The Abortion Thread

[a fan]

In short, b/c you can not control people and you certainly cannot control people that are on a substance and getting freaky-deaky.

First person to actually answer the question. THANK YOU!

But.....you're incorrect. We had a program in Colorado that threw contraceptives at unwanted pregnancies for the young. It worked.

In fact, it worked so well that it cut HS teen pregnancies and abortions in half. IN HALF. And graduation rates went up, because....of course they did.

Is this not what you want?
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/05/ ... tion-rates

Most of the women my wife and the center encountered , where late 20’s early 30’s….rarely did they see HS aged. Very different story from the HS study in Colorado….so we can both be right….don’t be so trigger happy.

I just showed you a program that cut abortion rates in half for teens, and 20% for 20's. And it was just a pilot program.

And in response to hearing this.....you don't want more of these programs?

You lost me. Why? Why wouldn't you want programs like these if the goal is to stop unwanted pregnancies?

We appear to have passed each other in conversation...I was still engaged on all things specific to the center where my wife volunteered. I just took exception to your 'you are incorrect" comment.

All good, and yes, I am for that.

Apologies for talking past you. And cool....nice to hear you're for more of these programs. I have many of the same goals you have....reduce those unwanted pregnancies as much as possible.

[DocBarrister]

It’s bad enough that the vast majority of the Republican Party supports Donald Trump, a man who has been credibly accused of rape.

Now the Republicans are forcing 10-year old girls who have been raped and impregnated to travel to other states for an abortion.

A Columbus man has been charged with impregnating a 10-year-old Ohio girl, whose travel to Indiana to seek an abortion led to international attention following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade and activation of Ohio's abortion law.

Gershon Fuentes, 27, whose last known address was an apartment on Columbus' Northwest Side, was arrested Tuesday after police say he confessed to raping the child on at least two occasions. He's since been charged with rape, a felony of the first degree in Ohio.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/202 ... 046625002/

Making things even worse is that various Republican “leaders” like Jim Jordan were basically calling the girl a liar.

When did the former Grand Old Party become the pro-rapist party?

DocBarrister

[Seacoaster(1)]

Further to a fan's dialogue with YA, earlier in this thread: abortion, family planning and the [GOP talk here] scourge of "welfare assistance:"

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/opin ... redit.html

"Last year, as an alternative to the temporary expansion of the child tax credit under President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah introduced a plan to give every family a monthly benefit of up to $350 per child for children 5 and under and $250 per child for children 6 to 17. It was simple, generous (it included a payment before birth, too) and — on paper, at least — effective. According to the Niskanen Center, which helped devise the proposal, the Romney plan would cut overall child poverty by roughly a third and the deepest child poverty by half.

Republicans hated it. His Senate colleagues Marco Rubio and Mike Lee denounced Romney’s plan as “welfare assistance,” and called for “pro-work” policies to assist families. “An essential part of being pro-family is being pro-work,” the senators said. “Congress should expand the child tax credit without undercutting the responsibility of parents to work to provide for their families.”

Romney, who voted against Biden’s rescue package, went back to the drawing board and recently unveiled a less generous version of his plan aimed at winning Republican support in the Senate. In this iteration, which would fill the gap left by the expiration of the Biden expansion in December, a family with children would have to earn at least $10,000 per year to qualify for the full credit. Below that, the benefit would scale proportionally so that a family earning $5,000 per year would receive 50 percent of the credit. The most impoverished families would receive the smallest benefits.

This version of the child benefit, to use the lingo of Romney’s earlier conservative critics, would “reward work.”

And yet there’s little indication that any more than a token group of Republican lawmakers is interested in Romney’s latest proposal. There’s no appetite for it. For the vast majority of Republicans in Congress, passing a new child benefit is not the kind of work they came to Washington to do. (It should be said, though, that in the absence of the filibuster, that token group of Republicans plus most Democrats would be enough to pass the Romney bill or something like it.)

The hostile and then indifferent response to Romney’s child allowance from his Republican colleagues — as well as the nearly total absence of meaningfully pro-family legislation from conservative lawmakers — tells us something very important about the future of the pro-life cause in the Republican Party. But maybe not quite what you think.

