Advertisement

Kansas legislature

Kansas Legislature

40 years after Roe v. Wade, abortion foes march on; many looking to Kansas

January 22, 2013, 11:34 a.m. Updated January 22, 2013, 1:39 p.m.

Advertisement

Abortion opponents marked the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision Tuesday with workshops, prayers and calls for more limits on the rights established by the Supreme Court in the landmark ruling that still defines one of the nation’s most intractable debates.

Many in the anti-abortion movement looked to Kansas, where Republican Gov. Sam Brownback signed a series of tough anti-abortion measures during his first two years in office. Other states with GOP governors and Republican-controlled legislatures have taken similar steps.

Abortion-rights groups observed a quieter anniversary — a possible reflection of the reality that it’s far rarer for lawmakers to expand access to abortion. The National Organization for Women planned a candlelight vigil at the Supreme Court to commemorate the 1973 decision, which created a constitutional right to abortions in some circumstances and prevented states from banning the practice.

The ruling “should be honored,” said Rep. Emily Perry, a lawyer and Democrat from the Kansas City suburb of Mission who supports abortion rights. “I wish the amount of energy put into narrowing Roe v. Wade would be put into school funding or our budget.”

In Topeka, hundreds of abortion opponents gathered for a rally with Brownback, who has called on lawmakers to create “a culture of life.” He is expected to support whatever further restrictions they approve.

Kansans for Life, the most influential of the state’s anti-abortion groups, plans to ask lawmakers to enact legislation ensuring that the state doesn’t finance abortions even indirectly, such as through tax breaks or by allowing doctors-in-training at the Kansas University Medical Center in Kansas City, Kan., to perform them on the center’s time.

The group also wants to strengthen a state law dictating what information must be provided to abortion patients, banning abortions because of the fetus’ gender and allowing wrongful-death lawsuits when a fetus dies because of an accident.

Comparable proposals are gaining ground elsewhere, too. Republican lawmakers in North Dakota are pursuing a measure to ban “sex selection” abortions. Alabama’s GOP legislative majorities are looking to impose new health and safety regulations for abortion providers. And Republicans in Arkansas want to ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy.

“I think more of America is becoming more pro-life,” said Dr. Melissa Colbern, who started a crisis pregnancy center in Topeka near the state Capitol last year. “I think maybe the culture is changing.”

In the four decades since Roe v. Wade, a series of court decisions have narrowed its scope. With each decision, lawmakers in multiple states have followed up by making abortions more difficult to obtain or imposing restrictions on providers.

According to the New York-based Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights think tank, 135 laws aimed in some way at restricting access to abortion were enacted in 30 states — most of them with Republican-controlled legislatures — in 2011 and 2012. More such measures already have been proposed in several states this year.

In Wyoming, for example, a pending bill would prohibit abortions after a fetal heartbeat is audible. A similar “heartbeat” bill is pending in Mississippi, and one was debated but later sidetracked in Ohio last year.

In Texas, Republican Gov. Rick Perry has told lawmakers that he expects to make progress during the 2013 session toward his goal of making abortion “at any stage a thing of the past.” Anti-abortion activists have pledged to use every legal means possible to make obtaining abortions difficult, if not impossible.

But Kansans for Life, the most influential abortion group lobbying state lawmakers in Topeka, eschews proposals designed to set up a head-on legal challenge to the Roe v. Wade decision, fearing the Supreme Court might wipe out some of the gains achieved by abortion opponents in recent years.

“We’d like to continue on our successful strategy,” Kathy Ostrowski, the group’s legislative director, said during a pre-rally news conference. “We feel that we’re making better strides that way.”

Tuesday’s events won’t be the only anniversary observances. The annual March for Life, which traditionally draws several hundred thousand abortion opponents to Washington, is scheduled for Friday.

Although bills to strengthen access to abortion are rare, there are some pending proposals in New York and Washington state.

In their state of the state speeches this month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo endorsed a bill that would further entrench the right to abortion, while Washington’s new governor, Jay Inslee, said he wants to enact a measure that would require insurers who cover maternity care — which Washington insurers are mandated to provide — to also pay for abortions.

