a high school bullying session). Here is the problem, many commenters on here have said I am erasing the woman from the situation. I’m not. I am simply pointing out that there is another human life that needs to be BALANCED (not take precedent) with the life of that woman. I can’t believe that every single person on this thread thinks that abortion should be completely legal, under any circumstances, at any time in a pregnancy. If you don’t think that then there should be some room to discuss what those situations are? Again you can say its up to the woman, but if you understand that there are two human lives that need to be balanced then you understand that there should be some legal guidelines. As a society we try to protect the weak, and if you think that the mother should be allowed to do WHATEVER she wants WHENEVER she wants then you are essentially taking the stance that “might makes right,” and I don’t think that is what everybody on here really wants. P.S. what on earth is a “Concern Troll” I know troll, but not teh specific designation on a “Concern Troll.”

          • lady_black

            A concern troll is someone who opposes *something* on the grounds of being “concerned,” usually without factual basis or veracity. Like the politicians who insist requiring doctors who perform abortions (but not doctors who perform colonoscopies, vasectomies or wisdom tooth surgeries, etc.) to meet ridiculous and unnecessary standards and have admitting privileges to a local hospital, and insist that these are for the protection of women and not to put clinics out of business. I believe abortion should be legal at any time for non-viable fetuses, regardless of gestational age. I believe in should be legal for any reason prior to viability, or at any time there is a threat to the health of the woman. Currently there are restrictions on abortion after fetal viability, but they are restrictions on physicians. No such law should EVER apply to the pregnant woman herself, regardless of her conduct. That is the criminalization of pregnancy, wherein a woman is held responsible for the outcome of her pregnancy. That’s a situation where the “slippery slope” argument isn’t a fallacy (one of the few) and it has already been happening.

          • King Rat

            That is the criminalization of pregnancy, wherein a woman is held responsible for the outcome of her pregnancy

            I’m glad you brought it up. I have been looking for an excuse to post this:

            http://www.propublica.org/article/stillborn-child-charge-of-murder-and-disputed-case-law-on-fetal-harm

            Rennie Gibbs’s daughter, Samiya, was a month premature when she simultaneously entered the world and left it, never taking a breath. To experts who later examined the medical record, the stillborn infant’s most likely cause of death was also the most obvious: the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck.

            But within days of Samiya’s delivery in November 2006,
            Steven Hayne, Mississippi’s de facto medical examiner at the time, came to a different conclusion. Autopsy tests had turned up traces of a cocaine byproduct in Samiya’s blood, and Hayne declared her death a homicide, caused by “cocaine toxicity.”

            But some civil libertarians and women’s rights advocates worry that if Gibbs is convicted, the precedent could inspire more prosecutions of Mississippi women and girls for everything from miscarriage to abortion — and that African Americans, who suffer twice as many stillbirths as whites, would be affected the most.

            Mississippi has one of has one of the worst records for maternal and infant health in the U.S., as well as some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease and among the most restrictive policies on abortion. Many of the factors that have been linked to prenatal and infant mortality — poverty, poor nutrition, lack of access to healthcare, pollution, smoking, stress — are rampant there.

            But the vast majority of cases have involved women suspected of using illegal drugs. Those women have been disproportionately young, low-income and African American.

            —————
            So, let’s sort things out here:

            1) Pro-lifers claim that PC’ers want to genocide black people through contraception and abortion

            2) When black girls decide to procreate, and the pregnancy doesn’t work out as expected, the girls are thrown in jail, evidence be damned

            —————-

            If MS actually gave a shit about saving lives, they wouldn’t put poor women in jail for stillbirths on trumped up drug charges. They also wouldn’t deny their poor access to the ACA, which would actually save fetal life.

            No, it’s all about CONTROL and always has been. They don’t actually give a flying fuck about life.

          • By The Way

            Ok I think I’m seeing your point. Doctors should not be allowed to kill human fetuses past viability, but if a woman decides to kill a viable human fetus herself she should not be tried because then anytime a woman miscarried there would be a potential to put her on trial.

          • King Rat

            See my post below.

          • By The Way

            I can’t find it. How do you have the posts sorted? “Recent” or “best”

          • King Rat
          • lady_black

            He’ll never find it. He doesn’t WANT to find it. He’s a troll.

          • lady_black

            Bingo.

          • By The Way

            So then you agree that there should be some restrictions on the abortion industry?

          • lady_black

            There is no such thing.

          • By The Way

            There isn’t an abortion industry? Is that what your saying? Never mind, I’ll rephrase for simplicity’s sake. You do agree that there should be restrictions on the way that abortions are carried out? Is that better?

          • By The Way

            Bummer, we were having such a productive back and forth. Oh well, maybe you’ll answer later.

          • lady_black

            Hubby needed his dinner. He works hard. That OK by you???

          • By The Way

            Don’t be silly, I was just excited to go back and forth. We had a quick response time for a good hour. I knew the magic had to end sometime, but that didn’t make it any less upsetting.

          • lady_black

            Exactly. There is no “abortion industry” any more than there’s a “hysterectomy industry” or an “arterial bypass industry.” As I stated already, there are restrictions on abortion. I’m OK with things the way they are.

          • By The Way

            Yes you are but many, many people are not. One example that I think many people would agree with, is that girls who aren’t even 18 yet, can get an abortion without telling their parents. We don’t even let them vote, or buy cigarettes and we are saying that we expect young girls who in some cases can’t drive to be emotionally mature enough to make a decision as important as this without their parents? Let’s not get too focused on that one specific point(unless you really want) it’s just that there are areas where there is contention on we should condone from a legal standpoint. Rape and incest isn’t one of them. 80% of the population (last time I checked) says there should be access to abortion in those situations. Health of the mother is higher, I believe. But for every other situation there is room for adjustment to our laws on abortion. I still can’t believe this website defended allowing sex selective abortions. That to me is suggesting that abortion is the only concern, and not morality, or choice. There is certainly room to discuss limiting abortion in some ways.