In the weeks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, some conservatives and abortion opponents have, as Elaine Godfrey reported in The Atlantic, expressed the hope that their movement and political party would turn their attention to the material well-being of mothers, families and children. So far, that hope seems to be misplaced.

Free, now, to pursue whatever policies they’d like on abortion, most Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion activists appear to be focused on passing harsh new restrictions on reproductive autonomy and creating broad protections for “fetal life.”

Trigger laws and prior statutes have already made abortion illegal in roughly a dozen states. Legislators in Missouri and Texas want to pass laws that would extend their bans across state lines, to punish residents who go to other states to obtain abortions. South Carolina Republicans, likewise, have drafted legislation that would ban all abortions except to prevent the death of the mother and would prosecute anyone “conspiring to cause, or aiding or abetting, illegal abortion.” And an Ohio bill would recognize the “personhood” and constitutional rights of “all unborn human individuals from the moment of conception.”

What you won’t find passing anytime soon in any Republican-led state legislature are bills to reduce the cost of childbearing and child-rearing. At most, a few states that have or will ban abortion have extended postpartum care under Medicaid. But there are no major plans to improve coverage or provide new benefits. As a practical matter, the pro-welfare, anti-abortion politician does not exist, at least not in the Republican Party.

The policy correlation is, in fact, what you would expect it to be. As a rule, the states with the most generous safety nets and anti-poverty programs are also the states with the widest access to abortion and other reproductive health services. The states with the most restrictive abortion laws are also, as a rule, the states that do the least for families and children as a matter of public policy.

Another way to make this connection is simply to look at a map of states that continue to refuse to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and compare it with a map of states that outlaw (or effectively outlaw) abortion. The overlap fits the pattern.

This distance — between the rhetoric of “life” and the reality of conservative Republican governance — only looks like hypocrisy. In truth, it is perfectly consistent.

That’s because the Republican ideal of a “pro-family” agenda is girded on traditional hierarchies. Reproductive autonomy, up to and including the right to get an abortion, weakens hierarchies of gender. And the social safety net — especially one that extends directly to mothers and children — undermines the preferred conservative social order of isolated, atomized households kept in line through market discipline.

If the goal of abortion opponents and politicians is to encourage life and promote families, then, yes, their interests and priorities are at odds with their actions. But if the goal is a more rigid and hierarchical world of untrammeled patriarchal authority, then, well, things are pretty much going according to plan."

[MDlaxfan76]

... don't understand the claim that the child was raped. I believe I reported the original story on this board (based on the IndyStar report), and as I recall the doctor claimed the child was "abused". The nature of the abuse was never made clear. Maybe much more complicated than rape. I can understand why an Ohio doctor might not want to be made known in this crazy environment. I am sure the Indiana physician is going to take a lot of heat.

not sure how it's possible to be merely complicated when a 10 year old becomes pregnant... this has to be 'rape'.

But being identified may well be much more complicated, and certainly this is an incredibly hostile environment. I'd sure as heck understand a doc not want to be identified as the doc who helped the child, given that hostility.

... but who did the raping? What if it was a young (under age) sibling. There may be more to consider. No doubt some law(s) have been broken.

Apparently the arrest has now been made, confession...big "oops" on all those who were promoting the notion that the situation wasn't real.

[jhu72]

... don't understand the claim that the child was raped. I believe I reported the original story on this board (based on the IndyStar report), and as I recall the doctor claimed the child was "abused". The nature of the abuse was never made clear. Maybe much more complicated than rape. I can understand why an Ohio doctor might not want to be made known in this crazy environment. I am sure the Indiana physician is going to take a lot of heat.

not sure how it's possible to be merely complicated when a 10 year old becomes pregnant... this has to be 'rape'.

But being identified may well be much more complicated, and certainly this is an incredibly hostile environment. I'd sure as heck understand a doc not want to be identified as the doc who helped the child, given that hostility.

... but who did the raping? What if it was a young (under age) sibling. There may be more to consider. No doubt some law(s) have been broken.