Both Cuomo and Inslee are Democrats.

“Forty years ago, the United States stood as an example to the rest of the world in recognizing a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion as a constitutionally protected right,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “But the women in this country shouldn’t have to rely on the courts to right the wrongs of their elected officials.”

Comments

KansasLiberal 1 year, 11 months ago

The anti-abortion terrorists will soon get their way, thus proving that terrorism always wins.

lunacydetector 1 year, 11 months ago

55 million unborn aborted in 40 years = 1,375,000 procedures per year X $450 per procedure on average = $618,750,000 per year....big money.....i wouldn't call anti-abortion people terrorists. they don't kill babies for profit

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

Pregnancy is much more expensive than abortion--thousands of dollars more, in fact. So in strictly financial terms, medical professionals can make more money off pregnancies than they can off abortions. So your claims of "profit motive," lunacydetector, are undercut by the facts.

rtwngr 1 year, 11 months ago

The facts are not undercut because the availability of abortion on demand has created and entire industry. This industry is centered on nothing but killing for money.

verity 1 year, 11 months ago

You're making a really sweeping generalization there.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 11 months ago

Does anyone wonder why a woman's body belongs ONLY to her, until she wants someone else to pay for HER abortion?

Catalano 1 year, 11 months ago

You are virtual proof that the "Y Chromosome Defect" does, in fact, exist.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 11 months ago

Tell me my post is a lie. You can't have it both ways.

Catalano 1 year, 11 months ago

If I am a woman and pay my insurance premiums, then I expect my insurance company to pay for whatever services are covered under my policy.

Thinking_Out_Loud 1 year, 11 months ago

Chibw, it's not that your post is a lie. It simply proceeds from a false premise. Hence, your conclusion is invalid. This has nothing to do with whether or not your conclusion is correct--as a logical argument, it simply doesn't work.

Alyosha 1 year, 11 months ago

Cite your source for someone wanting another person to pay for an abortion.

tomatogrower 1 year, 11 months ago

Who's asking you to pay for their abortion? Yes, it should be a part of insurance, but people pay for the insurance for the most part. Why pay for Viagra if you aren't going to pay for abortions and birth control?

Water 1 year, 11 months ago

Yeah, cost is the crux of the issue here. Women aren't the only people who elect to have an abortion, girls elect to have abortions too.

rtwngr 1 year, 11 months ago

My favorite is a child, under the age of consent, cannot obtain aspirin from the school nurse but that same nurse can arrange an abortion for her without notifying her parents.

RDE87 1 year, 11 months ago

lunacydetector, have you ever thought to add up how much money tax payers are dishing out for welfare and other subsidies for these 55 million unwanted children? I'm guessing it’s a lot more than $450 each.

deec 1 year, 11 months ago

Here's some info on food stamps by state-

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/food-stamp-use-state

"Seventy percent of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data..."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth

Keith 1 year, 11 months ago

Want fewer abortions, make birth control easier to obtain and use. Oops, I forgot the antis are against birth control too.

chootspa 1 year, 11 months ago

Indeed.

Providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduced unplanned pregnancies and cut abortion rates by 62 percent to 78 percent over the national rate, a new study shows

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/10/04/abortion.rates.plummet.with.free.birth.control

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

Soooo you think that because, out of what ever taxes you pay, 25 cents of it goes toward contraception, you have a right to dictate a total stranger's sex life. Apparently, you think you've bought and paid for it.
There's a word for that.

tomatogrower 1 year, 11 months ago

So, wristtwister, since agriculture and oil gets lots of subsidies, we can regulate them after all. I though you conservatives were against regulation.

mom_of_three 1 year, 11 months ago

Excellent question posed above - why does a woman's rights evaporate when she becomes pregnant? Anti-abortion foes say they are speaking for the unborn, for their rights. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE WOMAN? Why do her rights get pushed aside and forgotten just because she is pregnant? Why do the rights of a zygote supersede her own ?