          • lady_black

            You aren’t worth arguing with. You start from a dishonest premise that there is something called “the abortion industry” which is more properly referred to as obstetrician/gynecologists. In other words, medical doctors who provide women’s healthcare. That means ALL women’s healthcare. Some are retired but still around today who remember working on the wards every hospital had for desperate women who attempted to self-abort and gravely injured themselves, or caused grave infections to themselves. YOU want to also label these poor desperate women “criminals.” I understand your discomfort on the issue of minors. It would be nice if all kids were members of contentious, loving families who would support their decisions. But that’s not reality. Many would be assaulted or tossed out in the street, or otherwise subjected to abuse due to a pregnancy. And then again there are those who are impregnated by a rapist who is a family member. I don’t think those types can be counted on for any good outcome of the pregnancy they caused, or even the life of the young woman involved. No adjustments are needed, other than for legislators to stop meddling in the lives and families of their female citizens. Trust women. That’s really your only option.

          • By The Way

            You know what I think is dishonest? I think it’s dishonest to suggest that every person who opposes abortion, opposes women’s healthcare. You know that’s not true, but that is still the way the discussion framed. I think it’s dishonest to suggest that I have done something underhanded, by referring to abortion clinics, and abortion provider(two terms use in this site) as the abortion industry. I think it’s dishonest to leave the other human out of the debate and suggest anyone who tries to mention them is neglecting the woman. I think it’s dishonest to imply that by opposing unlimited abortion for everyone I don’t test women. I trust women as much as I trust any other human, but we still have laws against crimes. I think it’s dishonest to say that by saying abortion should be illegal you criminalize pregnancy. Parents are the first people questioned when their child goes missing, that doesn’t mean we have criminalize parenthood. I think that many of te arguments beig made on this site are dishonest, and some are downright disgusting. So your right I’m not worth arguing with, but it’s because you have no real argument, if your point is abortion shouldn’t be restricted in someway, and so arguing with me isn’t worth it because you can’t make a defensible point. I’m really done here. This WILL be my last comment on this thread, because you are so delusional about your position that putting anymore effort in would be a waste of my time.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think it’s dishonest to leave the other human out of the debate and suggest anyone who tries to mention them is neglecting the woman.

            Other human, huh? Well before you flounce off, you could try asking it,and if it says anything, let us know. And no, a cheesy ‘Diary of an Unborn Baby’ doesn’t count.

          • lady_black

            LOL. “Parents are questioned when their children go missing” therefore women with negative pregnancy outcomes (or who simply choose not to carry the pregnancy) ought to be interrogated “just in case.” Except there is no “child”, and nothing is “missing.” All children, EVER, have already been born. And no, Bluto, you don’t get to erect straw men and knock them down. I guess you think I can’t remember that I NEVER SAID there should be no restrictions on abortion. The fact is there are already restrictions on abortion. Always have been. What I said was that “Illegal abortion” should never be used to criminalize women, and I damn well mean that. Don’t let the door hit ya where da good lord split ya!

          • KingMeIam

            So a woman who murders a viable fetus shouldn’t be prosecuted? Why the he’ll not?

          • lady_black

            Because there is no murder.

          • KingMeIam

            There is after viability. Did you miss the Kermit Gosnell case?

            Those women were complicit in the murders of their children and should be prosecuted.

          • lady_black

            Was Kermit Gosnell a pregnant woman? I missed that part.

          • KingMeIam

            Play stupid.

            But hey, I’m glad you think women that murder their viable fetuses should get away with it. That’s a real nuanced position.

          • lady_black

            What PART of “there is no murder” don’t you get? Kermit Gosnell was convicted of killing a grown woman, and live-born babies. That’s murder. He wasn’t convicted of “murdering” fetuses, he was charged with illegal abortion, and the women he victimized weren’t charged with any crimes, nor should they be. I said VERY PLAINLY that women should never be charged with “illegal abortion” or “fetal homicide.” Those charges were never intended to be applied to women. It’s just too easy for evil mother-in-laws to make accusations that her hated daughter-in-law “did something to kill the fetus.” And I know evil M-I-L, trust me. Mine accused me of scalding my infant son when he got a yeast skin infection in his diaper area. It was a hot summer, and we didn’t have a/c. Under those conditions, lots of babies get yeast infections because of the plastic covering on the diaper area. They look bloody awful, but they are easily treated with an OTC anti-fungal cream (which was only prescription back in those days.) Improvement can be dramatic after a single day of treatment. I don’t want police bothered “investigating” miscarriages and stillbirths. It just isn’t right, and I’m sure they have better things to do.

          • KingMeIam

            So you burned your son, blamed it on a diaper rash to cover it up from your pesky mother in law. Yikes.

            And now you’re busy defending women who murdered their own babies in cold blood, with the help of Kermit Gosnell. Double yikes.

          • King Rat

            Cliche. You can do better. Hopefully. Please?

          • lady_black

            Please delete this comment. It’s completely out of line. Where is the moderator?

          • King Rat

            Message RHRC on FB and tell them that five is back trolling under a new acct.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, it’s got to be him.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t know but I flagged it, along with a few other comments of his.

          • Ella Warnock

            I flagged as well. “King” apparently has nothing more than personal attacks in its arsenal. Quite weak, actually.

          • King Rat

            Damn right I do!!!! Keep your knees together Ella!!111!

            ;pp

          • Ella Warnock

            Imma get knocked up just so I can “kill a baybee!” Melam don’t brook with none a that baybee killin’, y’hear now! And we have to come to terms with that !!11eleventy!!!111

          • KingMeIam

            Well apparently you can kill all the babies you want….and I mean like actually kill liked Gosnell did. As long as you’re the mother, lady black doesn’t think you should be prosecuted so you’re good to go.

          • Ella Warnock

            Just keep on going down the personal attack road. It’s working so well for you.

          • KingMeIam

            How’s that a personal attack?

            She literally stated that she doesn’t believe women that murder their babies should be prosecuted. You’re cool with that?

            Because I’m not.

          • Ella Warnock

            I can’t understand her comment *for* you, sorry. You read what you want to read into things and then regurgitate something that resembles very little of what was actually said. So, just keep it up. It’s about to get you banned.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And you just keep digging that hole deeper.

          • lady_black

            Where did I “literally state” that, turd lips? I stated no such thing. Women who murder babies should definitely be prosecuted.

          • goatini

            No, she did not. There are no babies ever involved in any way in a safe, legal pregnancy termination, because all babies, ever, have already been born.

          • lady_black

            Now King… you know I NEVER SAID mothers can kill their babies. You’re an idiot, who doesn’t understand plain English. Gosnell killed babies. You know damned well I said that’s murder. And you can stop lying about what I said on other forums where the posters are dumb enough not to check up on you.

