Soon in Texas, One Abortion Provider for Every One Million Potentially Pregnant Texans


Eight: the number of legal abortion providers that, barring a federal court’s intervention, will remain in Texas as of Monday, September 1, when the final provision of Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law, HB 2, goes into effect.

That’s one legal abortion provider for every one million Texans who could become pregnant, according to an estimate from the University of Texas’ Texas Policy Evaluation Project.

Those eight facilities will all be located along the I-35 and I-45 corridors, in major cities in the eastern half of the sprawling state. No legal abortion facilities will operate south or west of San Antonio.

Planned Parenthood will operate five of those eight abortion-providing ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, Austin, and—as part of a contract with an existing ASC while a new Planned Parenthood facility is under construction—in San Antonio.

“Our building is still undergoing construction,” in San Antonio, Mara Posada of Planned Parenthood South Texas told RH Reality Check. But, she said, “we’ve made arrangements with another surgery center here in San Antonio for Planned Parenthood staff to provide abortion care.”

Three more independent, non-Planned Parenthood facilities will operate in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

But even the presence of eight licensed, abortion-providing ASCs does not guarantee that all eight will, at any given time, be providing legal abortion care.

Much depends on the facilities’ ability to find doctors who can obtain and maintain admitting privileges at local hospitals. Many of those hospitals face pressure to deny privileges to abortion-providing doctors from anti-choice groups, which have threatened to protest and picket outside hospitals that grant privileges to abortion providers.

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 Andrea Grimes on twitter: @andreagrimes

  • a7xrocker1981

    Excuse me, but show me where in the constitution it says that there must be an abortion clinic within x distance of your home.
    Roe V Wade does not say it, PP V Casey does not either.

    • thedoorisajar

      Bullshit. What use are rights if you can’t exercise them

      • fiona64

        Read that Miss Thang’s Disqus history, BTW … she’s a racist nutter as well as an anti-choicer. Woefully undereducated (not surprising, since she’s barely out of high school) and lacking in comprehension of numerous realities.

        • thedoorisajar

          a7xrocker1981


          2 hours ago

          I have to say that the killing of Tiller was to me justifiable.

          What a fucknut. And I see that Rita is back. lulz

          Faye Valentine is lecturing me on naturalistic fallacies over on SPL, bragging about her knowledge of biology lol

          • fiona64

            I have to say that the killing of Tiller was to me justifiable.

            How “pro-life” of Miss Thang.

            Edited to add: She also said Scott Roeder is to me a vigilante, he did what the state should have done a long time ago.

            This 19-year-old dimwit, who is knocked up practically the minute she leaves whatever passes for high school, is worshipping a *murderer.*

            She’s a disgusting excuse for a human being, and I pity her future progeny.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Teen rocker girl is now complaining on Breitbart that we’re being mean to her and calling her ‘murderous’ because she supports murder. Simply priceless.

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

            Twatwaffle is from Breitbart? LOL.

          • fiona64

            Oh, poor baby.

            If she can’t run with the big dogs, she needs to stay the on the damn porch.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And she just made a threat over at Breitbart too:

            a7xrocker1981 • 14 minutes ago
            Go nail fiona64 and all the other lib bullies calling me a terrorist for saying that.Plus, tell fiona64 that I have a gun too and I have awesome aim too.

            And still she wants to claim that she’s not a terrorist……

          • Arekushieru

            AND that she’s Pro-‘Life’.

          • Shan

            As A.T. would say… O.o

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, and this little gem as well:

            a7xrocker1981 • 23 minutes ago I learned that the hard way on RH and Mother Jones Today. Watch out for fiona64, Ramanusia, Plum Dumpling, and Chuck Hallowell. They really harrassed me today. Don’t forget Jennifer Starr. Have my back in case they hunt me down.

          • thedoorisajar

            She’s projecting.

            On a related note, there is a weirdo on SPL, Ann, who follows me around, and accuses me of trolling. She even warned myintx that I was a troll. I challenged her to a debate, provided her with numerous citations, and apparently that was wrong, because citations to back up a claim = copy paste.

            She says that I just want to “create controversy”

            Wtf is with these people.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Do you have a link?

          • thedoorisajar
          • Jennifer Starr

            She also seems to be puzzled by your nym–perhaps she doesn’t know what it means when a door is ajar? And how do people post but make it so you can’t click on their name?

          • thedoorisajar

            Rebekah…yeah.

            The nym is a joke on a guy who told me that we are not conscious because of quantum neurons and that reality isn’t real etc etc.

          • fiona64

            And how do people post but make it so you can’t click on their name?

            They post without registering to Disqus.

          • fiona64

            What a fucking drama queen.

          • StudentHealer

            Damn, I missed being able to get included in that list! I’m so bummed…

          • Ella Warnock

            Breitbart. Snork. Oh well, she’ll get all the udder rubs she’s desperate for over there.

          • Ella Warnock

            Faye can sound pretty bitter about what was, after all, her own choice. Which is apparently why others shouldn’t be able to make a different choice – as per usual.

            http://liveactionnews.org/does-sympathy-for-abortive-women-weaken-the-pro-life-cause/#comment-1505223754

          • thedoorisajar

            Yep, bitter is right. So she puts herself out there as a martyr and gets her self esteem boost that way.

          • fiona64

            “The only moral abortion is my abortion” writ large.

          • lady_black

            She is NOT a martyr. She is a passive-aggressive hot mess. I understand her delusional way of looking at things, but it all boils down to her allowing others to dump on her and then complaining about others who don’t do “doormat.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            Dear lord, but that woman has serious issues. No wonder she never smiles in her photos.

          • Ella Warnock

            I would think any anti-choicer would sound a lot happier about ‘choosing life.’ She and myintx aren’t really selling it, though.

          • thedoorisajar

            There was a study regarding women’s opinions on abortion, and the women most opposed to abortion were 1) low income 2) had previously procured abortion(s).

            Any ideas on why that might be?

            PS DianaG from LAN has six kids by six different men and spent her life on welfare.

          • Ella Warnock

            Do you have a link for that study? Oh, silly me, of course you do. ;->

          • thedoorisajar

            Sadly I don’t. It was from last summer and was from the podcast.

            RH Reality Check Podcast

          • fiona64

            Being male, and having both a high degree of religiosity and a low degree of education all seem to be predictive. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154946/non-christians-postgrads-highly-pro-choice.aspx

          • Ella Warnock

            Thanks, fiona. Bookmarked to read when I get off the road tonight.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, and Diana also has a habit of suing landlords who attempt to evict her when she doesn’t pay her rent.

          • thedoorisajar

            Oh gee, look at how all these anti-abortionists won’t take responsibility for their own actions????

          • thedoorisajar

            Ella, I just had a thought. If Faye expects women to have baybeez regardless of their circumstances, then why is she complaining? Why can’t she pop out 10 kids with her new hubby? After all, she just spent close to 10 posts assuring me that pregnancy is like breathing!

          • Jennifer Starr

            She’s really pissed off about the fact that other women made different choices and had it easier than her. How dare they not be as miserable as she appears to be? If she wasn’t so obnoxious I could almost feel sorry for her.

          • thedoorisajar

            Yep. And she’s so angry that she wants women who abort to be thrown in jail for first degree murder.

          • Ella Warnock

            Who knows? Maybe she had the baby factory shut down.

          • lady_black

            Because rather than make things happen, Faye wonders what happened. See my post above about that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’d also like to know what her criteria is for a ‘perfect life’. Because I honestly don’t know anyone who has one. I never expected perfection from life–there are good bits, bad bits, blah bits and in my experience it rarely turns out like you expect. I try to make the best of mine.

          • lady_black

            Of course not. My life is far from perfect. But it could have been far worse, had I not acted to improve my circumstances. Nobody gave me anything. I worked damn hard for everything I have.

          • lady_black

            You know, I totally “get” Faye. Faye is a person to whom things happen, and then she wonders what happened. Faye is not a person who MAKES things happen, nor even a person who WATCHES things happens. She believes that because she made the “correct” choice, good ought to happen to her. This, while there is no justification offered that proves she made the “correct” choice, nor any visible effort on her part to make good things happen for herself. She made a choice to give birth to the spawn of a no-good deadbeat daddy (bad judgment, but nothing that’s insurmountable). She then proceeded to let deadbeat daddy wreak havoc in her life for ten years. I would have dealt with him in short order, starting with a paternity suit and demand for support. That would have given him something other to think about than playing games with her life. Not to mention, the financial help may have made it possible to have the child with her present husband that she claims to want. That’s the difference between us and her. We MAKE things happen. She wonders what happened. But I’ve seen many like her, and I totally “get” the way she thinks.