Abortion is tragic and I am sorry it happens, but I am pro choice because I believe I can't make that decision for any one else. It is their life and their body.

grammaddy 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm pro-choice and I have NO problem with responsible gun ownership. "Responsible" being the key word here. I also believe that some weaponry shouldbe reserved for the military only.

Alyosha 1 year, 11 months ago

To "a" liberal?

Which liberal are you talking about, since you seem to be so well acquainted with his/her thoughts?

mom_of_three 1 year, 11 months ago

Well, except that you are incorrect and making generalizations. I dont care if you are being pro choice on guns as long as you take care of them.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

You mean, like the hypocrisy of being against abortions but feeling it perfectly okay that people can own guns that are then used to shoot children in a classroom?

Either way you slice it, it is a terribly comparison. I am sure there are many who support women's choice and gun rights, and anti-abortionists who also oppose the 2nd amendment. I support your right to own guns, just not your right to own ALL types of guns i also support a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to bring a pregnancy to term, yet I oppose abortions in the third trimester that aren't needed to save the life of the mother or extreme medical conditions in which the fetus will have no chance of survival.

You see rc, life isn't as black and white as you pretend it to be.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

That it is a terrible comparison "either way you slice it" was the point. Taking the view offered and reversing it, which I did, still makes it a terrible comparison. That was the point! Did you actually read my entire comment?

You see, I support the right to own a gun AND the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body, as I stated. With both, however, there are reasonable limits. That is what I was saying. Get it now, or am I being too looney for you?

Oh, and yes, many "loons," as you so elequently describe people with mental illnesses, can keep sane if they stay on their meds. Treating mental illnesses by locking people up as the only solution is no solution at all.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

That's not bad. I would add a few caveats. Some guns simply must be held in check by strict government control because it would be plausible for organizations to amass weaponry that could allow them to break the law with impunity. This would only come into effect with automatic weapons or higher.

As for abortion, I'm OK with it until the woman goes into labor. At that point, the woman and child begin to separate and so the child becomes protected by the constitution.

I wouldn't vote against your idea.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

" I oppose abortions in the third trimester that aren't needed to save the life of the mother or extreme medical conditions in which the fetus will have no chance of survival."

Why? Does a woman lose her constitutional rights during the third trimester of pregnancy?

It's no wonder you can't support guns, you don't even have the backbone to support abortion properly.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

"I would add a few caveats. Some guns simply must be held in check by strict government control because it would be plausible for organizations to amass weaponry that could allow them to break the law with impunity. This would only come into effect with automatic weapons or higher."

Yeah, tell me about it. You don't really support the 2nd amendment after all. What other parts of the Constitution and our freedoms are you willing to provide your own little personal "caveat" for? If I owned a fully automatic weapon I wouldn't use it for evil, so why can't I have one? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I can't. Why do you hate the Constitution?

Yes, if a fetus can survive outside the host mother on its own, then I am comfortable saying that is where the right to abortion ends. If you disagree, then that is like saying a child aged 2 or even older can be allowed to just die since it still can't take care of itself.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"You don't really support the 2nd amendment after all. "

Yes I do. If a weapon is not classified and a person shows they can secure the weapon and can pass appropriate background checks, they should be able to own said weapon whether it's a .22 rimfire, an M4, an M60, a light antitank weapon, a tank, an F4 Phantom, an aircraft carrier to haul the F4 around with or a bayonet.

"Yes, if a fetus can survive outside the host mother on its own, then I am comfortable saying that is where the right to abortion ends."

The fetus might be able to survive on it's own, but it is still a parasite living off the mother. The mother has constitutional rights, the fetus does not.

For grins, pick someone you know that is pregnant and tell me at what number of days into the pregnancy the baby can survive. If you don't know down to the day I think your undefinable limit is is your way of dealing with the horror of abortion while being a good liberal and saying what they tell you to say.

Water 1 year, 11 months ago

Hey rockchalk, Would you give an 11 year old a Mossberg 500? Would you get an 11 year old pregnant?