          • Turd Sandwich

            But you did write that above. .. You wrote “‘illegal abortion’ should never be used to criminalize women. ”

            The women who went to Gosnell had illegal abortions. .. ones that happened after viability. Those women didn’t go to Gosnell to give birth. They went to him to murder their babies. And you’re defending them. Not really the position I’d take but I guess that’s your right.

          • lady_black

            See, you keep saying that illegal abortion equals murder of a baby. No, it doesn’t. When Gosnell delivered live-born infants and snipped their spines, that wasn’t an illegal abortion. That was murder! The women didn’t do that. Gosnell and his unlicensed workers did that. The women were bombed out of their skulls on the drugs he was giving them. HE was the doctor, and presumed to be in charge of the situation. His unlicensed clinic workers were falsely presenting themselves as having medical credentials, and when someone does that, they are held to the standards of what they hold themselves out to be. That’s the law. The illegal abortions done by Gosnell were not murders. They were illegal abortions. The women wanted abortions, but that isn’t a crime. It was Gosnell’s duty to obey the laws, not the women’s duty. These weren’t educated women. Educated women don’t go to butchers like Gosnell. Yes, I AM defending these women. It is NOT illegal to want an abortion. The point where the law was broken was where Gosnell knew that these would be illegal, and not only didn’t inform the women that what they were asking for was illegal, but proceeded to go ahead and do them. A reputable doctor would have told these women “I’m sorry, but I cannot help you.” Get it?

          • Turd Sandwich

            Don’t lie. The women weren’t bombed out of their minds on drugs when they made the choice to go to an abortion clinic to exterminate (murder) their babies.

            Planning on murdering someone IS against the law. Paying someone to murder someone else is against the law.

            So they shouldn’t be prosecuted because they weren’t smart??? That’s the lamest pro-abort excuse I’ve heard yet.

            I’m not sure what king melam said to piss you off since his comments are gone, but it was probably right on track based on your continued defense of murdering babies.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            They thought they were going for an abortion dumbfuck. Its not like they knew step by step * how* he performed them – which was by inducing birth and then killing the neonates.

            Not at all equivalent to hiring a hitman to kill your toddler, which is what you are implying.

          • lady_black

            It’s not illegal to want an abortion. It never was, and never will be. It’s not illegal to pay for an abortion, or offer to pay for an abortion. Those women never told Gosnell to murder live-born babies. Try again, sock puppet.

          • KingMeIam

            They went for abortions with viable fetuses. That’s illegal.

          • lady_black

            No, it really isn’t. Asking for an abortion isn’t ever illegal. What’s illegal in PA is for a doctor to PERFORM an illegal abortion. OR to murder a neonate. What PART of the doctor (by virtue of education, preparation and licensing) is responsible for his OWN illegal actions is confusing to you? Do you REALLY think patients are in any way qualified to police their doctors? If the answer is yes, then you are a nut who deserves neither to be a doctor or a patient. I’m a nurse. I am licensed to administer medication. A patient asks me to administer his medication three hours before the doctor has ordered it. If I do that, I am committing an illegal act, so I decline. The patient has NOT committed an illegal act by asking for the medication early.

          • Shan

            “They went for abortions with viable fetuses. That’s illegal.”

            Viability is not determined by number of weeks gestation, it’s determined by a physician after examination because women don’t always know themselves how far along they are. As LB pointed out, it’s the doctor’s responsibility to determine the legality of the operation. And then not DO it if it’s illegal. It’s not like the physician is going to get the woman to sign paperwork saying “Yes, my doctor told me my fetus is viable but I insisted on having an abortion anyway” in order to shift the culpability.

          • KingMeIam

            You’re right I guess. You didn’t say that mother’s can’t kill their babies.

            You just said that they shouldn’t be held criminally liable for it.

          • lady_black

            Women should not be held responsible for the outcomes of their pregnancies. EVER. That isn’t quite the same, is it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Wow,you really are a stalker–this forum has become a bit of an obsession with you since you got banned the first time, hasn’t it? Kind of pitiful.

          • Lieutenant Nun
          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            She is joined by a great many judges. Why? Because COMPASSION, MEDICINE, and LAW.

            You are a troll and a sadistic one. No one expects you to be at all human here. And I am going to flag you for every personal insult 5.

            Do the terms “post partum depression” and “post partum psychosis” having meaning for you, Piscialetto?
            Pregnancy combined with poverty, abuse and mental distress often results in tragedy.
            http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2585102&page=3
            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/02/951697/-13-year-old-self-aborts-using-pencil
            http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/16/nation/la-na-idaho-abortion-20120617

          • KingMeIam

            Sorry, I have zero respect for people who defend killing babies. That’s something you need to come to terms with.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And flagged again.

          • Ella Warnock

            No, actually, no one here has to come to terms with anything you have to say.

          • KingMeIam

            You’re right, Ella. They don’t.

            But eventually defending women that chose to murder their babies isn’t going to be a popular idea. I hope that’s sooner than later.

          • lady_black

            It isn’t a popular idea NOW. If you know of anyone murdering babies, it’s your civic duty to report it to the proper authorities. Murdering a baby is a crime.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And I have zero respect for anti-choice bullies who indulge in nasty personal attacks. Oh kiddo, you are so going to be banned.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Call the cops. Baby killing is a crime. A serious one. Call right now. The cops could use the laugh.

          • lady_black

            I’ve come to terms with the fact that you should be banned for libel. And this time, by IP address. What you are doing is illegal, and you ought to know better. Libel is a crime. Abortion isn’t.

          • King Rat

            Report the specific post to RHRC on FB. Explain who it is.

          • KingMeIam

            Libel? I have YOUR quotes to back me up. Go for it.

            And killing viables babies is a crime. That crime was made illegal by the Partial Birth ABORTION Act of 2003.

            Re-read that last sentance so you’re very clear about what abortions are legal and what abortions are not.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            The partial birth abortion act has nothing to do with viable babies. The point was to remove the fetus INTACT so the family could have a complete body to mourn. Now, thanks to this law, the fetus has to be dismembered while inside the woman, and taken out in pieces.

            Hardly superior, do you agree?

          • KingMeIam

            Or you could, ya know, stop aborting viable fetuses and not have that problem.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            No one is aborting viable fetuses.

            No problem!

          • KingMeIam

            “No one is aborting viable fetuses.”