          • thedoorisajar

            Makes sense. Sounds like another Myintx.

          • catseye

            Same troll; different sock, maybe?

          • thedoorisajar

            No. Just another dumbass,narcissistic pro-lifer who is bitter about her choices and wants to punish other women for it.

          • Ella Warnock

            i hadn’t thought of it that way, but it certainly makes sense.

          • Arekushieru

            Uh, what? Naturalistic fallacies are part of a Pro-‘Lifer’s’ common repertoire of talking points?

          • thedoorisajar

            It’s their main talking point.

      • prolifemama

        Try to tell us next, thedoorisajar, that OB/Gyns should be forced to commit abortions…

        • thedoorisajar

          Should the women be allowed to die if the doctor opposes abortion to save a woman’s life?

        • Arekushieru

          So, you’re opposed to some forms of conscientious objection but not all? What about the woman’s right to conscientiously object to being treated by a Pro-‘Life’ misogynist, someone of the Christian faith, etc…? Of course, I’m sure it would be fine, as long as either objection placed the burden on the woman, which kinda belies the meaning of conscientious objection, at least for the doctor, because the burden must be taken on by the doctor who objects not the one who is burdened by what the doctor objects TO. :Darn. There’s that PESKY logic, again, eh?

    • fiona64

      The point, dear dimwit, is that inability to access a service means that said service may as well not exist. As always, the underprivileged will suffer the most from this asinine anti-choice law, while women of means will be able to travel and obtain services.

      PS: A lot of those clinics that are being forced to close? Also provide contraception, well-woman checks, and a whole slew of *non-abortion* services. Check your privilege at the door, Miss 20-Year-Old White Chick.

      • prolifemama

        They provide these “non-abortion” services to appear morally legitimate to the neighborhoods they poison.

        • fiona64

          Cough up your source, or admit that you’re a lying bitch.

        • Arekushieru

          Sorry, but the Planned Parenthood affiliate in my city doesn’t provide abortions, at all. If they were only providing these services to appear ‘morally legitimate’, then you could take away these services and keep the Planned Parenthood organization open by still providing abortion services. You can’t, so, again, we’ve caught you in a fucking lie.

    • Shan

      Does everything have to emanate from/return to the constitution to be a part of a valid discussion about how we should relate to each other? Or can there be articles like this one saying “Look, there is REAL harm being done to REAL women and their families because of laws like HB2.”

    • ResistJerks

      Dumb bitch. Lack of access means not being able to exercise a right. Dumbass!

    • Dez

      Says the person who thinks killing doctors is acceptable. Your views on anything should be automatically dismissed.

    • Jennifer Starr

      You’re an apologist for terrorist killers like Paul Hill and Scott Roeder, and therefore no better than they are. Pro-life my ass. I have no respect for you or your opinions.

    • goatini

      Says the supporter of domestic terrorism.

    • prolifemama

      Hey, Mama. You make the best observations!!!
      How’s everything going? Praying for you!

      • Jennifer Starr

        You mean the girl who’s an apologist for terrorist Scott Roeder?

      • fiona64

        Hey, Mama. You make the best observations!!!

        You mean, like the one in which she said the murder of George Tiller was justified, and that Scott Roeder just did “what the government should have done”? How pro-life of both of you!

    • prolifemama

      Hey, Mama. You make the best observations!!!
      How’s everything going? Praying for you!

  • fiona64

    Oh, look! Here’s Rita, spamming more junk science from her crappy, self-published book. Quelle surprise.

    • Rita, Canberra

      What a shame your bright little response fails to get the facts right. My publisher is Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden & Boston, a long established, well-respected firm and one of the foremost academic publishers in the world. Quelle surprise?

      • fiona64

        BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Publishing your “thesis” means you’re still self-published, sweetie. http://www.brill.com/human-rights-and-unborn-child

        • thedoorisajar

          Hilarious.

          And i can’t help but notice that the book goes for 125$ lolol

          • Jennifer Starr

            $125? I have books from proper academic publishers that don’t cost that much. I’m betting she doesn’t make much in sales.

          • fiona64

            She’s probably got stacks of the things moldering in her garage, since she can’t *give* them away. Otherwise, she wouldn’t be spamming her nonsensical “excerpts” here.

          • prolifemama

            They’re only nonsensical to those whose senses have been jaded by constant death-peddling.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They’re nonsensical to anyone who actually knows anything about US Law and sovereignty. Which is neither you nor Rita, apparently.

          • fiona64

            You’re the death-peddlar, misery pimp. You want women to die.

          • Arekushieru

            We don’t peddle death, only choice. You, however, peddle death for every woman who is or ever will be pregnant.

          • thedoorisajar

            And the ‘positive’ reviews that she has are all from the same writer..

          • fiona64

            Hell, she probably wrote those reviews herself.

          • catseye

            LOL Ya beat me to it.

          • prolifemama

            I’ll wager Rita donates to the charity of her choice. And it’s not likely to be a pro-“choice” charity!

          • fiona64

            I’ll wager she doesn’t do any such thing. ::shrug::

          • Arekushieru

            Yeah, charity, because you want poor women to subsist on a day to day basis due to lack of stable funding, while wealthy women can cheerily go on their merry way, without concern for where their next meal is coming from. That’s what Pro-Choice organizations provide, stable funding, because we’re not classist like you.

        • Ivy Mike

          Wow, Rita Joseph! She’s not only got another account here under her real name, but she regularly infests Salon.com with her “UN Treaty!!!eleventy!” ass-gravy.

          A c-note and a half for a book by her? If she’s sold twenty copies to anyone but forced-birth orgs, I’ll be amazed. And saddened for our Republic.

      • prolifemama

        Rita, Fiona’s just jealous. What is your book titled?
        And thank you for being a strong prolife voice here in the hate-filled pro-death wilderness.

        • fiona64

          Jealous?

          Hardly.

          No love, the author of 21 books (to date) and a former newspaper editor

        • Arekushieru

          Since you’re the one who is Pro-Death you must be referring to yourself as the hate-filled one. Only accurate thing you’ve said, here, today. Btw, was it the wildberries that were responsible for the poison with which you’ve infested yourself?

  • J.D.

    As opposed to you fetal fetishists who would reduce living, breathing, thinking women to less-than-human status by relegating them to nothing more than walking incubators worth less than the growing cells in their wombs, no matter how they feel about it?

    • Rita, Canberra

      No, J.D., I would try to restore to all women a true understanding of the inherent dignity and worth of being mothers and of the equal dignity and worth of their tiny daughters (and sons).

      Right from the first drafting of the international human rights instruments, the
      legal language of human rights included repeatedly and consistently the terms
      ‘unborn children’ and ‘the child before as well as after birth’.

      The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has “recognized” that every child is entitled to “legal protection before as well as after birth”. (See UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Rights of the Child)

      Under the universal human rights principle of inherency, the child’s rights pre-exist birth – they inhere in the child’shumanity.

      Neither domestic governments nor judiciaries have any authority to withdraw human rights protection from any “members of the human family”.

      To be eligible for membership of the human family, one has only to be human.

      It is not birth or age or size or independence that confers human rights, it is
      just being a human.

      This is the irrevocable legal basis of all human rights.

      • J.D.

        In other words, you want to force them to believe exactly the way you do about pregnancy and motherhood (though it’s not your skin in the game), shame those who don’t and still enslave those who don’t believe your way to continued gestation against their will should they fall pregnant (whether by consensual intercourse, incest, or rape.) even if it’s harmful to their mental, emotional or physical health. You prove you don’t give a damn about women’s dignity when you wrap their entire worth up in the contents of their uteruses. You see them as nothing more than a container for the fetus…and not only that, but you demand that they exhibit the ‘right attitude’ as you deem correct. How utterly arrogant!

        No human being has the right to use of another’s body, in whole or in part, against the other’s will. That includes the already born AND embryos and fetuses. We don’t take your organs or blood or tissue against your will for our purposes (not even to save or sustain a life). Fetuses can’t take ours against ours (to sustain theirs.) Deal with it!

        • prolifemama

          Sheesh, J.D.! You prodeathdealers always have to make it mom -vs- baby.

          Paint it that way all you want, it’s a gross distortion of the most sensible and human position anyone could have regarding legal protections for our smallest, weakest family members.

          Prolifers want equal protection under the law for all human beings, from womb to tomb.

          There. A rhyme for you – you like those! And it will help you remember what we prolifers REALLY believe, instead of all that nonsense fiona and Jennifer and ivy mike are spewing.

          • thedoorisajar

            It IS fetus vs mom
            http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/09/prenatal-competition.html

            I suggest you actually read a citation for once.