Apparently the arrest has now been made, confession...big "oops" on all those who were promoting the notion that the situation wasn't real.

All the rats running for cover. RepubliCON scum.

[MDlaxfan76]

... don't understand the claim that the child was raped. I believe I reported the original story on this board (based on the IndyStar report), and as I recall the doctor claimed the child was "abused". The nature of the abuse was never made clear. Maybe much more complicated than rape. I can understand why an Ohio doctor might not want to be made known in this crazy environment. I am sure the Indiana physician is going to take a lot of heat.

not sure how it's possible to be merely complicated when a 10 year old becomes pregnant... this has to be 'rape'.

But being identified may well be much more complicated, and certainly this is an incredibly hostile environment. I'd sure as heck understand a doc not want to be identified as the doc who helped the child, given that hostility.

... but who did the raping? What if it was a young (under age) sibling. There may be more to consider. No doubt some law(s) have been broken.

Apparently the arrest has now been made, confession...big "oops" on all those who were promoting the notion that the situation wasn't real.

All the rats running for cover. RepubliCON scum.

But the GOP attorney general made it known what he believes the real issue at hand is: The doctor.

“Then we have this abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report,” he said, responding to Watters leading introduction to the interview where the Fox host claimed the doctor “has a history of failing to report child abuse cases.” (As we noted above, the rape was reported by the mother last month and to authorities by child protective services in Ohio.)

“So we’re gathering the information, we’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report. And in Indiana it’s a crime to intentionally not report,” Rokita said.

Watters’ program then flashed a photo of Bernard, cementing the subject of the distraction technique into the minds, and eyes, of viewers.

Putting a direct target on the doctor for the "Life" nut jobs...

Reprehensible.

[jhu72]

... don't understand the claim that the child was raped. I believe I reported the original story on this board (based on the IndyStar report), and as I recall the doctor claimed the child was "abused". The nature of the abuse was never made clear. Maybe much more complicated than rape. I can understand why an Ohio doctor might not want to be made known in this crazy environment. I am sure the Indiana physician is going to take a lot of heat.

not sure how it's possible to be merely complicated when a 10 year old becomes pregnant... this has to be 'rape'.

But being identified may well be much more complicated, and certainly this is an incredibly hostile environment. I'd sure as heck understand a doc not want to be identified as the doc who helped the child, given that hostility.

... but who did the raping? What if it was a young (under age) sibling. There may be more to consider. No doubt some law(s) have been broken.

Apparently the arrest has now been made, confession...big "oops" on all those who were promoting the notion that the situation wasn't real.

All the rats running for cover. RepubliCON scum.

But the GOP attorney general made it known what he believes the real issue at hand is: The doctor.

“Then we have this abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report,” he said, responding to Watters leading introduction to the interview where the Fox host claimed the doctor “has a history of failing to report child abuse cases.” (As we noted above, the rape was reported by the mother last month and to authorities by child protective services in Ohio.)

“So we’re gathering the information, we’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report. And in Indiana it’s a crime to intentionally not report,” Rokita said.

Watters’ program then flashed a photo of Bernard, cementing the subject of the distraction technique into the minds, and eyes, of viewers.

Putting a direct target on the doctor for the "Life" nut jobs...

Reprehensible.

Yup!

[PizzaSnake]

Further to a fan's dialogue with YA, earlier in this thread: abortion, family planning and the [GOP talk here] scourge of "welfare assistance:"

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/opin ... redit.html

"Last year, as an alternative to the temporary expansion of the child tax credit under President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah introduced a plan to give every family a monthly benefit of up to $350 per child for children 5 and under and $250 per child for children 6 to 17. It was simple, generous (it included a payment before birth, too) and — on paper, at least — effective. According to the Niskanen Center, which helped devise the proposal, the Romney plan would cut overall child poverty by roughly a third and the deepest child poverty by half.

Republicans hated it. His Senate colleagues Marco Rubio and Mike Lee denounced Romney’s plan as “welfare assistance,” and called for “pro-work” policies to assist families. “An essential part of being pro-family is being pro-work,” the senators said. “Congress should expand the child tax credit without undercutting the responsibility of parents to work to provide for their families.”