            The women who went to Kermit Gosnell were.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            1) He induced labour

            2) killed preemies

            3) what he did was illegal

          • KingMeIam

            Oh so you’re objection is that I called them “fetuses” instead of “babies” or “preemies.”

            Ok, the women who went to Gosnell murdered their preemies.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            They thought they were going for an abortion dumbfuck. Its not like
            they knew step by step * how* he performed them – which was by inducing birth and then killing the neonates.

            Not at all equivalent to hiring a hitman to kill your toddler, which is what you are implying.

            See, we can keep going back and forth like this.

            Take me to the…top!

          • KingMeIam

            Yeah, they went for an abortion …..of a viable fetus. Which is ILLEGAL. But Gosnell obliged these women murder their babies…or fetus…or preme – or whatever you want to call it.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Which is why Gosnell is in jail…because it’s illegal

            Try to keep up.

          • Turd Sandwich

            Read my other comment.

            Yes, what Gosnell did was murder. So how come the women who willingly went to him to murder their babies aren’t in jail right now?

            Lady_black claimed because it is because “These weren’t educated women.” And my reply is SO WHAT?! You don’t get to murder people or pay people to murder people because you aren’t smart.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Let me explain.

            Abortion is legal. They know it’s legal. However, they didn’t know HOW he would be performing the abortion.

            Try to keep up.

          • lady_black

            Um no. YOU are saying women asked Gosnell to murder their babies. There’s no evidence of that, and I never claimed that was the case. They went to Gosnell for an abortion. Abortion is legal, and is not murdering a baby. Obtuse is not a good look for you. Try a different style. You might like it. Nobody paid Gosnell to kill babies. Paying for an abortion is legal, as is asking for one. The doctor is the one held responsible for adhering to what is legal, not the patient. Think about who is in the power position here.

          • Turd Sandwich

            “Abortion is legal”

            Not all abortions are legal sporto. Read Roe v Wade for a clue.

            These women, in fact, paid Gosnell to kill the viable fetus that was growing inside of them. Any way you look at it (as a fetus in the womb, or 1 second later as a baby after Gosnell removed it) – it was wrong to kill these viable human beings.

            Your problem is that you think they were innocent and didn’t have a clue what was happening. What did they think? That they were going in to deliver a baby? At least then, I’d understand the confusion.

            But you don’t go to an ABORTION clinic to deliver a baby. You go to kill your viable fetus. I guess you’re not smart enough that you don’t go to an ABORTION clinic to deliver a baby – which is the ONLY thing you do to a viable fetus.

          • lady_black

            Laws concerning illegal abortion do not cover the patient. PERIOD. Of course the patient wasn’t going there to deliver a baby. They were going there to have an abortion, and the doctor who is responsible is in jail. The patient isn’t responsible to determine viability. The patient doesn’t diagnose himself or herself! Is there something wrong with you? Where is it written that a doctor has to do whatever a patient asks? Patients OFTEN ask for inappropriate or illegal things. I don’t say “I’m calling the cops!” when a patient asks me to (just for example) practice medicine without a license by giving them a drug that hasn’t been ordered. I politely tell them, “I’m sorry, but I can’t do that.” And “I’ll contact your doctor to see what he says.” if that’s appropriate. If I can do that, as a nurse, surely a doctor can do the same. Have a nice evening, now.

          • lady_black

            Illegal for Gosnell… for the patients, not so much. That’s why Gosnell is in prison. The patient is not responsible for what illegal acts the doctor performs. What kind of nonsense would that be? OK ladies, according to King S/h/it, it is now YOUR responsibility to police your doctor. Otherwise you get tossed into prison. There is no limit to human stupidity. Einstein was right.

          • KingMeIam

            If I go to my doctor and pay him $300 to extinguish my kid, can I get out of it by saying “but your honor, lady black told me it’s the doctor’s fault?”

          • lady_black

            If your “kid” is inside your body, and you’re relying on a doctor to inform you of the viable or unviable condition of your “kid” then YES. I don’t credit you with having x-ray vision, and I certainly don’t think you ought to be held responsible for the actions of your doctor.

          • lady_black

            You have my quotes to back you up?? NO you don’t BULLY BOY. I’m not afraid of you and we will get you banned. So go slink off and make another sock puppet for yourself. How would YOU like it if I accused you of being a pedophile?

          • KingMeIam

            “What I said was that “Illegal abortion” should never be used to criminalize women, and I damn well mean that.”

            That’s what you wrote in defense of mothers who decided to be complicit in murdering their children Gosnell told these women they were getting abortions. ILLEGAL abortions because the gestation was too far along. These women agreed. Now, you can play word games about whether or not it’s a “clump of cells” or a “baby” but what they did was destroy a viable human being. That’s MURDER. These women murdered their own children with Gosnell’s help. And you don’t think they should be punished because …sniffle, sniffle…they weren’t smart enough to know better – or some other BS.

          • lady_black

            “Gosnell told these women they were getting abortions. ILLEGAL abortions because the gestation was too far along. These women agreed.”
            Citation, or it never happened. How do YOU know what he told them? Were you there? You can’t just make things up, but you never let that stop you.

          • KingMeIam

            You’re probably right. They went to an abortion clinic for a yearly dental exam.

            My bad.

          • lady_black

            Non-responsive. Once again, how do YOU KNOW what he told them? Were you there? Yes or no.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            The fetus in the womb can be legally aborted until very late in a pregnancy if it will kill the only legal person present, the host Mother.

          • goatini

            As we have been reading about the Gosnell case on RHRC since 2010, you’re way behind. Criminal Gosnell was not board certified in pregnancy termination, he committed crimes, and was tried and convicted.

          • Shan

            “And no, Bluto, you don’t get to erect straw men and knock them down.”

            And holy moly! That was a veritable strawman ARMY!

          • lady_black

            Can you believe him?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            A 30-year-old Polk Township man has been arrested for his role after a 13-year-old girl performed a self-induced abortion using a pencil. Michael James Lisk has been charged with rape and concealing the death of a child.

            State police were alerted to the case on Sunday after staff at Lehigh Valley Hospital treated the girl, who said she conducted the “home abortion” on herself using a lead pencil last Wednesday.