          • prolifemama

            Oh boy. This article is laughably and unscientifically filled with such words and phrases as “argued” and “viewed” and “theorized”. None of the “researchers” mentioned can prove any of their pet suppositions. They just continue to argue, view, and theorize.
            And explain the intelligence of promoting a biologist’s botanical backing for a view of human reproduction.
            Looks like the ivy-covered walls of at least one “higher learning” establishment are crumbling.

          • thedoorisajar
          • fiona64

            And how many sources have you provided for *any* of your assertions?

            Oh, exactly NONE? Then I suggest you STFU.

            Oh, and learn how actual scientific journals work.

            And what the word “Theorized” means in science, as opposed to every day use.

            And to mind your own fucking business if it isn’t your pregnancy.

          • fiona64

            How can anyone be too stupid to comprehend this, from the source listed above:

            In both flowering plants and mammalian pregnancies, genetic conflict
            arises from the competing interests of maternal and paternal genes
            regarding the volume of nutrients transferred from mother to embryo. The
            more resources an embryo extracts from its mother, the larger it will
            be at birth and the better its chances for survival and reproduction.
            But the greater the nutritional demands of the pregnancy, the greater
            the cost to the mother’s future reproductive potential. Paternal genes
            in the embryo seek to maximize the acquisition of resources (because the
            mother’s future offspring may have a different father); maternal genes
            will benefit from a more moderated flow. This inherent competition, Haig
            contends, explains the evolution of what are known as imprinted
            genes—that is, genes that behave differently in an organism depending on
            whether they were inherited from the mother or from the father.

            This is scientific reality, you idiotic bint.

          • Arekushieru

            Right, and this explains why the placenta is covered in the sperm donor’s genes and, since the uterus isn’t programmed to recognize foreign DNA that is introduced in close proximity to it as non-threatening (which disproves the theory – and that is the DAILY use of the word – that pregnancy is ‘natural’ by ANY stretch of the word’s meaning), the fetus must suppress the woman’s immune system.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Looks like the ivy-covered walls of at least one “higher learning” establishment are crumbling.

            Bitter because you never had any higher learning, I expect.

          • fiona64

            Remember, a high degree of religiosity and a low degree of education are two of the three major predictors of anti-choice beliefs (link already provided). I’m guessing that this one barely graduated high school.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Having read so much of your nonsense, I’ll take ours any day.

          • fiona64

            Notice that she has given us exactly NONE of the sources she promised to provide?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, and I honestly don’t think that she’s ever going to. She’d rather do the ‘passive/aggressive pearl-clutching victim’ thing.

          • fiona64

            Of course she won’t … because she’s a liar.

          • Suba gunawardana

            As I recall you never managed to address ANY logical points presented to you on other threads.

            How is it “equal protection” when the protection of one is AT THE EXPENSE of the other?

            And where does this “equal protection” go once the baby is BORN?

          • J.D.

            You want the right for some humans to be able to steal what they need from other humans even if it harms their health and wellbeing. Are you prepared to ante up your organs, because I’m sure there are people this very second who could use one of your kidneys, a lobe of your liver, lots of your blood, your skin, plasma etc., etc., etc. Sure donating that’ll be painful and invasive and potentially hazardous/lethal. It’ll be expensive and keep you from doing things you want very much to do, and could make you feel it’s ruining your life, but dang it…folks need those things. We’re talking lives, right? Stop being so selfish and step up and put your organs where your mouth is! And don’t think you’ll wait until you’re dead and don’t need ‘em anymore. Though yesterday would have been better, right now is the perfect time to start walking your talk.

            Wait? What’s that? You don’t like being TOLD you have to do this? You think you should be able to choose? Who are they to get to use YOUR body when you don’t want them to do so? Feel like you’re being used? Tough cookies…that was your forced-organ sharing bandwagon. Equality says that if it runs over me and my organs, it runs over you and yours. Fair is fair.

            You want to give rights to fetuses that NOBODY else gets, the right to help themselves to/harm their host’s body with impunity, regardless of how they came to be there or how she feels about it. That’s NOT equal protection to everyone…definitely not to the women. Maybe a little alliteration will help you remember. Your position generates subjection and constitutes gestational slavery.

          • Arekushieru

            If a pregnancy is so dangerous as to actually KILL a woman, then yes, it DOES come down to fetus vs maternal host. Which makes us, besides the fact that we support CHOICE, whether or NOT that choice results in abortion, not the ones who are the so-called ‘prodeathdealers’ but YOU.

            Nope, you people want MORE rights for the fetus, fewer rights for women. It is YOU who grossly distorts what you actually believe.

            When you say that you want legal protections for the smallest, not weakest (see most recent post as to why), of humans, you want to grant a fetus legal protections at the expense of a woman’s autonomy, life AND health, precisely BECAUSE the fetus and the woman are in conflict during pregnancy. So, no, not a GROSS distortion, but a perfectly ACCURATE ASSESSMENT.

      • fiona64

        I would try to restore to all women a true understanding of the inherent
        dignity and worth of being mothers and of the equal dignity and worth
        of their tiny daughters (and sons).

        … by enslaving them the moment they have a positive pregnancy test.

        There. I finished your sentence.

        • prolifemama

          You do butt in quite a bit, don’t you, fauna.
          Rita’s sentences read so much better than yours because she doesn’t have to wipe the spittle off her laptop screen in order to see what she’s written.

          • thedoorisajar

            Rita copy pastes bullshit from her self published book

          • Jennifer Starr

            You do butt in quite a bit, don’t you

            As do you. But in case you’ve forgotten, this is an open forum.

          • thedoorisajar

            Referring to Fiona as “fauna” was particularly witty, don’t you think?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well I’m sure that she thinks it was.

          • fiona64

            I think she’s telling me I’m one of three good fairies. I’m not sure.

          • fiona64

            … says the disgusting harpy who thinks that a zygote is an infant.

          • Arekushieru

            If Rita was told that she could no longer defend herself from a violation such as rape, I’m sure we would be waiting for her to wipe off the spittle from her laptop screen. If we didn’t there would be something wrong with her. But, it would also make you and her hypocrites.

      • Ivy Mike

        “No, J.D., I would try to restore to all women a true understanding of the inherent dignity and worth of being mothers and of the equal dignity and worth of their tiny daughters (and sons).”…

        …and toss the sl00ts in jail if they disagree! They shall bear children or pay!! No infidels will be tolerated!!

        Seriously, do you actually imagine that your pompous, turgid prose manages to conceal the true meaning of your words? Not all people are as ignorant and uneducated as the religious fanatic target audience you scribble your hack pieces for.

        The flowery bloviation might sell in Kansas or Mississippi, Honey, but it’s still Bravo Sierra.

        • Ella Warnock

          Rita’s probably jealous of the shit ISIS gets away with. Some of these fetus fetishists would happily bury us to the neck and gleefully stone us for daring to be pro-choice. More and more of them are no longer bothering to hide it.

        • Shan

          Hey, I’m in Kansas and I’m NOT buying it LOL!

        • catseye

          Or maybe Benjamin Sam.

          • catseye

            The above is police/security alpha-code. We use names, for the most part.

        • prolifemama

          The difficulty fiona and ivy mike run into when attempting to finish a prolifer’s sentence, is that they prove they haven’t the mental capacity to understand the prolife viewpoint. It’s probably not that they’re deliberately obtuse, but more likely that their venom has fried their intellects to the point that they no longer function independently of their politics and prejudices.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I don’t think you can ever explain the “pro-life viewpoint” considering there is no such thing. What you have is the “forced-birth” or “anti-choice” viewpoint, which by no means is pro-life.

            Your viewpoint is restricted to preserving the life of human zefs AT THE EXPENSE OF all other life, including the women carrying said zefs, the children said zefs would become if forced to be born, and the billions of non-humans actively killed to sustain the lives of the new humans thus forced into life.

            Hence your philosophy at its best is “pro-fetal-life and Anti-all-other life”

          • fiona64

            The difficulty fiona and ivy mike run into when attempting to finish a
            prolifer’s sentence, is that they prove they haven’t the mental capacity
            to understand the prolife viewpoint.

            Wrong answer, dummy. As I have informed you repeatedly, I used to be an anti-choice dimwit just like you. That’s why I keep telling you that I know every page in your playbook.

            I know what the “prolife viewpoint” is: slut-shaming and baby-selling.

          • Arekushieru

            The only one who is prejudiced, here, is you and all other anti-choicers. Stop self-projecting. It will NOT get you your way.