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

If, rockchalk1977, you believe that you have the right to use your gun to expel an intruder from your home, how can you object if a woman expels an intruder from her most intimate home--her own body?

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

To be fair, I don't think rc is saying you have the right to shoot someone you've invited as a guest into your home. By having sex without birth control protection, it is similar to inviting someone into your most intimate home.

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

Actually, beatrice, having unprotected sex is not like inviting someone into your home. It is like leaving the door unlocked, knowing that intruders can and do enter. It is irresponsible, but it does not negate the right to expel the unwelcome visitor.

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

If, rockchalk1977, you believe that you have the right to use your gun to expel an intruder from your home, how can you object to a woman expelling an intruder from her home--that is, from her own body?

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

The left wants to save the all the humans unless they can kill them in the womb, and their best idea for accomplishing that lofty goal is trampling constitutional rights.

It's a funny world.

I'm pro-gun and pro-abortion.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

You actually want people to have abortions?

Um.... sure you do. Really, we believe your on-line persona.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

I want abortion to be legal and as available as any medical procedure to all women. That is a pro-abortion stance.

I don't care if they abort their mistakes or not. That is a pro-choice stance.

It is of little surprise you do not see the difference between the two.

"Really, we believe your on-line persona."

You mean the nice one. :-)

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

Interestingly, a Constitutional scholar is saying that the right to abortion is actually grounded in the 13th Amendment. He says that compulsory reproduction was one of the essential components of slavery and that the 13th Amendment outlawed forced reproduction when it outlawed slavery.
This, to me, is even an answer to all those trying to use the Bible to shore up their anti-abortion beliefs. Given that slavery was endemic to that time period and place and occurs throughout both Testaments, it's a repudiation they would have a hard time answering. That is, unless, they, you know, actually SUPPORTED slavery.
It would certainly make a mockery out of calling Kansas the "Free State".

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/21/originalist-argument-abortion-rights-compulsory-childbearing-during-antebellum-sl

Centerville 1 year, 11 months ago

So one party demands that women be treated as cows: pay for their birth control so they can service men. Pay for their abortions, in case they're too dumb to use the free birth control, so they won't inconvenience the men they service. And the aborted babies? Who cares? Creepy, to say the very least.

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

No, what's creepy is the idea that anyone feels they can tell a living, breathing, adult human being what they can and cannot do with their lives and bodies. That is the definition of slavery.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Do we have your support concerning intoxicants, prostitution and polygamy? How about incest and assisted suicide? You have the right idea, now apply it in a consistent manner.

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

The only one I do NOT support is incest. That is not an assertion of individual rights and control over one's self but a form of slavery in and of itself. Children do not have the wherewithal to assert any control in such a situation, either mental or physical and THEY can't make any kind of choice over how to control their body. Other than that, yeah, I support every single one of those things. Each one of those others involve a consenting adult capable of making those decisions.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

If a man is 40 and his daughter is 20, the relationship will be consensual. I hope you understood that I meant that everyone involved is of legal age. I like to think I don't always have to write "consenting adults" but I shouldn't expect you to remember that universal caveat... until now. :-) Now you should always remember it.

Kudos on the rest. Your tolerance is as admirable as it is rare.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Not if she's firing it at the rapist that might get her pregnant.

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 11 months ago

The Last line of the Headline is incomplete."Many Looking at Kansas" and Shaking their Heads in Disbelief.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

There is no disconnect, because owning guns with extended clips is not at all related to medical procedures.

Water 1 year, 11 months ago

"According to the New York-based Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights think tank, 135 laws aimed in some way at restricting access to abortion were enacted in 30 states — most of them with Republican-controlled legislatures — in 2011 and 2012. More such measures already have been"

What disconnect are you referring to RockChalk? There's going to be those who have 3 abortions and there's going to be those who have 16 firearms. Doesn't matter what the system, someone has to abuse it.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

1 million killed by abortions annually. 31,000 by guns. One is specifically protected bt the constitution, the other derives it's protection from the constitution yet is never mentioned.

23 executive orders concerning a specifically protected right that might be somehow related to 31,000 deaths and zero executive orders concerning a less explicit right that kills 1,000,000 humans per year (both in America).