            She subsequently became violently ill and began having contractions before ultimately delivering a baby at her residence

            The girl had no legal access to abortion in Pennsylvania, where her parents must consent. This is the direct consequence of anti-choice zealots: taking away what dignity, respect, and alternatives left were left to a 13 year old who is being controlled, manipulated, and raped by someone more than twice her age. Way to go “pro-lifers”, what an awesome accomplishment: empowering rapists like Michael Lisk over 13 year old girls, leading her to desperately jab herself with a pencil. And as Feministe wrote at the time:

            her community and her culture — the people who are supposed to tell her that she’s important, that she’s loved, that she deserves pleasure, that she deserves autonomy — failed her. We fail girls all the time. We put girls in impossible, heart-wrenching positions. We give girls little autonomy and few options, and then we’re surprised when they act like animals caught in traps.

            Predators like Michael James Lisk, her “boyfriend,” are entirely responsible for the crimes they commit. But this girl needed a safety net, and she did not have one.

            I wish with all my heart that I could give YOU the bitchslapping you so richly deserve.

          • Shan

            “girls who aren’t even 18 yet, can get an abortion without telling their parents.”

            Minors can also get pregnant without permission from their parents. They can also get confidential prenatal care without their parents being notified. Are you saying and that we expect young girls who in some cases can’t
            drive to be emotionally mature enough to make a decision as important
            as this without their parents?

            “I still can’t believe this website defended allowing sex selective abortions”

            From what I remember of the discussion here, it wasn’t about supporting sex selective abortions but about being against legal access to abortion being based on giving the “correct” answer to the question “Why are you having an abortion?”

            “it’s just that there are areas where there is contention on we should
            condone from a legal standpoint. Rape and incest isn’t one of them. 80%
            of the population (last time I checked) says there should be access to
            abortion in those situations.”

            Well, that just says that only certain types of women deserve access to legal abortion (i.e., women who didn’t choose to have sex) and it’s perfectly okay to abort a fetus based on the circumstances of conception.

          • goatini

            What IS an actual industry is the global human trafficking adoption syndicate. Free of charge indentured labor, free of charge inventory, sold to the highest bidder for 5 figures, and almost always a tax-free 5 figures, since most of these trafficking outfits operate under a fake “religious” aegis.

            And it’s a highly unrestricted, lawless industry that covertly moves inventory around to more favorable jurisdictions to avoid local laws. Look up how the Chief Justice of SCOTUS magically procured his two IRISH adopted children by having them routed from the difficult, challenging local jurisdiction of their birth, to the much more loosey goosey jurisdiction of some South American nation.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            “Again you can say its up to the woman, but if you understand that there are two human lives that need to be balanced then you understand that there should be some legal guidelines.”
            ……………..

            I am happy with the guidelines approved by Jesus Christ. This is why he never mentioned abortion.

            Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

            An unborn child has the status of “potential human life” until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother’s, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. – Judaism 101.

          • By The Way

            Ok I’m not sure why you are mentioning Jesus right now. It seems like it’s kind of out of led field. Anyway, I’m going to take issue with you assertion that the human life is “potential.” It is “actual human life” from fertilization.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            These are the rules about abortion that Jesus followed from the Talmud. Jesus was a Jew. Jews created, teach and follow the Talmud. Our Old Testament is part of the Talmud.
            I will stick with Jesus. You are too fricking off for me.
            Want to argue the ethics of the Talmud? I wish you Good Luck.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation. Many fertilized eggs fail to implant and are simply washed out with the menstrual flow. And before you ask, no–that’s not a miscarriage—if an egg doesn’t implant there is no pregnancy.

          • lady_black

            No, not really. It’s not “actual human life” from fertilization. It’s a few cells that will more likely than not, pass harmlessly out of her body and end up in the wastecan, or flushed down the toilet. I AM an actual human life. I cannot be flushed down a toilet.

          • Arekushieru

            Sorry, but if YOU think that the level of development of a fetus makes it ‘necessary’ to balance its life with the life of the woman, then you obviously think that a fetus is MORE important than the woman. After all, no matter how developed HER life is, she can never require someone else to give up their organs to save HER life, now can she? Now, what about that ‘BALANCED (not take precedent) with the life of that woman’ view you hold so true about pregnancy but (obviously) with nothing else, again?

          • Jennifer Starr

            And actually, yes–having seen and read both sides, and having once been pro-life, I am quite sure about my position.

          • fiona64

            You’re being dismissed because your position is asinine.

            How do I know? Because I used to be an anti-choicer, too.

            Then I got out of high school and into the real world.

          • goatini

            Concern troll is trolling.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Pukefest is it not? Makes me want to fling poo at it.
            I am in touch with the chimpanzee in me today. First day of Spring and all.

          • Shan

            “I am in touch with the chimpanzee in me today.”

            I need this for a thing at work.

          • By The Way

            Are you an aboration supporter? I thought it was only about “choice.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            Speaking for myself, I am firmly pro-choice. I believe that the decision over whether or not to carry a pregnancy is best left to the woman who is actually pregnant.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You don’t think.

        • Arekushieru

          How about the pregnancy industry or the adoption trafficking industry, aka CPCs? Believe me, they are MUCH more lucrative than the so-called abortion ‘industry’.

          You are making it sound as if abortion at 5 months is a crime REGARDLESS of whether or not it is legal. So, are you saying defending yourself from rape by a more developed human should be considered a crime? If not, hypocrisy. Which is why anyone who supports a woman’s decision to abort or remain pregnant for WHATEVER reason at whatever stage of pregnancy is not as rare as you make it out to be NOR is it something that only ‘the most hardened abortion advocate’ supports.

          Incomplete PR devices? Sorry, but fetus, contraception, woman, uterus, etc… are not PR devices. Abortion industry, hardened abortion advocate, abortion supporter, etc, however… ARE.

          Finally, the fact that a misogynistic society forces a woman into narrow patriarchal definitions of womanhood in order for her to receive justice IS the point. What’s occurred in the past is happening in the present, after all. SO sorry. And you, yourself, are living proof of doing that very thing. Also. designating which of those paths a woman may take to seek justice are appropriate and which of those paths are not, while refusing to pigeonhole men in such a manner, is very misogynistic, in and of itself.