      • Ella Warnock

        I would try to restore to all women a true understanding of the inherent dignity and worth of being mothers

        Your forced-birthing nonsense will not get you very far with the growing number of childfree women. Nothing to ‘restore,’ as it were.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        Your choice is to murder innocent babies to force the birth of fetuses. How is that supporting of human rights?

      • Arekushieru

        Question, dearie. In any of the drafting or the legislation itself, does it explicitly what a child is? If not, then there’s your reasoning for why a fetus is called a child without REALLY being a child.

        • catseye

          So maybe she can tell us how many board-feet there are in an acorn.

          • prolifemama

            Inspired by catseyes’ “how many board-feet in an acorn” comment, here’s one for you fellow prolifers:
            Anyone can count the seeds in an apple, but only God can count the apples in a seed.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Can we say trite?

          • catseye

            Forced birth is STILL a 24/7, 9-month RAPE.

          • fiona64

            You know, when I was 12 I probably would have thought that was profound. Now I think it’s just an asinine bumper sticker.

            Which, come to think of it, is all you ever give us.

            Where are the sources we’ve been asking you about for more than a month now? The ones which we asked you about again just the other day?

            Don’t tell me, let me guess: you’re “too busy” to provide them, but you somehow have time to write smarmy little couplets.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually she didn’t even write it–it was Robert Schuller. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/roberthsc121372.html
            Less inspired and more plagiarized.

          • fiona64

            Plagiarism? From an anti-choicer? Quelle surprise.

        • prolifemama

          Fetus, child, baby – say what you like, biological truth remains unaltered by your word games.
          Sadly, they’re deadly to fetuses/children/babies.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, YOU’RE the one who insists on playing word games, sweetie. Fetus does not equal. Baby = cute widdle human in the WOOM waving it’s ickle widdle arms and legs. Sorry, but the only whose deadly to anyone are you and your side. Who insist that women give up or be willing to risk their health and/or lives in a way no one else is required to.

      • lady_black

        Not all women see the “inherent dignity and worth of being mothers.” Peep this, you hateful person… Women are ALLOWED to not want or have children. They are also ALLOWED to want a limited number of children, whatever that number may be. Whether that number is one or ten, she has the right to say she’s finished with childbearing and what YOU think is neither here nor there.

      • goatini

        The most important dignity that a female US citizen has, that must NEVER be abrogated if females are to be full citizens, is the dignity to decide for herself when, where, why, how and with whom to start or grow her family. It is NOT up to anyone else to make that decision.

      • lady_black

        Shorter Rita, Canberra: Women are “equal” to the sum total of their uterine contents. Excuse me while I hurl…

      • Arekushieru

        Inherent dignity of being a mother? Misogyny. You and your ilk would never apply that to men, after all.

  • ResistJerks

    What smaller human being dumbass? No one has a right to occupy my body without my consent. If you think they do, then let me strap myself on your back so you can carry me everywhere. You don’t wanna help this human you hypocrite bitch?

    • Rita, Canberra

      So
      can we all see the application form you filled out while you were in your
      mother’s womb for permission to occupy her body? Where is the
      permission slip your mother signed? Was it dated and signed by two witnesses?

      Or perhaps you have the application and
      permission forms exchanged between your mother and your grandmother? Or perhaps
      you have kept the permission forms signed by you great-grandmother that granted
      permission for your grandmother to be nurtured and cared for in your
      great-grandmother’s womb?

      The truth is that each mother is doing for her
      daughter only what her own mother already has done for her.

      Adequate nutrition, the protective environment
      of the mother’s womb, and benign medical care are “basic rights” of every new
      human being and because of their fundamental necessity to the nurturing of
      life; they are the unborn child’s minimum and reasonable demands on her
      biological mother.
      The child has committed no wrong that should be punished with extermination.

      • ResistJerks

        It is not a child, it is a zygote, embryo, or a fetus. And as long as these occupy another human’s body, they have no choice. Comprende? My mother wanted me. Had she not, I am respectful enough toward my mother that I would have been fine with whatever choice she made. It was HER body therefore her choice to keep me or not. I would NEVER be so disrespectful to force myself on her. Had she aborted me, would not have mattered to me. Why? Because I wouldn’t exist. Those little people you’re talking about do NOT exist. At week 8 one cannot even tell by looking with the naked eye whether the embryo is a human, a cow, an elephant, or some other mammal.
        As long as I am in my mother’s body, it is her choice. But people haters like you have a hard time understanding that no one has the right to force themselves on another human’s body.
        Grasp these for a sec, you selfish egomaniac.

      • fiona64

        I’m sorry that no one taught you the various stages of human development. You seem to think that a diploid cell is an infant.

        Were you home-schooled?

        • StudentHealer

          While I’m definitely laughing at the dig, since the vast majority of homeschooled people are brought up in fundamentalist Christian households… and I don’t wanna be like “Not All Homeschoolers!!1!” because really, too many homeschooling families are like that… I’d like to share that my two homeschooled daughters *do* know the stages of human gestation. :)

          I was incredibly proud when (before either of them even heard the Famous Violinist Argument) my 15 year old said, “But even if that blastocyst could be called a ‘person’, doesn’t the woman have to consent to the use of her body? No one can come get an organ or a pint of blood from you without your consent, right?” My 11 year old added, “And making a whole infant takes a LOT more than just that!”

          So yeah, I’m *not* posting this as some “gotcha!” crap. It’s more of a “Please have some hope that some of us homeschool responsibly!”

          Okay, back to the regularly scheduled taking-down of anti-choicers. :)

          • thedoorisajar

            I’m with you. I suspect that homeschooling is really only bad when coupled with an evangelical lifestyle, because the parents go out of their way to isolate and indoctrinate their children.

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/08/in-which-i-am-the-greatest-threat-to-homeschooling.html

          • StudentHealer

            You’ve got that right (and thanks for the link! I don’t read nearly enough at Patheos). The way we teach would be classified more as “unschooling”, which is fun – that’s what the kids say, anyway.

            And we even happen to be Christians… but not fundamentalists. We’re very liberal and groovy about it. My husband and I tend to think that the isolation and indoctrination you’ve brought up are tantamount to abuse – it’s got to be spiritually, emotionally and mentally taxing to a kid to treat them like that.

          • fiona64

            It is my opinion, based on observation, that you’re in the minority. But I personally thank you for actually, you know, *teaching.* Far too many homeschooled children are functionally illiterate. http://www.salon.com/2012/03/15/homeschooled_and_illiterate/

          • StudentHealer

            Thanks, Fiona. :) And I know you’re right – we *are* in the minority. But we have a lot of fun teaching our kids useful things – like how to treat others, how to balance a checkbook, some higher math skills (but really, I spend more time on things like intersectionality, lol) and quite a bit of the sciences. But early on, we were harder on the basics like literacy and basic math. When they’re littler, that foundation is of primary importance. A lot of that work is, well… considerably *less* fun, but it’s necessary, y’know?

            Then, when they’re older (mine are 11 and 15), you get to have more fun with more advanced concepts like philosophy or psychology. After reading the link you included, I’m feeling a lot of anger on behalf of those kids. What the hell does it matter if your child can parrot back to you a lot of because-Jesus-rhetoric if they cannot comprehend what they read?

          • fiona64

            I cannot even begin to tell you how much that article infuriated me. Really and truly.

            I’m a pretty smart cookie, and I would *never* try to homeschool a kid. Swear to God. I have dyscalculia, so I’m the last person you want to have teaching *anyone* mathematics. I might be pretty good at sciences (I’m an anthro major), language arts, and history … but I would suck at a lot of other things.

            My biggest issue with homeschooling, and please understand that I am not tarring you with that brush, is that most of the time the first people who rush to do it are the ones least qualified to do it. And then you wind up with kids like the ones referenced in that rage-inducing article. Argh.

          • StudentHealer

            No worries – I know you’re not lumping me in with Those Who Homeschool But Really Should Not. :) In fact, the way that the things we teach our daughters make fundamentalists’ heads explode… and makes progressives smile…. tells me that we’re doing it right. I’m glad there are people out there calling out the fundamentalist ‘Christians’ for the spiritual, mental and emotional abuses of their children. And I’m also glad that people like you are amplifying those voices.

          • catseye

            I can relate; math gives me a case of giant hives too. <|;-P

          • Arekushieru

            Yep, am in total agreement with you, here, SH! As usual. That kind of thing in schools is playing out, here, right now. My province, which holds the little brother of Texas, Calgary, which is, thankfully, not my home town, but unfortunately the one where MY little brother lives (although he is one of the more progressive males I know in real life). Funny thing is, it’s the CONSERVATIVES that brought the discussion to us, here, with regards to discovery learning, something very similar to what you are describing. But there has been some very strong pushback against that, even from more liberal-leaning scholars. It’s annoying. Because, if I had had that kind of learning when I was in the later grades in school, I would have had a much better success rate.