Romney, who voted against Biden’s rescue package, went back to the drawing board and recently unveiled a less generous version of his plan aimed at winning Republican support in the Senate. In this iteration, which would fill the gap left by the expiration of the Biden expansion in December, a family with children would have to earn at least $10,000 per year to qualify for the full credit. Below that, the benefit would scale proportionally so that a family earning $5,000 per year would receive 50 percent of the credit. The most impoverished families would receive the smallest benefits.

This version of the child benefit, to use the lingo of Romney’s earlier conservative critics, would “reward work.”

And yet there’s little indication that any more than a token group of Republican lawmakers is interested in Romney’s latest proposal. There’s no appetite for it. For the vast majority of Republicans in Congress, passing a new child benefit is not the kind of work they came to Washington to do. (It should be said, though, that in the absence of the filibuster, that token group of Republicans plus most Democrats would be enough to pass the Romney bill or something like it.)

The hostile and then indifferent response to Romney’s child allowance from his Republican colleagues — as well as the nearly total absence of meaningfully pro-family legislation from conservative lawmakers — tells us something very important about the future of the pro-life cause in the Republican Party. But maybe not quite what you think.

In the weeks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, some conservatives and abortion opponents have, as Elaine Godfrey reported in The Atlantic, expressed the hope that their movement and political party would turn their attention to the material well-being of mothers, families and children. So far, that hope seems to be misplaced.

Free, now, to pursue whatever policies they’d like on abortion, most Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion activists appear to be focused on passing harsh new restrictions on reproductive autonomy and creating broad protections for “fetal life.”

Trigger laws and prior statutes have already made abortion illegal in roughly a dozen states. Legislators in Missouri and Texas want to pass laws that would extend their bans across state lines, to punish residents who go to other states to obtain abortions. South Carolina Republicans, likewise, have drafted legislation that would ban all abortions except to prevent the death of the mother and would prosecute anyone “conspiring to cause, or aiding or abetting, illegal abortion.” And an Ohio bill would recognize the “personhood” and constitutional rights of “all unborn human individuals from the moment of conception.”

What you won’t find passing anytime soon in any Republican-led state legislature are bills to reduce the cost of childbearing and child-rearing. At most, a few states that have or will ban abortion have extended postpartum care under Medicaid. But there are no major plans to improve coverage or provide new benefits. As a practical matter, the pro-welfare, anti-abortion politician does not exist, at least not in the Republican Party.

The policy correlation is, in fact, what you would expect it to be. As a rule, the states with the most generous safety nets and anti-poverty programs are also the states with the widest access to abortion and other reproductive health services. The states with the most restrictive abortion laws are also, as a rule, the states that do the least for families and children as a matter of public policy.

Another way to make this connection is simply to look at a map of states that continue to refuse to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and compare it with a map of states that outlaw (or effectively outlaw) abortion. The overlap fits the pattern.

This distance — between the rhetoric of “life” and the reality of conservative Republican governance — only looks like hypocrisy. In truth, it is perfectly consistent.

That’s because the Republican ideal of a “pro-family” agenda is girded on traditional hierarchies. Reproductive autonomy, up to and including the right to get an abortion, weakens hierarchies of gender. And the social safety net — especially one that extends directly to mothers and children — undermines the preferred conservative social order of isolated, atomized households kept in line through market discipline.

If the goal of abortion opponents and politicians is to encourage life and promote families, then, yes, their interests and priorities are at odds with their actions. But if the goal is a more rigid and hierarchical world of untrammeled patriarchal authority, then, well, things are pretty much going according to plan."

Plenty of openings in the salt mines…

‘Republicans hated it. His Senate colleagues Marco Rubio and Mike Lee denounced Romney’s plan as “welfare assistance,” and called for “pro-work” policies to assist families. “An essential part of being pro-family is being pro-work,” the senators said. “Congress should expand the child tax credit without undercutting the responsibility of parents to work to provide for their families.”‘

[PizzaSnake]

... don't understand the claim that the child was raped. I believe I reported the original story on this board (based on the IndyStar report), and as I recall the doctor claimed the child was "abused". The nature of the abuse was never made clear. Maybe much more complicated than rape. I can understand why an Ohio doctor might not want to be made known in this crazy environment. I am sure the Indiana physician is going to take a lot of heat.

not sure how it's possible to be merely complicated when a 10 year old becomes pregnant... this has to be 'rape'.