          • By The Way

            Ok a lot f stuf has been said, way more of it about me than I thought would be. I’m going to respond to you because you made the most points. First, I wanted to quickly address a comment made by someone other than you, which suggested I came here to make comments and masturbate. I just wanted to say that a bunch of people coming to a forum to agree with eachother non-stop and suggest anyone who has a different viewpoint should leave sounds a lot more like masturbation then me asking someone to explain the logic behind many of theses points.
            Next a lot if ideas have been stated and portrayed as mine, but I never said any of them. For example I said it was a crime because it was a crime, and it is still a crime to have an abortion past 24 weeks. If you would like to argue that it shouldn’t be a crime that’s fine, but I didn’t say it should or shouldn’t just that it is and was. I never said there are no situations when an abortion wouldn’t be an appropriate measure, the health of the mother.
            Next the PR devices I was referring to we’re pro-life vs. pro choice nothing else. Anything else is a projection by you.

          • Arekushieru

            This is actually in reply to By The Way, since their comment is currently awaiting moderation: A suggestion for someone to leave who disagrees that women’s rights are NOT a subject that should be up for debate sounds LESS like masturbation and MORE like a rational request. Sorry.

            YOU used the words that I described above, MULTIPLE times. And you were not using them to reference ANYTHING, at *any* time. Just because you lack reading comprehension skills does NOT mean anyone else does.

    • litebug

      I found this statement astounding: ” If you were attending college in the 70′s you weren’t struggling to get by, in all likely hood she was probably relatively affluent.”
      Just what is your basis for this? You are wrong, totally full of B.S.

    • goatini

      Actually, if you were attending college in the 70s at a non-elite university, you could pay for tuition, books, etc, all with a little part-time job, and without going into 6-figure debt. Fact.

  • http://abortioncarenetwork.org CharlotteT

    In 1959 my mother became pregnant. With 6 children and an unemployed husband, she didn’t see how she could have a baby. Her doctor told her he would try to find help for her, but he never did. Finally she used a knitting needle to make herself bleed. She was taken to the hospital in an ambulance fully expecting to be arrested. This was in Connecticut. In 1959 BIRTH CONTROL WAS ILLEGAL IN THAT STATE–even for married people. The Supreme Court decision that made birth control legal for married people was 1965. For single people birth control was not universally declared legal until 1972–just a year before Roe v Wade. As Lynn’s powerful article reminds us, the obsession with controlling our reproductive lives is not a thing of the past.

    • schreib

      That case is not relevant to this.

      • expect_resistance

        How is it not relevant?

      • Jennifer Starr

        Actually, it’s quite relevant.

        • Sitara Singley

          Yes it is. She is backing up this story.

      • lady_black

        Not to the unbalanced. It’s relevant. Knitting needle story, knitting needle story. Sounds relevant to me. Much more relevant than your concern trolling.

      • litebug

        I beg to differ.

      • pitbullgirl1965

        Yes, totally not relevant. They (right wingnuts) have been trying to ban abortion, and birth control for years.
        The anti birth control meme has gained traction in part because of the silence of the Dems and the mealy mouth prochoicers parroting abortion is bad but should be legal.

    • goatini

      That’s one of the reasons why my family left Connecticut in 1962. My Mom had had enough of Vatican Roulette.

  • schreib

    Boo Hoo. Birth control is not expensive. No one should be made to pay for someones birth control. 4-10 dollars a month? Oh please

    • By The Way

      Wuh oh that’s not going to work out for you, unless your goal is to just piss off most of the people on this forum? I would rephrase. I understand the libertarian “provide for yourself” type argument, but that “boo hoo” is going to cost you in about 5 minutes tops.

      • schreib

        Acttually, chemical and IUD forms of birth control are and can be dangerous to women. The best form is naturally family planning. It puts the woman in control and the woman becomes in tune with her body.. It is not the old rhythm method. The Billings method of that is the best.

        • By The Way

          I wasn’t arguing with your idea of birth control. I’m just saying the way you started the conversation is going to get people angry before they even think about your actual point.

          • lady_black

            I’m arguing about it. This is a concern troll. I don’t like concern trolls. I tell them where they can go.

        • By The Way

          or you’ll just get ignored, which is what appears to be happening.

        • expect_resistance

          Says who? Source please.

          Maybe the Billings method is the best for you but not for everyone else. So please stop spreading deliberate lies and fallacies.

        • Jennifer Starr

          It’s Natural Family Planning, and it works best for people who want to become parents, because that’s what generally happens when you use that method. Not very reliable. And you don’t get to dictate what’s best for anyone but yourself.

          • HeilMary1

            NFP is touted by sex-haters for sex haters like my mom. NFP outsourced my fed-up dad to hookers.

        • Dez

          Or you can leave it up to a woman to best decide for herself. I know you can’t comprehend women as people, but we do know how to make our own choices.

        • HeilMary1

          Liar, pedophile priest-pushed UNnatural family CRAMMING maimed and nearly murdered my mom and millions of other women with its guaranteed failures because women ovulate 2 and 3 times PER MONTH and semen contains ovulation-triggering chemicals. NFP “accident” pregnancies also result in much higher birth defect rates, including people with intersex syndromes whom you Catholics then bully into suicide. My two brothers are probably intersexed gays thanks to NFP.

        • lady_black

          So can pregnancy. Do us a favor, concern troll is concerned… Stick your right thumb up your ass, sit on it and spin.

        • Ramanusia

          Wow. Utterly stupid. “Naturally family planning” puts women at the greatest risk of pregnancy and that is way more dangerous than any birth control.

          The methods are used in countries that are catholic and don’t allow access to birth control aren’t they? The ones in which women have large litters of children whether they like it or not?

          • goatini

            Correct. And the bogus “success rate” measurement has, as a variable, “if you do get pregnant, it was ‘God’s will’”, so the method DIDN’T fail”.

          • HeilMary1

            Or “disobedient sinfully lustful” couples lied and had sex during their fertile cycle, then claimed otherwise. NFP bullies love blaming “sinful user error” for NFP’s guaranteed failures.

          • lady_black

            Gee, it must be nice to have “God’s will” as a variable for blatant failure. How could anything possibly go wrong?

          • Shan

            “Gee, it must be nice to have “God’s will” as a variable for blatant failure.”

            How come Hobby Lobby et al can’t use that same bit of logic? I mean, really? If it’s “God’s will’ that you get pregnant, what’s a puny little pill going to do against THAT?

          • lady_black

            I can only arrive at two logical conclusions for the answer to that question. The first is that they believe their “god” is all powerful, and all-knowing, and for whom nothing is impossible, yet they also believe it is so weak and puny it needs obedient humans to protect it and accomplish it’s will. In which case they are inconsistent. The second is that they are liars, and seeking to manipulate others for some sort of gain. In which case they are evil. Take your pick.