          • lady_black

            You are indeed in the minority. And thank you for teaching critical thinking skills to your kids from an early age. They will find these skills invaluable through their lives. We need more of that.

          • Arekushieru

            THIS is why I enjoy your commentary so much. You acknowledge that there is a huge problem in playing ‘gotcha’ politics. Just as I (and probably you, as you are a Christian, as well) have to constantly remind myself that when someone says something negative about Christianity, I have to step back and see it from THEIR perspective, not about how I perceive my own Christian leanings. Anything else would just be ‘Christiansplainin”!

          • StudentHealer

            That’s it, in a nutshell. I can’t be angry with someone for having a negative view of my faith when so many very, very loud people who claim my same faith have been so crappy to humanity for so long.

            And ‘gotcha’s are generally pointless… unless I’m watching them in a take-down of an anti-choicer or a racist or a bigot of any sort. Then, it’s entertaining to me (lol).

            Thanks, Arekushieru. I’ve said it before, but… that feeling is entirely mutual. :)

      • lady_black

        It’s not ABOUT wrongdoing, Rita. It’s about the rights of actual persons not to be conscripted into bodily donation for the benefit of others, and abortion is not “a punishment.” My mother consented to give birth to me. She could have aborted, though at the time it would have been illegal. I consented to carry my three children. Abortion was legal the entire time, and I could have chosen to abort. My mother DID have an abortion before it was legalized. The (wanted) pregnancy was killing her, and there was never going to be any “son” or “daughter” out of THAT pregnancy. Where did HER rights come into play? Did you expect that doctors should stand by and watch her bleed out when her life could be saved with a minor surgical procedure? Does that embryo have a right to parents that will welcome a child? Obviously the answer is “no” in your world. Your posts are full of emotionalism that is YOUR personal experience. Your experience doesn’t equal everyone else’s. Pregnancy isn’t always a gift, and it isn’t always even mildly good news. Learn to live with the disappointment, because you are always going to be disappointed.

      • goatini

        Rights accrue to citizens at birth. Personhood begins at birth. And fetuses cannot, by necessity, be either “innocent” or “guilty”. Both require sentience in order to be present. I am sure we both can agree that a fetus that threatens the woman’s life is not “guilty” – therefore it cannot possibly be “innocent”.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    Rita, Canberra
    The fetus is not a human life until it is proved to be human. 70 percent of all conceptions are aborted naturally in the first trimester. Of those aborted 60 percent do not have enough human DNA to live as a human. Your suggestion that a fetus is a person with rights is incapable of proof. Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life. The first point at which human DNA is proved for certain is at birth. Why, because before one can prove that DNA is in fact human, that DNA must express a human phenotype.
    It is true that most conceptions will not produce a human baby in the first trimester and it is true that most late term fetuses will in fact become human babies. But that presents the problem of when can a person be 100 percent sure they are not taking away rights from a real human to save what may or may not be human.
    Your whole line of reasoning is invalid. No nation can stand that kills its born babies to force the birth of a fetus.

    • Rita, Canberra

      Russell, the fetus has been proved to be human–just check any textbook on fetology for accepted proofs.

      Biology, embryology, fetal surgery, ultrasound technology, and examination of the human remains of an aborted individual at the fetal stage of life all tell us that these tiny beings, targeted to be aborted, are human beings, belonging to the human family.

      Now let’s just sort out the ‘personhood’ language. In the formal legal language of founding international human rights instruments: “‘person’ means every human being”.
      Neither the State nor the Supreme Court has any authority to divide the human race into ‘persons’ and ‘non-persons’, while deeming the privileged group only to be worthy of human rights protection.

      Under international human rights law, human rights belong to “all members of the human family”. Human beings even in the earliest stages of life, and irrespective of age or size or disabilities, must not be subjected to discriminatory, arbitrarily defined, logically inconsistent and vexatious tests of ‘personhood’.

      The State cannot deny children at risk of abortion the human right to be born equal in dignity and rights—human rights protection was never to be premised on the exclusionary pre-condition that the child must be born first.

      It is not the act of ‘being born’ that bestows or confers human rights, it is being a human.

      • thedoorisajar

        It’s human but it isn’t a person. And even if it was, it would not have a right to occupy the body of another.

        I’m human. I can occupy your body without consent if I need your organs to survive, yes?

      • Jennifer Starr

        In this country, US law trumps anything international. Even conservatives will tell you that–they don’t care much for the UN.

        • Rita, Canberra

          This is not about subjective feelings about the UN, conservative or liberal..

          This is about universal human rights.

          It was Eleanor Roosevelt who led the brilliant US delegation (1947-8) to negotiate the founding principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which were then codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the US is a now a party.

          These are not principles arbitrarily imposed on the US (including the US Supreme Court) but principles negotiated and drafted and freely agreed by successive US delegations with full authority of US governments and citizens to do so.

          Drafters of the Universal Declaration recognized that human rights are logically antecedent to the rights enumerated in various systems of positive law and are held independent of the state. Human rights, they agreed, pertained to every human being withpout exception and could not be alienated; they “constituted a law anterior and superior to the positive law of civil society.
          The US together with the other international community members agreed to lay down the principle that localized majorities may not pass laws in violation of universal human rights.

          • Jennifer Starr

            International law and non-binding UN Resolutions do not override existing US law and are not recognized in US courts. US citizens cannot be tried in the International Criminal Courts for anything committed on US Soil.

          • Ivy Mike

            Is there some final point to this collection of word-soaked twatwaffle?

            And, do you imagine that this copypasta makes you look in any way intelligent or insightful? Because honestly, all you have is “BAN ICKY ABORTIONZ THEY MUDDERS BAYBEEZZ JEEBUS WEPT…!!!” wrapped in bullshit bread and slathered with thesaurus sauce.

          • thedoorisajar

            I am so glad to see you back, Mike.

          • Ivy Mike

            It’s good to be back…I spent three months in what most of these forced-birth maniacs might consider a paradise, were the deity named differently…Afghanistan.

            What I saw there, in the way women were treated in such a society (essentially it is the Ancient World, but with some motorbikes and cars) made me even more determined to counter the fanatics, whenever possible.

            There truly is not any difference between the goals of the Taliban and the American religious right. They both wish to return to the “Good Ol’ Days” of about 2,000 years ago. But with pickup trucks and guns.

            I get thirty days at home, then back for another three months. Lather, rinse, repeat, as long as I and my family can stand it.

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

            Take care, Mike. Thank you for your service.

          • fiona64

            Be careful over there, Mike. I know I don’t have to tell you this, LOL … but nevertheless!

          • lady_black

            Thank you for your service, and your devotion to women’s rights. Take care.

          • catseye

            Getting an up-close-and-personal look at the Taliban like you did should be required for all these rightie wackjobs, especially the female ones who think that exceptions will be made for them for being quislings. I hope the govt. ends the war and brings you home soon, and I hope there’s a good job when you get out.

          • Ivy Mike

            Thank you for your well-wishes.

            I do have to clarify, however, lest anyone think too highly of me…

            I RETIRED last year after 20 years’ service. Since all i know how to do, really, is military stuff, I now am employed as a private military contractor. I basically do what I did in the Service, but for a private company that works for the military.

            A man does have to support his family, after all. It was this or work at Wal-Mart, and I’d rather fight the Taliban.

          • Ivy Mike

            Frankly, having seen exactly what we are truly fighting against (that is, religious extremism and theocracy), I wish the war wasn’t ending as it is.

            I have no love for the Bushites, as they completely screwed up one war and mistakenly (at BEST) started another. However, I am now convinced that, like the struggles agains fascism and communism, the struggle against religious extremism must likewise continue until total victory is achieved.

            The Afghan war should be WON. Not abandoned. It should be done in such a way that religious extremism, of all types, is rendered as unpalatable to decent people as Naziism. It is just as destructive, and just as evil.

            How to do it? Well, I’m not a general or a President (not that THEY’ve done a spectacular job). I retired as a lowly E-6, an Enlisted puke. They can do the strategy. but I do think they SHOULD have.

          • lady_black

            We should be fighting it here, before fighting it someplace else. Don’tcha think?

          • StudentHealer

            I couldn’t help but laugh at the religious right when I read that, lady_black. The fact that the religious right does *not* want to deal with that issue here first shows that they only want to follow the religious rules that are convenient to them. There’s a whole thing in the Bible about “removing the plank from your own eye before trying to get the splinter out of your brother’s eye”.