But being identified may well be much more complicated, and certainly this is an incredibly hostile environment. I'd sure as heck understand a doc not want to be identified as the doc who helped the child, given that hostility.

... but who did the raping? What if it was a young (under age) sibling. There may be more to consider. No doubt some law(s) have been broken.

Apparently the arrest has now been made, confession...big "oops" on all those who were promoting the notion that the situation wasn't real.

All the rats running for cover. RepubliCON scum.

But the GOP attorney general made it known what he believes the real issue at hand is: The doctor.

“Then we have this abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report,” he said, responding to Watters leading introduction to the interview where the Fox host claimed the doctor “has a history of failing to report child abuse cases.” (As we noted above, the rape was reported by the mother last month and to authorities by child protective services in Ohio.)

“So we’re gathering the information, we’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report. And in Indiana it’s a crime to intentionally not report,” Rokita said.

Watters’ program then flashed a photo of Bernard, cementing the subject of the distraction technique into the minds, and eyes, of viewers.

Putting a direct target on the doctor for the "Life" nut jobs...

Reprehensible.

Yup!

This clown needs to crawl up his own Asz and fight for air.

““So we’re gathering the information, we’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end,”

[jhu72]

The anti-woman party is so peaceful, loving and anti-violence.

Fascist scumbags.

[Brooklyn]

When did the former Grand Old Party become the pro-rapist party?

DocBarrister

Always has been.

[Brooklyn]

I was on another website recently where there was a discussion over abortion rights and the recent court ruling. I posted a question to the anti-abortionists re their stated objection to financing abortion here in the USA while they continue to pay for Israel's abortions every year. None of the right wingers replied as they were too stunned to do so. This happens so often when they are called out on their hypocrisy.

[jhu72]

Going to see various religious faiths fighting in the SC over abortion. SC is going to be forced to find against religious faith or agree that in the question of abortion find that a state cannot completely outlaw / ban abortion.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Three or so weeks in, here are some tales from the frontlines:

"Reproductive rights advocates have long warned that women would die if abortion were banned again—that children would be forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies. I’ve been covering abortion rights for over a decade, and I expected these horrifying, dystopian stories to trickle out over the next six months to maybe a year, forcing people to acknowledge a reality that had long been just hypothetical.

Instead, the stories have sprayed out like a firehose: A 10-year-old rape survivor had to travel to another state to get safe abortion care, and politicians immediately went after the doctor who helped her; a Texas hospital let a woman with an ectopic pregnancy bleed until she almost died to avoid getting sued; Idaho Republicans overwhelmingly voted to let women die before giving them health care. The dystopia is upon us, and it arrived faster than anyone expected.

No one wants to read a dissertation on this. No one wants to hear my opinions about it. Here’s what happened in three weeks, for those of you who aren’t super online but want to keep track of where this country is right now:

Child rape survivors must give birth

A 10-year-old rape survivor had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to have an abortion. Indiana’s Republican attorney general, Todd Rokita, went on Fox News to say that he was investigating the abortion provider to see if she reported the rape to the state. “We’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end, including looking at her [medical] licensure if she failed to report,” Rokita told Fox News host Jesse Watters, before Fox showed a photo of Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the abortion provider.

Bernard, it turns out, had reported the rape in accordance with state law. She had previously been alerted about a kidnapping threat against her daughter.

Tina Vasquez, a reporter for Prism, later confirmed that it’s relatively common for child rape and incest victims to seek abortion, and our new laws are threatening their ability to do that:

Women are being threatened with death

A woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy sought emergency care at the University of Michigan Hospital after a doctor in her home state worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat meant treating her might run afoul of new restrictions on abortion.