There is no disconnect. Obama is doing what he can and if he could he would take every gun owned by a private citizen in America. He doesn't care about life, he cares about disarming citizens.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Were it not for The House, Feinstein might get her bill up to Obam's desk. I have no doubt he would sign it. That law will prevent people from owning the weapon of their choice even if it is a less powerful rifle than grandaddy uses to kill Bambi's mama.

He's doing what he can, and would do much more given the chance.

I'm no gun nut and don't own anything larger than a .177 pump-action pneumatic, but if I had a spare $10000, I would buy four firearms - an AR15, a 1911 .45, a civilian-model AK47 and a Mini14. I have no interest in other weapons and would only collect them because of their military associations.

hedshrinker 1 year, 11 months ago

listen to the NPR reports fr Tues Morning Edition on the Nixon /Republican strategy to use abortion as a wedge issue to recapture Northern Catholic voters who had traditionally voted Democratic and listen to Tues Fresh Air interview with a Texas woman who used her own abortion experience in Texas to push her to do some shocking research on the deteriorating state of women's health services in Texas: tens of thousands of new births to families ill-equipped to provide care for them b/c women have no access to CONTRACEPTION...a public health and human disaster in the making.

tomatogrower 1 year, 11 months ago

Let's make a deal. We won't legislate your guns, if you don't legislate our bodies.

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

I am friends with a woman who is a director for a pro-choice group that provides clinic escorts to patients of a women's clinic in Alabama. It's the only clinic left in the state that does terminations. There were two others but they were legislated out of existence just as Sam Brownback is attempting to do in Kansas.
Two weeks ago, she told me a story that broke my heart.
A woman whose fetus had died in utero was coming to the clinic for a procedure to remove it. She was accompanied by her husband. Both of them were emotionally frayed and totally unprepared for the mob of anti-abortionists that greeted them at the clinic. They were yelled at, called names, but most horrifying of all was a choir of small children. They were singing, "Happy Birthday Dead Baby". Children. Who had no control over being there or what they sang.
The couple had two escorts; a woman escort for the woman and male escort to be with the man and give him support. The escort with the husband had to physically restrain him, he was so angry.
Will someone tell me how this is so different from what Westboro Baptist does? Because, frankly, I'm not feeling it.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"Will someone tell me how this is so different from what Westboro Baptist does? Because, frankly, I'm not feeling it."

There is no difference. Both are protected speech. The speakers are restricted by zoning laws. While I'm not a fan of such restrictions being used to undermine The Constitution, I won't argue against them even though I should.

Richard Heckler 1 year, 11 months ago

Abortion numbers have dropped considerably over the past few decades which is always left out of the rhetoric. Even since 1990 abortions numbers have dropped 25%. Who knows how many millions upon millions of abortions have been prevented as a result of birth control options http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control-4211.htm

41% of children are born to single moms which is one more indication abortion numbers are certainly on the decline.

These same voices campaign against birth control. What's up with that? Birth control is a plus for their cause yet constantly campaign against such practical measures.

What is their campaign against? Are these voices against having sex?

Are these voices living in fear that the white population is becoming the minority group?

These voices slam Planned Parenthood which provides information and services that which prevent pregnancies which is a plus for their nasty campaigns.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control-4211.htm

Richard Heckler 1 year, 11 months ago

Do young daughters of these anti common sense anti practical approach thinkers get pregnant?

Absolutely.