            If they *were* to view all religious extremism as problematic, they’d have to get their own house in order first. Heaven forbid they’d have to examine themselves with the same standards they apply to everyone who is Not Them!

          • Arekushieru

            Ivy Mike, you might not agree with me and, since I have never served in the military, please take this as you will, too, but I think what would have been a better intervention in Afghanistan is a better focus on peacekeeping. Whereby soldiers set up camp in towns and other municipalities and really worked with the citizens and helped to train the law enforcement there, to improve their daily lives. Of course, the Taliban wouldn’t like that. But I’m not saying that the peacekeeping force shouldn’t be armed and ready to defend themselves and the people they’re protecting from outside attackers. Unfortunately, the US AND Canada seem to have overreacted, both when they entered into the war and when they left. They seem to think that the only answer to such extremism is outright war, which, from what you see and hear, only seems to make the extremists more entrenched, so once public opinion sways against that, their only response is to withdraw completely, just like when public opinion swayed towards war (or so they thought or, rather, how they deliberately manipulated people’s opinions in that direction) it was full steam ahead.

            Of course, this is just a suggestion, not really based on any knowledge of practicality or idea how that would work (something you would understand at least a bit better than I would having been there, I think…?), either.

          • StudentHealer

            I’ve only been reading your posts, Mike (I’m kinda new here at RHRC)… but I always find myself identifying with your drive to counter the fanaticism of the religious right. Also, I sincerely thank you for your service.

          • Ivy Mike

            Good to know you’re out there!

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Your choice is to murder innocent babies in an effort to force the birth of fetuses. How is that legal according to the Universal Declaration?

          • Arekushieru

            Universal human right? Bodily integrity, without which one would not have life. As can be evidenced by the VERY close relationship between pregnancy and maternal mortality.

          • fiona64

            Drafters of the Universal Declaration recognized that human rights are logically antecedent to the rights enumerated in various systems of positive law and are held independent of the state.

            Please show me anywhere, outside the pages of your ludicrous thesis, where these rights were determined to apply to non-persons. I’ll wait.

            And then, you can tell me why you think that women are not, apparently, human enough to deserve rights.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth. Not before. FACT.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Additionally, I don’t know why you think it bolsters your argument to mention Eleanor Roosevelt. She was a wonderful woman but she was not an elected official or a legislator.

            And again, apparently the US, along with other countries, doesn’t agree with your interpretation, because abortion is legal in this country along with many others. It would seem that the only person who agrees with your interpretation is you.

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

            A fetus is not a human being.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Does “universal human rights” include the right to invade/occupy/use another person’s body without their consent?

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        “Russell, the fetus has been proved to be human–just check any textbook on fetology for accepted proofs.”

        All books on embryology and fetology agree with me. Until the fetus is proved to be human and alive at birth, it may die and may prove to not be human enough to live as a human.

        “Biology, embryology, fetal surgery, ultrasound technology, and examination of the human remains of an aborted individual at the fetal stage of life all tell us that these tiny beings, targeted to be aborted, are human beings, belonging to the human family.”

        As I stated above, every scientist agrees with me. If the gamete/zygote/embryo/fetus has not produced a human phenotype, it is not human. If the phenotype can live as a human, it is human. If it cannot live as human life, it is not fully human.

        “Now let’s just sort out the ‘personhood’ language. In the formal legal language of founding international human rights instruments: “‘person’ means every human being”.

        Once the zygote/embryo/fetus produces a living human phenotype it can it can become a person. Until then it may not be human or may not live to become a human.

        “Neither the State nor the Supreme Court has any authority to divide the human race into ‘persons’ and ‘non-persons’, while deeming the privileged group only to be worthy of human rights protection.”

        Nature makes it clear when it is human life that can become a human that is entitled to human rights. At birth, if the product of conception lives, and if it has enough human DNA to claim a human phenotype, it is a human life.

        “Under international human rights law, human rights belong to “all members of the human family”. Human beings even in the earliest stages of life, and irrespective of age or size or disabilities, must not be subjected to discriminatory, arbitrarily defined, logically inconsistent and vexatious tests of ‘personhood’.”

        You can’t prove that any zygote/embryo/fetus is human life. You are welcome to try and I will gladly show you where you err.

        “The State cannot deny children at risk of abortion the human right to be born equal in dignity and rights—human rights protection was never to be premised on the exclusionary pre-condition that the child must be born first.”

        The state cannot prove a fetus is human life until it is born. Why, because the human phenotype must be present in sufficient form to allow the fetus to live as a human. And no one can prove the fetus is human until it completes its proof at birth or delivery.

        “It is not the act of ‘being born’ that bestows or confers human rights, it is being a human.”

        You can’t prove the product of conception is a human capable of life until it is in fact born.
        Why is that important?. Because in any effort to force birth one must make the choice to let an already born person die.
        You have a choice, you may save one of the 1.8 born humans dying each second or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. Pro lifers make the choice to let innocent babies die to save fetuses they cannot prove will live through birth.
        A nation that kills its born to save its unborn cannot survive.

      • Arekushieru

        There is no such right as the ‘human right to be born’. What does that mean, anyways? That all non-human animals should start self-aborting willy nilly? If FETUSES are to be ‘equal’ in dignity and rights, that has already happened with abortion legal, so your pointless nattering remains pointless.

        Calling a fetus a person, is logically inconsistent. Minimum biological requirement? Human; individual. A fetus is human but not individual. Sperm and eggs are human AND individual. Calling a fetus a person while not calling sperm or eggs persons is therefore logically inconsistent. You may thank me for your edumacation, now.

        And being a human has NEVER conferred the right to co-opt another person’s organs against their wishes, not EVEN to save their life, on ANY human in history.

        All persons are human beings/humans, but not every human being/human is a person. Human being and person are most often synonymous with each other. Human being and human CAN be synonymous with each other, like in those biology textbooks you like to rip your quotes from. Whether a fetus is a person or not is irrelevant to whether abortion should be legal or illegal. SFS. Which means that the Supreme Court is NOT deciding rights based on who is in a privileged group and who is not.

      • ResistJerks

        Do you understand that even if we go by your reasoning and confer fetuses equal right to born people, the fact of the matter is that just like a born person cannot forcefully take my kidney or bone marrow against my will for their survival, a fetus has no right to use my bodily resources against my consent for its survival. If you think they should be allowed to, than what you’re fighting for is fetal superiority, which makes you Hitler. Once the fetus is born, the infant, child, and subsequently the grown person will be inferior to a fetus?
        You want to create a Holocaust for born people, Hitler.

      • lady_black

        There IS no “human right to be born.” Never has been, and never WILL be.

      • goatini

        Actually, rights accrue to citizens at birth. FACT.

      • lady_black

        Where is your placenta, Rita? That’s a critically important organ in fetal life. You see, what exists before birth is NOT the same thing that exists at the moment of birth. The circulatory routes change. The lungs begin to function for the first time. The placenta that was moments ago of vital importance, detaches rapidly and starts to die, and ends up as medical waste. As does the umbilical cord. The neonatal kidneys and liver begin to function as filters for the blood. The digestive system will now be the only source of nutrients. What would become of that fetus if the placenta drops functioning prior to birth rather than at the time of birth? Human being? Individual? Hardly… all your emoting doesn’t change biology, dear.

    • Arekushieru

      Y’know, Russell, I’ve thought about this and I’ve come to the conclusion that you are completely correct. For one, we don’t assign sex to fetuses until they have expressed the phenotype identified with one sex or another. And, for two, the fact that at earlier fetal as well as zygote and embryo stages it is hard to distinguish many mammalian fetuses from one another, also kinda highlights this point.

      • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

        At birth four critical process are shown to have been correctly or incorrectly “expressed.” The fetal heart transforms into a human heart, the fetal digestive system transforms into the human system, the fetal respiration system transforms into the human system and the fetal brain transforms into the human brain. If the proper DNA expression does not occur in any of those systems, the fetus may not be human enough to produce human life.

        • lady_black

          Thank you, Russell. Many people don’t know the profound physiological changes that MUST occur at birth in order for the fetus to be viable as an infant. They think it just slides down the chute, and voila! It’s a viable baby.

          • Arekushieru

            No, THANK YOU, Lady-Black. It always grates on me that people pass off pregnancy AND birth as just some minor inconvenience that a person only has to endure for ‘a relatively minor’ extended period of time before they are presented with a live baby and abortion is no longer ‘necessary’. Urgh.