At one Kansas City, Mo., hospital, administrators temporarily required “pharmacist approval” before dispensing medications used to stop postpartum hemorrhages, because they can also be also used for abortions.

And in Wisconsin, a woman bled for more than 10 days from an incomplete miscarriage after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue amid a confusing legal landscape that has roiled obstetric care.

Then in Texas, a hospital refused to save a woman’s life until her ectopic pregnancy ruptured, because the fetus still had a heartbeat. Texas, meanwhile has sued the Biden administration for the right to let pregnant people die rather than save them in these situations, and Idaho Republicans voted overwhelmingly this weekend to reject a “life of the mother” exception from its abortion platform.

Pregnant women in Missouri can’t get a divorce

Meanwhile, pregnant women in Missouri are barred from getting a divorce, as state law does not recognize the fetus as a person—meaning a mother has to wait until the baby is born to deal with custody rights. You read that right: Republicans, who are trying to argue that fetuses are people, do not recognize fetuses as people when that means that it would accidentally give a woman freedom to leave her husband. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Republicans are going after Plan B and IVF

Republican politicians are now openly acknowledging that their worldview recognizes fertilized eggs as people (except in Missouri, as noted above, when it might allow a pregnant person to leave her husband). That means emergency contraception is on the chopping block, as well as IVF.

“Ultimately, we believe that all human life is valuable and deserves our legal protection from that beginning moment of fertilization, whether that occurs through normal means or through IVF. And so certainly we want those embryos who are created through the IVF process protected,” Rebecca Parma, senior legislative associate with Texas Right to Life, told a local Texas news outlet on Wednesday.

Women can’t even travel to other states to get legal abortion care
Senate Republicans have blocked a bill that would protect pregnant people’s right to travel to states where abortion is legal to have the procedure.

There’s not much to add about this, except that if lawmakers ever tried to block an American from traveling to any other state to access a legal right that’s not abortion (say, to buy a gun), Republicans would absolutely melt down.

Republicans have long said they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade just to kick abortion back to the states to decide. Now, the goal is clear: Force raped children to carry their pregnancies to term and let women die, with the goal of upholding this pseudo-“Christian” ideology that flies against the will of the people.

More horrifying stories will pour out over the course of the next year, but we’ve certainly seen enough. Republicans want to relegate women and pregnant people to property of the state. It’s never been about “life;” it’s about control. And it’s entirely unclear how many more sickening stories we’ll have to witness before we rebel against the reality that the U.S. Senate, Supreme Court, and state legislatures are rigged against the majority of the population."

https://jezebel.com/just-3-weeks-post-r ... 1849188588

[PizzaSnake]

Three or so weeks in, here are some tales from the frontlines:

"Reproductive rights advocates have long warned that women would die if abortion were banned again—that children would be forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies. I’ve been covering abortion rights for over a decade, and I expected these horrifying, dystopian stories to trickle out over the next six months to maybe a year, forcing people to acknowledge a reality that had long been just hypothetical.

Instead, the stories have sprayed out like a firehose: A 10-year-old rape survivor had to travel to another state to get safe abortion care, and politicians immediately went after the doctor who helped her; a Texas hospital let a woman with an ectopic pregnancy bleed until she almost died to avoid getting sued; Idaho Republicans overwhelmingly voted to let women die before giving them health care. The dystopia is upon us, and it arrived faster than anyone expected.

No one wants to read a dissertation on this. No one wants to hear my opinions about it. Here’s what happened in three weeks, for those of you who aren’t super online but want to keep track of where this country is right now:

Child rape survivors must give birth

A 10-year-old rape survivor had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to have an abortion. Indiana’s Republican attorney general, Todd Rokita, went on Fox News to say that he was investigating the abortion provider to see if she reported the rape to the state. “We’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end, including looking at her [medical] licensure if she failed to report,” Rokita told Fox News host Jesse Watters, before Fox showed a photo of Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the abortion provider.

Bernard, it turns out, had reported the rape in accordance with state law. She had previously been alerted about a kidnapping threat against her daughter.