        • Mandy

          NFP won’t do shit to help out with endometriosis, debilitating cramps and me being anemic. All things that hormonal birth control WILL (and currently IS) helping with.

          So just a memo that people need to remember that there are many women out there (me included) who are using birth control solely for reasons other than pregnancy prevention. BC is a medication with many uses. Most of which get ignored or pushed under the carpet by the anti-abortion crowd.

          Not to mention that NPF only works if a woman’s menstrual cycle is regular. Many women’s aren’t. So that’s why it is just one option of many women have to choose from. Any medicine has risks. It’s up to the patient and her doctor to discuss all risks vs benefits before choosing one. BC is no different than any other medicine in that way.

          • lady_black

            I appreciate that you’re using birth control for medical reasons. So is everyone else. It’s self-defeating to imply that there are “worthy” and “unworthy” reasons for using contraception. They are ALL worthy reasons.

          • Mandy

            No no no. Definitely didn’t mean to imply a worthy/unworthy thing with why a person uses BC. Not to mention that many women like me who start of using BC for medical reasons often eventually end up ALSO using it for pregnancy prevention. I just like to chime in and remind dudebros & other ignorant people that birth control is indeed a medication with MANY many uses. So often in these debates you see suggestions like : “just stop having so much sex” “only sluts need BC” ect ect. This boils down to them suggesting that no one ever needs BC for any reason because they think it’s only a “sex pill.” They ignore people who use BC to deal with acne, with irregular periods, with debilitating cramps, ovarian cysts ect.

            The person I replied to brought up how NFP was the best method of preventing pregnancy and how they thought hormonal BC & IUDs and such were “dangerous to women.” Thus my point, that not all women using BC are using it to prevent pregnancy and NFP doesn’t do shit to help with any medical problems a person like me might be using BC to help with.

          • lady_black

            NFP (IMHO) doesn’t even deserve any more consideration as birth control than the “pull out” method, and it certainly isn’t a medication. I just laugh at people who say contraception is dangerous. So who is forcing them to use it? They have no say over another person’s medical decisions, and pregnancy is much more dangerous. All medications other than normal saline can have side effects, and medical treatment is usually a risk/benefit analysis.

        • Ella Warnock

          Actually, having a tubal ligation put me in control. That was the best form for me. At any rate, as with any other decision each woman has to weigh the risks and benefits of different forms of birth control on her own. If NFP is what a woman freely chooses of her own accord, then I certainly support her choice.

          • lady_black

            You got THAT right! Tubal ligation is the best thing since sliced bread.

        • Sitara Singley

          Actually you can fuck off. Nothing is without risks, but those methods can be safe for most women.

        • pitbullgirl1965

          I don’t want to be in tune with my body to avoid pregnancy. It’s just one more burden to deal with. And why can’t the man be responsible for once?
          And you know what is more dangerous the B.C? Getting knocked up.
          (thank gawd I’m celibate and don’t have to worry about it anyway)

        • goatini

          As effective contraception, that’s a load of BS. All of the money and time needed for the gadgets, obsessive measurements, and mucus-reading, actually are somewhat effective for couples having problems conceiving – especially since this particular demographic is highly motivated to be painstakingly compliant with just about ANY program, in order to conceive. But as contraception? Nope.

          • HeilMary1

            NFP should be banned as “contraception”. It’s real purpose, as theologian Ute Ranke-Heinemann pointed out, is to impose ghastly insulting amounts of abstinence on the sinfully married by pretend celibates.

          • lady_black

            I wasn’t familiar with Uta so I did some research. What a cool old gal she is! I didn’t like her estimation of Cardinal Rat Singer, but some of the things she said were right on! I’m sure she was disappointed in how dastardly Rat Singer actually turned out to be.

        • P. McCoy

          The best contraception is what a woman and her doctor decides what it is, not the shill cry of anti sex religious fanatics. You keep attacking my reproductive choices on religious grounds and I am going to declare you to be part of political organizations that want to establish a theocracy onto others, the kind that aids and abet those engaged in trying to to destroy the first real attempt to establish universal health care reform in this country – in short you support domestic terrorism.

      • Dez

        We do provide for ourselves. Women work too. He seems to be implying women do not work and are forcing people to pay for them. It’s insulting.

      • Sitara Singley

        You have libertarians confused with anarchists.

        • lady_black

          In my mind, they’re pretty much one and the same.

          • goatini

            I’m quite familiar with libertarians for many years, and I can tell you that after their ill-fated affiliation over the last 2 decades with the GOTP, and the failure of their “Republican Liberty Caucuses”, they indeed ARE now taking on the “anarchist” mantle as their new Flavor Du Jour. Same BS, different day.

          • Sitara Singley

            Im neither one but they are not. Libertarians fall into two groups: anarchists and minarchists. Anarchists call for the complete abolition of the state and minarchists call for the drastic reduction thereof, but not abolition like the anarchists. Ive studied pretty much every political view under the sun, so I know what i am talking about. I tried to be a minarchist libertarian but realized that progressive liberalism fit my views better. God bless.

          • Sitara Singley

            No they arent.

    • Shan

      The whole “paying for someone’s birth control” isn’t a good argument and hasn’t been for a long time. Premiums don’t go up when BC is covered and they don’t go DOWN when it’s not. What actually happens is that everyone pays the same price but women get less coverage AND have to pay more out of pocket.

      http://www . guttmacher . org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060112.html

    • expect_resistance

      Like hell it isn’t expensive!

    • Jennifer Starr

      If I’m paying the premiums, I’m paying for my birth control. Thank you.

    • Dez

      So women don’t work in your world?

    • P. McCoy

      Maybe I don’t want to pay health care immediate and long term insurance for your downs syndrome children because you were too foolish to have them, listening to your open to life braying clergy, clergy that isn’t or would not provide a dead two cents to help you support such children if your family was in a financial crisis. You see everyone can play that I don’t want to support your issue with my money game. Be careful you don’t experience blowback.

      • Sitara Singley

        You are too awesome.

        • P. McCoy

          Thanks: we must all pay taxes for actions we disagree with, this is the price for living in a democracy.

      • pitbullgirl1965

        Omg this!

    • HeilMary1

      Liar, most birth control costs women $600-1,200 to several thousand, depending on their health issues.