  • Dez

    Please don’t talk about black people. People like you like to use us as pawns to take away our rights and it is simply disgusting. Slave owners use to force black women like me to breed without our permission. We will not go back to those days. We are capable of making our own decision without your “help.” Until you actually acknowledge the humanity of blacks, leave us out of your writings.

    • Rita, Canberra

      This is the dilemma of the survivors of all freedom movements, Dez.
      Either the oppressed become the oppressors, and we use our new freedom to dehumanize and terminate the lives of others now in our power,,,
      Or we embrace our common humanity and pledge ourselves to protect and uphold the equal dignity and worth of every human being, including the tiniest and most vulnerable.

      • thedoorisajar

        Fetuses are oppressors.

      • Dez

        Again you are patronizing black women by implying we are ignorant or wrong and we need to be saved. F*** you bit**. Stop treating black women like idiots. Yet in all your rambling bs you have yet acknowledged the intelligence and capability of black women to make their own choices. Racists like you are disgusting.

      • Ella Warnock

        Listen to this white woman telling an intelligent black woman what’s what. What gall. Breathtaking condescension and arrogance from the mouth of clueless privilege.

      • fiona64

        Check your privilege at the door, Miss Thang. You don’t get to speak for people of color.

        No love, a white woman

      • goatini

        Rights accrue to citizens at birth.

  • Arekushieru

    If we use our rights to snuff out the rights of women to determine who uses their body and when and how it is used, via ONGOING, informed and explicit consent, regardless of whether another human’s life depends upon it, regardless of innocence of the other party, regardless of whether an action was caused by the first party, etc… due solely to anatomical characteristics identified as female biology associated with homo-gametic makeup in humans and not any other, we are not only ABUSING human rights, we are women-haters.

    Nope, Roe Vs Wade RULED that the woman was equal to all other humans. It did not ignore fetal rights, whether or not one believes they have any. The fact that antis believe that women have no rights which others are bound to respect has a curious affinity with the Dred Scott ruling that blacks were “beings of an inferior order, and… that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect”.

    Nope, YOU people reduce women to a thing of less than human status. You reduce her to a container, an incubator, less important than the contents of her uterus. You suspend her in a slave like state between life and death, not only because there is NOT a 0% chance that a woman will die from pregnancy, but, like YOU said, pending an arbitrary decision by the ‘owner’ to force a slave to BIRTH the fetus. Y’see, those who were prone to deny human rights to others were ALSO forced birth, that INCLUDES slave-owners. Oops.

    True justice requires that women be recognized and treated not as the only sex to have their rights determined by their genetic makeup, but as entities who, by existing, start at the bottom level of an uneven playing ground that can only be remedied by RAISING that level (meaning, avoiding such perceptions as pregnancy is ‘natural’ therefore good or that women must take responsibility for an act of biology even though it is something no one else is forced to do), rather than equalizing the supports they are given (as an analogous example: an employer increasing the wages of men and women they employ by the same amount, ignoring the fact that, as in the majority of cases, the women are paid less than their male counterparts for the same work) as YOU would like to do. As violations of human rights perpetrated by individuals (such as yourself) and involving the complicity of politicians, judges and others (again, with people such as yourself). AW.

    • StudentHealer

      Can I have your permission, Arekushieru, to read this post of yours to my two daughters as part of their homeschooling curriculum? (Well, we really do more of what’s called “unschooling” which is way groovier.) It’s just too awesome to pass up as a discussion starter.

      We were supposed to work more on intersectionality tonight, but we could have another reproductive justice lesson…

      • Arekushieru

        You can not only have my permission, but, in fact, I would be HONOURED. :)

        • StudentHealer

          Thanks! We’re digging deeper into the Famous Violinist analogy and you have some great wording there about one party needing to give informed consent before allowing another party to depend upon/use the first party’s body to live. The kids have a pretty good grip on the ideas… but I struggle with getting across the severity of the situation because I don’t want to really frighten them or leave them hopeless. Approaching the issue as a human rights violation (comparable, but not equal, to other violations) is a good way to do it, I think. Thanks again!

          • thedoorisajar

            Consent must be explicit and ongoing

            This is a great guide:
            http://praxeology.net/RTL-Abortion.htm

            It effectively sums up all of the bodily autonomy arguments

            Part vii is the most relevant

          • StudentHealer

            I’m so glad you’ve posted that link (it’s now in my Favorites folder). Part VII is pretty fantastic, really. You have my extended gratitude!

  • Nat G

    Compairing racism with abortion is weird in my opinion…

    • thedoorisajar

      Thats cuz Rita’s weird. And not in a positive sense. In the fucknut sense.

  • terafied

    No one has the right to use my bodily resources. No one.

    • Rita, Canberra

      It sad when we are duped into inflating our own rights to such a gross extent that we ignore our duty to our own little daughters being nurtured and protected in our wombs. Rights and duties are intertwined for all of us.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Unless you can carry her pregnancy for her, it’s not up to you or your church to determine what her ‘duty’ is. Remember, not everyone wants to pop out eleven like you did.

      • Shan

        I think I need an insulin shot.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Just wait until she uses the phrase “lively presence”.

          • Rita, Canberra

            So the fetus growing in her mother’s womb is not alive and not present?
            You appear to have a very primitive understanding of pregnancy, Jennifer.

          • thedoorisajar

            Explain exactly what you mean by ‘present’ please.

          • Rita, Canberra

            The term ‘present’ means “able to be located within definite co-ordinates of space and time.

            With astonishing accuracy, we can locate the unborn child within definite co-ordinates of space and time. We van locate and measure a heartbeat and take ultrasound pictures of tiny limbs.The child is not an ethereal generic fetus floating out there somewhere in some weird other-world. We can identify the child’s father, and whether the child is a son or a daughter. We can ascertain long before birth that the child is present and is a unique member of the human family, biologically, genetically, and genealogically.

          • thedoorisajar

            Well all right then.

            Cancerous tumours are present.

            As are hydatidiform moles.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Tumours and moles are not human beings. If your doctor can’t tell the difference between tumours and moles and the fetuses in their mothers’ wombs then you’d best get another doctor.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Would this be the doctor that you told me I didn’t have to go to if I was pregnant?

          • fiona64

            Hydatidform moles start out in the same manner as zygotes. You know, for someone who claims so much erudition, you have a shockingly low level of knowledge.

          • thedoorisajar

            A mole is 100% human, alive and present. Moles simply have the wrong # of chromosomes. Do you also hate down syndrome people?

          • Arekushieru

            And by your logic it is human so therefore it must be a human being deserving of all the rights you apparently believe should be granted it by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you do NOT agree that these are human beings, then how is your determination of who is a person and who is a non-person any LESS arbitrary than you perceive our determination of human beings to be?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, it’s the ‘with astonishing accuracy’ shtick. Wondered when she was going to pull that out.

          • fiona64

            And with “astonishing accuracy,” she erases the pregnant woman from the picture every single time.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh yes. In fact if she had her way, every woman who ended a pregnancy would be charged with international human rights abuses. I wish I was joking.

          • fiona64

            That’s because Rita, sadly enough, sees herself and every other woman on the planet as nothing but the meat around a uterus.

          • StudentHealer

            Reminds me of what I heard on RealityCast this week. Something about conservatives “treating every used tampon as a crime scene”. ;)

          • fiona64

            I miss a poster called HeilMary; she would flat-out ask the forced-birthers who insisted that zygote = infant whether they had funerals each month for their tampons.

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

            I have been missing HeilMary a lot. I hope she is doing well.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            But you can’t prove the fetus is alive on its own or if it is simply being kept alive by the mother. And you can’t prove that the fetus has sufficient DNA to live as a human. And you can’t prove there will be a live birth. The fact is that 70 percent of conceptions die in the first trimester and of those that die 60 percent die due to genetic flaws.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford
          • goatini

            No such thing as an “unborn child” – you are not an “undead corpse”. All children, ever, have already been born.

          • Shan

            “We can ascertain long before birth that the child is present and is a
            unique member of the human family, biologically, genetically, and
            genealogically.”

            Well, yeah. That’s why women have abortions. They either can’t or don’t WANT to give birth to another human being (they’re probably not worried about giving birth to a tire iron). And advances in ultrasound technology have made abortion considerably safer with the ability to more accurately pinpoint the gestational age of the embryo/fetus in order to determine the best method of performing the abortion.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So what? All animals have heartbeats too, and complete body parts, and their parentage can be identified if we try. Are you against killing animals for any reason?

          • fiona64

            You’re the one with a primitive understanding of pregnancy.

            All the hate, someone whose wanted pregnancy nearly killed her and who will NOT gestate again, full stop.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I just think it’s very trite and twee.