Tina Vasquez, a reporter for Prism, later confirmed that it’s relatively common for child rape and incest victims to seek abortion, and our new laws are threatening their ability to do that:

Women are being threatened with death

A woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy sought emergency care at the University of Michigan Hospital after a doctor in her home state worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat meant treating her might run afoul of new restrictions on abortion.

At one Kansas City, Mo., hospital, administrators temporarily required “pharmacist approval” before dispensing medications used to stop postpartum hemorrhages, because they can also be also used for abortions.

And in Wisconsin, a woman bled for more than 10 days from an incomplete miscarriage after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue amid a confusing legal landscape that has roiled obstetric care.

Then in Texas, a hospital refused to save a woman’s life until her ectopic pregnancy ruptured, because the fetus still had a heartbeat. Texas, meanwhile has sued the Biden administration for the right to let pregnant people die rather than save them in these situations, and Idaho Republicans voted overwhelmingly this weekend to reject a “life of the mother” exception from its abortion platform.

Pregnant women in Missouri can’t get a divorce

Meanwhile, pregnant women in Missouri are barred from getting a divorce, as state law does not recognize the fetus as a person—meaning a mother has to wait until the baby is born to deal with custody rights. You read that right: Republicans, who are trying to argue that fetuses are people, do not recognize fetuses as people when that means that it would accidentally give a woman freedom to leave her husband. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Republicans are going after Plan B and IVF

Republican politicians are now openly acknowledging that their worldview recognizes fertilized eggs as people (except in Missouri, as noted above, when it might allow a pregnant person to leave her husband). That means emergency contraception is on the chopping block, as well as IVF.

“Ultimately, we believe that all human life is valuable and deserves our legal protection from that beginning moment of fertilization, whether that occurs through normal means or through IVF. And so certainly we want those embryos who are created through the IVF process protected,” Rebecca Parma, senior legislative associate with Texas Right to Life, told a local Texas news outlet on Wednesday.

Women can’t even travel to other states to get legal abortion care
Senate Republicans have blocked a bill that would protect pregnant people’s right to travel to states where abortion is legal to have the procedure.

There’s not much to add about this, except that if lawmakers ever tried to block an American from traveling to any other state to access a legal right that’s not abortion (say, to buy a gun), Republicans would absolutely melt down.

Republicans have long said they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade just to kick abortion back to the states to decide. Now, the goal is clear: Force raped children to carry their pregnancies to term and let women die, with the goal of upholding this pseudo-“Christian” ideology that flies against the will of the people.

More horrifying stories will pour out over the course of the next year, but we’ve certainly seen enough. Republicans want to relegate women and pregnant people to property of the state. It’s never been about “life;” it’s about control. And it’s entirely unclear how many more sickening stories we’ll have to witness before we rebel against the reality that the U.S. Senate, Supreme Court, and state legislatures are rigged against the majority of the population."

https://jezebel.com/just-3-weeks-post-r ... 1849188588

So Tejas is going to fix ERCOT?

‘Ultimately, we believe that all human life is valuable and deserves our legal protection from that beginning moment of fertilization, whether that occurs through normal means or through IVF. And so certainly we want those embryos who are created through the IVF process protected,” Rebecca Parma, senior legislative associate with Texas Right to Life, told a local Texas news outlet on Wednesday.’

If the fertilized eggs thaw out and become unviable, will ERCOT be charged with murder?

[jhu72]

Since when are we a one faith nation??

[Farfromgeneva]

Since pulling out of Bretton Woods?

Circa 1971..

[PizzaSnake]

Since ACB’s coronation?

[jhu72]

A sociologic theory that explains why republiCONs feel the way they do about a whole raft of issues, including abortion.

[cradleandshoot]

A sociologic theory that explains why republiCONs feel the way they do about a whole raft of issues, including abortion.

Here is a suggestion Dr Wizard you should be in favor of. In the same theme of giving out " I Voted Today" stickers why not give out stickers saying " I Aborted My Baby Today" . Given your enthusiastic support you could underwrite the production of these stickers. They should be a big hit should the not?? You would be soooo proud of yourself. Silly response on my part.. you are ALWAYS very proud of yourself. Some people simply call that arrogance.