Skip to Navigation | Skip to Content


In 1973, after Roe v. Wade, abortion became legal but had to be performed in a hospital. That of course was changed later. For the first ‘legal abortion day’ I had scheduled five procedures. While scrubbing between cases, I was accosted by the Chief of the OB/Gyn service. He asked me, ‘How many children are you going to kill today?’ My response, out of anger, was a familiar vulgar retort. About three months later, this born-again Christian called me to explain that he was against abortion but his daughter was only a junior in high school and was too young to have a baby and he was also afraid that if she did have a baby she would not want to put it up for adoption. I told him he did not need to explain the situation to me. ‘All I need to know’, I said, ‘is that SHE wants an abortion.’ Two years later I performed a second abortion on her during her college break. She thanked me and pleaded, ‘Please don’t tell my dad, he is still anti-abortion.’
We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Many of them are not malicious. They just haven’t given it the proper amount of thought until it completely affects them. They can be judgmental about their friends, family, and other women. Then suddenly they become pregnant. Suddenly they see the truth. That it should only be their own choice. Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does.

A physician at an abortion clinic (via fuckititsfriday)

This is from The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. If you haven’t read it already, READ IT RIGHT NOW.


(via stfuconservatives)

(via seriouslyamerica)

The Men Behind The War On Women


The Conference of Catholic Bishops is not technically a lobbying organization — churches are tax-exempt, and they don’t have to disclose publicly how much money they put toward lobbying. According to the IRS, a 501(c)(3) organization like the Conference can speak out on moral issues as much as it wants, but “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.” […]

[However,] the bishops were not only influential in swaying votes during health care reform debate; [Richard] Doerflinger said they actually helped Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) write the controversial anti-abortion amendment, which the House approved by a vote of 290 to 194.

“Those bishops were literally sitting in Bart Stupak’s office and, from what we could tell, instructing him all about the laws he should be supporting, and the text of the laws, and the strategy of getting them through,” said Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women. “It was absolutely appalling.”

The National Organization for Women has called for the bishops conference to lose its tax-exempt status over its lobbying activities[…]

“The bishops are entirely out of sync with the people they purport to represent,” said Donna Crane, NARAL’s policy director. “All the polling and public opinion research is very clear: Catholics are majority pro-choice. They hold that belief, they use the services and they just aren’t in agreement with the hierarchy on these issues.” […]

O’Neill finds it troubling that a group of men that has historically denied women the opportunity to participate in leadership positions is exercising so much power over such a broad range of women’s reproductive health legislation.

“Clearly there’s a problem when men take such an interest in the sexual function of women,” she said. “There’s something deeply off about it.”

As always, it is important to recognize that women are not the only ones who can get pregnant, and that in many ways, those who do not identify as women, yet can get pregnant, are in even more danger from the Conference and their political allies.

(via seriouslyamerica)

Audience of One: Would You Consider Abortion in These Four Situations?



Please read the whole article, It is worth your 2 minutes.

1. There is a preacher and wife who are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she is pregnant with her 15th. They are living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population,…

Think of all the potential talent that has been lost because not every sperm cell or egg is turned into a baby. 

Invalid argument is invalid.

(via abokononist-deactivated20120714)

Christ Community receives $400,000 for family planning services, Planned Parenthood loses contract for first time in 35 years


Finally breaking a deadlock, the Shelby County (Tennessee) Commissioners voted to award Christ Community Health Services a $400,000 contract for family planning services for the poor.  This is the first time in 35 years that Planned Parenthood did not receive the funding.

Christ Community Health Services, whose mission is “to provide quality services in the name of Jesus Christ,” will not perform abortions or offer emergency contraceptives.

In its application for the $400,000, Christ Community said that it would administer emergency contraceptives, but now says it won’t because of its beliefs.  Instead, it will contract that service to a third party.

Planned Parenthood supporters said that they should not be subjected to sermons in order to get help.

“I have the right to health care that is non-religious and non-judgmental,” argued Abby Schoef.

“What is it going to do to the people who aren’t Christian?” asked  an unidentified woman.  “I’m sorry to inform you that not all of us are Christians and not all of us believe.”

(via liberal-life-deactivated2011110)

North Carolina Pro-Life License Plates Challenged



The ACLU sued North Carolina for approving a “Choose Life” specialty license plate but “expressly and repeatedly” rejecting a pro-choice plate. The ACLU sued on behalf of four state residents after lawmakers rejected six proposals for plates bearing words such as “Respect Choice” or “Trust Women; Respect Choice.”

Link to article in title. 

Good. That shit is blatantly unfair and unconstitutional.

(Source:, via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

A dialog that's been running through my head

In a dispute between a landlord and a tenant, which side do you think the law should favor?
The landlord, of course.
And in a dispute between a homeowner and a houseguest, which side do you think the law should favor?
The homeowner, of course.
And how about a dispute between a homeowner and an uninvited houseguest?
Or between a homeowner and a squatter who's up and moved into the guest room?
Don't be silly, the homeowner.
Now how about if the squatter refuses to leave, does the homeowner have the right to evict that squatter, using force if necessary?
If it's your house you have the right to say who stays on your property.
How about if the homeowner threw a party and carelessly left out a spare set of housekeys, and one of the guests took those keys and moved in? Would that guest have the right to stay as long as they wanted?
Of course not.
But what if kicking out the squatter/guest would harm them, or even kill them? What if the house is in the middle of nowhere and there was a giant blizzard and being kicked out would be equivalent to a death sentence? Would the homeowner's rights still apply?
If the homeowner is a decent person, they might let the squatter stay until the storm passes.
But should the government mandate that they have to let them stay?
No. That would make property rights meaningless.
And what if the squatter was pounding on the walls at all hours of the night, and messing up the plumbing, and building something in the guest room that meant that when they finally leave they're going to bang up the doors on the way out or maybe even have to cut a hole in the wall? Should the government have the right to force the homeowner to let that squatter stay as long as they need to?
Does it make any difference if the homeowner is a man or a woman?
Of course not. Everyone has property rights.
What if the house is a body and the guest room is a uterus? Does that owner still have the right to decide whether or not to allow an uninvited guest/squatter to stay? Or does the government have more right to our bodies than our houses?
(I have to admit, it took me up until the "messing up the plumbing" bit to grasp the metaphor. My bad. It's a good analogy, though. Although I think the bit about men and women is kind of irrelevant since women aren't the only people who can get pregnant.)
[T]he Republican Party has lost its way. A lot of people came back to me in my last [GOP] debate post saying “You liberals would cheer if you heard a bunch of babies had been aborted!” but this is just nonsense. Most liberals do want safe, legal abortions to continue unimpeded, but the goal of the pro-choice movement isn’t to abort as many babies as possible. It’s just to keep that procedure accessible and safe. I think most liberals would be absolutely thrilled if contraception and sex education led to a huge decline in abortions, and would cheer that in a heartbeat. I also think liberals might very well cheer expansion of access to women’s health clinics where abortions are performed. I would be very surprised to hear the same sort of hooting and hollering over a similarly phrased question in regards to abortion.
E.D. Kain, on the phenomenon of a GOP debate audience member cheering the thought of letting someone die who can’t afford health insurance. (via letterstomycountry)

(via liberal-life-deactivated2011110)