          • lady_black

            Alive, present, and not entitled to the bodily resources of another person. Sorry, you still lose.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Is it wrong to kill anything that’s alive?

          • Ella Warnock

            Drinking game. I’m already pretty buzzed.

          • expect_resistance

            Woot woot! I’m a day late, it’s my weekend and I’m buzzed.

        • thedoorisajar

          She’s a prolifemama clone.

          • goatini

            proDEATHmofo is worse.

        • Ella Warnock

          All that emotive treacle intended to induce happy mommy feelies. So very much fail.

      • ResistJerks

        Who are you to decide for me what my duty is? Seriously?
        If you think you can do that, than I am telling you Rita Canberra that your duty in this life if to cook, clean, do my laundry for me while holding down a full time job and handing over your paycheck. Also your duty is to get down on your knees and suck me dry. If you think you can decide what other people’s duties are, than I can damn well decide what your duties are as well. So when shall I expect you to come perform your duties?

        • Ivy Mike

          What “duty” does a woman have to a rapist’s fetus?

          THINK VERY CAREFULLY…your answer will reveal a great deal about you.

          • thedoorisajar

            Wrong person BTW. RJ is an ally.

          • Arekushieru

            Hey, it took me this long to realize! GAH! Sorry. I understand why this person used the screen name ResistJerks, now. It carries the same initials as a very fundamental part of our movement. Sweet!

          • Shan

            Oh, yeah. I thought Ivy Mike was replying to Rita.

          • Shan

            Oooh, I got this one. “You shouldn’t punish the innocent little child for the sins of her father! She has just as much a right to be nurtured and protected whether she’s a kindergartener or still just a lively presence in the loving embrace of her mother’s womb.”

            Am I right?

          • thedoorisajar

            Its so easy, arguing as anti choice

          • Jennifer Starr

            Wow–that is just spot on :)

          • Shan

            Thanks! I’m thinking about getting it published! So excited!

          • fiona64

            I think I can recommend Rita’s vanity press pretty highly. ;-)

          • Arekushieru

            But you SHOULD punish a fetus for the sins of the woman. After all, what do they call it when they shame and stigmatize young, unmarried women. Or resort to calling black women with children ‘welfare queens’?

          • Shan

            Dang, I KNEW I missed something!

          • P. McCoy

            Career criminals they call the children, but rape spawn is “innoccent”(bring me a sickness bag)

          • Ella Warnock

            If you’re playing along with the drinking game – trust me, you’re drunk. :-p

      • lady_black

        I have a daughter. I have no “duty” to supply her with ANY of my bodily resources.

      • goatini

        Yes, inflating the rights of vicious theocratic misogynists to such a gross extent that they are able to legally agitate for the forcible stripping of the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of innocent female US citizens IS sad. It’s also seditious and anti-American.

      • expect_resistance

        It’s interesting that ant-choicer/forced-birthers refer to a fetus as female, like we are going to buy the shit you selling.

  • Ella Warnock

    That’s nice, dear. Bless your heart.

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

    No thanks. Bubba and I are fooking up a storm. The door prize at the abortion clinic this month is a toaster. I need a toaster bad.

  • thedoorisajar

    Plum is sexing as she typed this. She will abort for cutlery, FFS.

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

      Absolutely. I am a ghoul. I will abort for a new tire iron too. Bubba needs one.

  • fiona64

    You do not get to decide how much risk someone other than yourself will take. *That* is irresponsible.

  • goatini

    Actually, those who seek to forcibly strip away from female US citizens their inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice are reducing the innocent living, breathing female US citizen to an object, a “uterus with legs”, a thing of less-than-human and less-than-citizen status, suspended in a slave-like state from menarche to menopause.

  • expect_resistance

    Abortion is a personal decision that you have no right to have a say in.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    You use your rights to kill born life in an effort to save fetuses.
    All pro lifers are murderers.

  • P. McCoy

    Black people did not depend on their white master’s body to eat, drink, excrete, nor create bone nor.muscles-zygotes and fetuses do. So your argument falls flat as well as It Is Insulting to free thinking Black Women. Besides being obsessed with genderfying ‘bayyybees as daughter’, your main problem is obsessing about lives of women that you know nothing and frankly, are none of your business. Your religious cult talks about saving.’both lives’.but historically until the present day, a woman raped, mentally ill, racked with life threatening illnesses whether caused by the fetus or now, nay even raped children of ages 12 or 9, their lives are disposable in comparison to the ‘unborn’. That you would be a follower of such a sentient female hating cult, as well as sympathize with Domestic Terrorists, makes it a complete waste of time dealing with you-we pro choicers need to conserve our strength, get out the vote and warn others about you kinds’ desire to overthrow our secular government and establish a theocracy here. When this knowledge is disseminated, then many will rally to defeat your kind. I shall be working faithfully with in system to make this a reality.

    • Arekushieru

      Hmm, I can see your point in an unwillingness to deal with trolls, now. P.M. You also consider that it can be a distraction, which is very true.

      • P. McCoy

        Thank you. As a former friend told me, you can’t reason with the unreasonable. How was the Calgary stampede?

        • Arekushieru

          Didn’t go. Unfortunately, I live in Edmonton, so it’s a 2-hour drive away, at the least, so I can’t visit my brother, who currently lives there, now, as often as I would like. Although my parents are there, now, to celebrate his birthday. And I didn’t really pay much attention to what has happening there, this time around. Unfortunately, it’s a little painful. My ex-sister-in-law used to work there as part of the human resources department. She has since quit and my brother and she are currently in the process of getting a divorce. However, things between them have become more amicable so I’m happy about that.

          • P. McCoy

            I am sorry; I hope things get better for you. I just hope to go up there Edmonton too some day. But please send good vibes; next week I go to get an ultrasound on the arteries of my neck to discover why I have bleeding behind my left retina- I pray to keep my sight so someday I can have 2 puppies to play with in my old age (I’ll be 59 In February).

          • catseye

            That sounds a little scary. But if it can provide any reassurance, I’ll mention that I had cataract surgery back in Feb. with an _excellent_ ophthalmic surgeon with Kaiser, and it went very smoothly. All the best to you. <|:-)

          • P. McCoy

            Thank you. Will keep up the good vibes and fighting the good fight!

          • Arekushieru

            Sending good vibes your way, as I speak (or type, whichever you prefer)!

            If you come to Edmonton, I hope you feel comfortable enough to give me a heads up on what date you’re arriving.

            Btw, thanks for the well-wishes!

          • P. McCoy

            Will do! Bright Blessings to you!

          • fiona64

            Good vibes coming your way. I work for the company that invented LVC. Hope everything goes well.

          • P. McCoy

            Thank you. They say it’s a routine test and all my diabetic numbers look good otherwise. I go on the morning of Sept 5th, so I’ll keep everyone informed. When I know more, I will subsequently register to work the polls. I hope we can new Justices on the Supreme Court by 2018.

        • cjvg

          I used to have a college a long time ago who used to say; ” you can’t argue with a cow, there is just no benefit to it. Some people are just like cows, you talk and they do not listen to you anymore then they listen to the fence post.” She was a former nun and absolutely terrifyingly wonderful.

    • cjvg

      This is exactly how I feel. When someone has proven themselves to be a totally disrespectful anti-choice troll, who’s sole purpose is to regurgitate hateful and deceptive as well as deliberately misleading “information” I can not see a use in spending any time on time

      However, occasionally they do get to me when they state something so egregious that I can not help myself. This one continues to use half truths and complete bolder that has repetitively been disproved. It is obvious she serves no purpose other then aggravation!

  • Shan

    Good news, Texas women!

    http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/08/29/federal-court-blocks-part-texas-abortion-law-preceding-immediate-state-appeal/

    “The act’s ambulatory surgical center requirement places an unconstitutional undue burden on women throughout Texas,” ruled Judge Lee Yeakel, who also determined that the portion of the law that requires abortion-providing doctors to obtain hospital admitting privileges is unconstitutional as it applies to doctors in El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley.”

  • P. McCoy

    Congrats! Let’s remember to encourage people to register to vote even if it means assisting people to obtain proper ids.Also we can stress absentee voting for the elderly, infirm or disabled. Also, if one has time, working the polls is a great way of being of service; I did.this last June in California and God grant, that I can get through safely on some medical tests in September, I’ll be working the polls this November. Also an FYI- PBS is doing a special on Dr. Tiller, murdered by anti choice domestic terrorists and their like minded co horts who bray about 50 million dead so called ‘unborn children’ but seethe over showing the atrocity of murdering a sentient abortion provider and family man in cold blood. Let’s thank PBS for bringing out the ‘pro life’= domestic terrorist sympathizer out to the public.