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

Of COURSE they do! And they secretly take them to get abortions. Because, you know, it's "different" for them. Kind of like Karen Santorum's "medically induced miscarriage". /eyeroll

Enlightenment 1 year, 11 months ago

A few points I need to interject. To begin, organized religion is against abortions because they need to keep as many members in their congregation in order to maintain the cult's existence. A women associated with the cult that is with child that otherwise would opt for termination for whatever her reason (i.e. too young, unprepared, rape, incest, abusive spouse, etc.) is trapped and dependent on the support she allegedly receives from her religion. As a result of bringing this child into the world, the issues the mother is dealing with at the time of pregnancy continue. As such, the women is unable to better herself because she needs to care and raise a child and her struggle continues. As a result, the child risks being raised by a parent/parents that may be resentful, abusive, and/or neglectful. I have spoken to adults that have been born prior to Roe v Wade, whose mothers were honest and indicated that they would have opted for an abortion if it was a legal option at the time. These victims, now adults, have indicated that they wished their mothers would have just had an abortion because their childhood was so miserable being raised by a parent that did not want them. I know the anti-abortionist do not acknowledge the damage done to the children that are delivered to parents that do not want them and did not choose termination because of the legality, social stigma, or religious beliefs.

Similar to religion, the GOP is using the anti-abortion stance to build political support for their party. The GOP really does not care about the issue, it is only a way to garner more party support by manipulating the Christians into believing they care. The hypocrisy is rampant in the GOP and religious organizations when it comes to civil rights, equality between men and women, and generally anyone that needs assistance (without strings attached).

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

A lot of religious people and religious institutions recognize that abortion is sometimes the best option, Enlightenment, and they support women's right to choose. There is hardly a conspiracy on the part of "organized religion" to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term in order to keep them "trapped and dependent." This kind of paranoid argument does not help the cause of women's reproductive rights, Enlightenment.

Enlightenment 1 year, 11 months ago

Please provide proof of religious institutions that acknowledge that an abortion is the best option and I will not lump all religions together in my assessment.

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

I actually agree with Voe on this. i know a large number of people in the "Christian left" who totally disagree with the religious right and fully support the right to choice. In fact, I would say the hysterical, anti-abortion, "Christianist" right is, in reality, in the minority. It's just that they're far bigger loud mouths.
That's not to say that there aren't cults among the religious right that act as you suggest, Enlightenment. Just that they are actually a minority.

Enlightenment 1 year, 11 months ago

cait and voe, I agree that there are Christians on the left that believe abortion may be the best option in some situations, but I am referring to the religious sects and not an individual. The teachings, belief, and rules governing the various religious sects would never acknowledge that termination is an option.

cait, I also agree with you that the anti-choice Christian right is the minority (as proven by recent surveys indicating the majority support pro-choice) and they are just more vocal, which is why I have expressed my opinion here.

Enlightenment 1 year, 11 months ago

Maybe this will help people understand my point.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/23/1181447/-A-fetus-is-not-a-person-if-it-costs-us-money-says-Catholic-Church

The Catholic Church is arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

Richard Heckler 1 year, 11 months ago

There is no pro abortion crowd and never has been. That misinformation has been coming from the so called pro life crowd that fights birth control no matter that it prevents abortions by the millions.

I've never met a person pushing abortion.

Lisa Medsker 1 year, 11 months ago

Nor have I! But we've all met those who rabidly "push" a forced birth, or rabidly deny access to safe birth control. That is CERTAINLY not "Pro-Life", like they claim!

purplesage 1 year, 11 months ago

Nothing much more terroristic than assaulting a helpless, defenseless human being in a mother's womb and snuffing out life before it really has a chance.

Enlightenment 1 year, 11 months ago

On the issue of abortion: "the Church has called upon its faithful followers to march, to starve themselves, to go to jail, to even take up arms—all to protect those fetuses. No exceptions. None. Not if the fetus is already dead inside the womb. Not if the fetus is going to kill the actual living woman carrying it. No goddamned exceptions EVER."

But now in a lawsuit, the Catholic church is arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/23/1181447/-A-fetus-is-not-a-person-if-it-costs-us-money-says-Catholic-Church

msezdsit 1 year, 11 months ago

cheers to another 40 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

The next time someone posts the "pro-life" video showing fetal development, hit them back with this. Unlike a lot of the cheesy, CGI effected videos the anti-abortion crowd likes to push, this is a well supported documentary that was nominated for an Academy Award.

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

And how many more were lost before it? Roe V. Wade wasn't the beginning of abortion in America, "wristtwister". It's always been with us and always will be. It was, however, the end of women dying from it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.