    • lady_black

      That’s too bad. You’re 40 years too late. Nixon and republicans set up Title X. It saves the government money. Every dollar spent on family planning saves $6 in social spending down the road. Cry me a river, bagger.

    • Sitara Singley

      My body, my right my choice. I have the fucking right to choose not to be pregnant. Go fuck yourself, anti.

    • pitbullgirl1965

      No one should have to pay for maternity care either then by your earth logic. *That* is expensive and easily remedied by insurance paying for birth control.
      It’s discrimination too: since when have men been forced to buy Viagra on their own?
      Why should I have to pay for their disgusting lust.
      See how that sounds? That’s exactly what the right wingers say about women

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      I do not believe you have ever had a loving, intimate and/or affectionate relationship with a woman. Not even your Mother. And so you came here to work out your passive aggressive anger and a soupcon of sadism. Lucky us.

      • Arekushieru

        I LOVE how you put that, Plum!

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          I am a writer. And now I am a happy writer. TY.

          • Arekushieru

            You’re welcome! :)

      • Boommach

        @Plum Dumbpling “I do not believe you have ever had a loving, intimate and/or affectionate relationship with a woman. Not even your Mother. And so you came here to work out your passive aggressive anger and a soupcon of sadism. Lucky us.”

        How can you make such an assertion? He stated only that contraceptives are inexpensive. Your retort that you suspect he has never known intimacy is ludicrous. Extending that to include his own mother is hateful. If you hate because your opponent ostensibly disagrees with you, at least have the intellectual honesty to simply say that you hate him/her. Since you do not appear to be stupid, lying, at least in my book, simply shows an affinity for evil.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Kind of funny how you jump in to correct Plum Dumpling’s tone and then accuse her of having an ‘affinity for evil’–not to mention the misspelling of her handle. I’d say that’s more than a little hypocritical on your part. Think you need to grow up.

          • Boommach

            Jenn, Did you read this stream of assertions / responses. I asked her to defend her clearly asinine assertions. She responds and asserts her suspicions that he’s never known intimacy. Where’s your outrage, Jenn. She assaults the truth because that is what she is all about. She rebounds with the sophomoric bedwetting vapidity because lies cannot stand up to truth. She did because she / he is as I assert. I stand by my words. The man said contraceptives are cheap. Sorry if the misspelling offended you. I corrected it for you.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          Eat my shorts, Bedwetter.

          • Boommach

            Thank you for the offer but my appetite is more tasteful than anything you have to offer. Also, I am more than a few years beyond bedwetting. I would like to congratulate you for coming up with the entire extent of your brilliance in one short sentence. No better response to the truth can be expected from a leftist.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Plum is right. You are a bedwetter. Return when you no longer need diapers, sweetie.

          • Boommach

            If you want to piss off a conservative, tell them a lie.

            If you want to piss off a leftist, tell them the truth.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            TURN DOWN FOR WHAT

          • Boommach

            I understand the baseless vulgarity leftists resort to in lieu of any meaningful thoughts. Directing me to eat something foul, accusing me of incontinence and defamation. The invective “turdbreath” is juvenile, obscene and reflective of what’s in the left. It’s all you have and truth is very threatening. Your predictable propensity to act so offended by my maligning misspell of Ms Dumplings nom de guerre and then, in the next breath, pile on by agreeing with her defamation is testament to my assertions. The left despises truth.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Kiss my petunia, TurdBreath.

          • Boommach

            You call yourself a “writer” and your responses are limited to baseless invectives. Not much depth for a “writer”. We’re you lying about this (a)vocation as well? You confirm my assertions nicely.

    • red_zone

      Studies show that when ALL FORMS of birth control are free, women will overwhelmingly opt for the IUD, which is far more effective. The Pill MAY be cheaper in some places, but not all and generic forms are not trusted. Plus, not everyone can take the Pill. Plenty of women have bad reactions to it and will need to use other means.

      To put it bluntly, while SOME BC is cheap, most is not and women will often go with whatever they can afford and even then it’s no guarantee.

  • King Rat

    Anatomy of a Coathanger Abortion by Dr Jen Gunter:

    http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/anatomy-of-a-coat-hanger-abortion/

  • Rdzkz

    A corporation does NOT have free exercice of religion –only an individual person can, a citizen, a flesh and blood, breathing passport holder. The B$CEO of Hobby Lobby can choose to not have an abortion –but cannot tell his or her employees what to do -they are not his children or wife and he does not pay their bills. That is a healthcare issue and Hobby Lobby is not a healthcare provider.

    • Headed4TheHills

      Well, thanks to Obamacare, the Owner of Hobby Lobby would be paying for their abortions. Do try to keep up with the truth.

  • lady_black

    The point is that these laws about “illegal abortion” should never be applied to pregnant women. This is a case that never should have been prosecuted in the first place.

  • Kevin Schmidt

    When abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will have wire coat hangers and knitting needles.

    Rich women seeking abortions will take unexpected trips to Mexico. All other abortion seeking women will take trips to the back alley, and sometimes take unexpected trips to the emergency room or the morgue.

    • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

      Much to the badly hidden screams of joy from “pro lifers” enjoying the thought of women being correctly punished for having a will of their own.

  • litebug

    This “business” should just declare itself a church then they could discriminate all they want to at their private church-owned store. As long as they are in the secular sphere, using taxpayer funded roads, serving the general public, etc. they have no right in the world to be insinuating their private religious beliefs into other people’s private lives. It’s this kind of perpetual over-reaching, trying to run other people’s lives, that turns so many of us totally off. I wouldn’t shop at one of those stores if you paid me. We have Constitutional separation of church and state, freedom not only OF religion but FROM religion.

    • Arekushieru

      LOVE that last line, litebug! That’s what I often say. Freedom FROM religion not only TO.

    • Headed4TheHills

      Would you be so kind as to point to the clause in the US Constitution that says separation of church and state? I’ve read it several times and have never found those words in the US Constitution.

  • goatini

    As I always say, FOLLOW THE MONEY. Indentured servants producing free of charge product to be sold to the highest bidder for 5 figures – and usually a tax-free 5 figures, since most of these trafficking outfits operate under some kind of, ahem, “religious” aegis. Obvious that the global human trafficking adoption syndicate is where the BIG money is.

  • Criselda

    THANKS FOR THE ARTICLE, VERY INFORMATIVE