Working Moms

How do you feel about what's going on with Texas?

For those living under a rock ;-)

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AtdBQsY8UHPDPjkiu2hXpHebvZx4?fr=yfp-t-787-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=texas%20abortion%20law

Summary: Republicans now have a second special legislative session devoted almost exclusively to passing a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks and impose regulations that would shutter all but six abortion clinics in the state, giving them plenty of time to overcome Democratic objections to the bill.

But they can also count on Democrats to make those days as painful for them as possible.

After Democratic State Sen. Wendy Davis successfully stopped the bill in last week's legislative session with an 11-hour filibuster, Democrats and their pro-choice allies now have a captive national audience watching the activities of the state legislature very carefully, increasing the political risk for Republicans who have been labeled by Democrats as anti-woman.

Baby Birthday Ticker TickerBaby Birthday Ticker Ticker
«1

Re: How do you feel about what's going on with Texas?

  • I know this is going to get heated, so let's try and keep it clean, and try not to get nasty. 

    Rep. make it sound like they are trying to help women by putting more regulations in place on these clinics, but in reality, the massive costs to get them up to these ridiculou standards are going to shut them down. I also think taking away a womens choice completely after 20 weeks is seriously wrong. How many of us received our first ultrasounds at 20 weeks due to insurance coverage??

    I am having a seriously tough time identifying with either political party these days. Both suck!

    Baby Birthday Ticker TickerBaby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • I feel livid, actually. This is a transparent attempt by lawmakers to circumvent the law. Even in arguments, one of the lawmakers slipped and said this was about restricting abortion, not women's safety. This particular law has made headlines, but Mississippi has already passed a similar law and is defending it in court (http://www.npr.org/2013/05/03/180755052/miss-law-could-force-womens-clinic-to-close) and several other states have passed/are working on similar legislation.I have no doubt it will be tossed out in federal court, but how long will that take?
    Lilypie Third Birthday tickers Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
  • Studies show that when families are able to plan the number and timing of their children, those families are far more economically secure than families who aren't able to. This bill paired with Texas defunding Planned Parenthood and other low-cost contraceptive clinics just increases the risk to families as a whole and decreases their abilities to plan their family size and timing. Ultimately, these measures disenfranchise the poor the most as wealthier people can always pay for contraception out of pocket or fly out of state for an abortion.

    I wish the Democrats luck and hope they succeed in keeping this bill from being passed. I know chances are slim, but a girl can dream. 

  • I think what bothers me most is that those supporting the bill act and talk like women getting post 20week abortions are just a bunch of procrastinators using it as birth control. when really it's a very small percentage of abortions and pretty much restricted to saving the life of the mother or because of abnormalities that show up on the 20w ultrasound which are not compatible with life.

    I know two women who had the procedure. Both very much wanted those babies. one had a defect that meant he would not survive more than a couple hours outside the womb. The other died at 21 weeks but mom's body didn't naturally get rid of the baby.
  • image PrivacyWanted:
    I think what bothers me most is that those supporting the bill act and talk like women getting post 20week abortions are just a bunch of procrastinators using it as birth control. when really it's a very small percentage of abortions and pretty much restricted to saving the life of the mother or because of abnormalities that show up on the 20w ultrasound which are not compatible with life.

    I know two women who had the procedure. Both very much wanted those babies. one had a defect that meant he would not survive more than a couple hours outside the womb. The other died at 21 weeks but mom's body didn't naturally get rid of the baby.


    Yes! This is exactly how I feel too.

    And I agree Library, I am livid as well, which is why I posted this bc I can't move past how ridiculous this is. It's 2013! Why is this still an issue???
    Baby Birthday Ticker TickerBaby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • Having an abortion is already much safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. I wish they'd focus more of their so-called "safety" efforts on expanding access to prenatal care and pushing for evidence-based maternity care.

    Or if they really wanted to reduce abortions, they could focus on getting more people access to family planning services/contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

    Or if they actually cared about children, then could focus on providing services to all of these babies that they think are so important to be born, but they cut off from social services as soon as they are out of the womb. Cheap child-care and job training for moms in poverty would be a good start.

     

    As a side note, I think Gov Perry is a complete asshat for telling Wendy Davis that because she was a teen mom and made a great life for herself, that everyone should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. He totally doesn't get that she had a choice, make a choice, and now wants other women to have that choice too.

    image image image
    DS, May 2011
    DD, April 2014

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • image PrivacyWanted:
    I think what bothers me most is that those supporting the bill act and talk like women getting post 20week abortions are just a bunch of procrastinators using it as birth control. when really it's a very small percentage of abortions and pretty much restricted to saving the life of the mother or because of abnormalities that show up on the 20w ultrasound which are not compatible with life. I know two women who had the procedure. Both very much wanted those babies. one had a defect that meant he would not survive more than a couple hours outside the womb. The other died at 21 weeks but mom's body didn't naturally get rid of the baby.

    ITA.

    It's not as though people are waiting 6m to have an abortion if they aren't interested in continuing the pregnancy. These later abortions are typically heart-wrenching situations and the decision isn't made lightly.

    At the end of the day, we are talking about outlawing a medical procedure that should remain a decision between a person and her Dr. Furthermore, study after study has shown that outlawing abortion does not change the rates. It only makes it less safe for the woman needing/wanting the procedure. Do we really want women to end up attempting at-home abortions or going to back alley 'clinics'?

    And really, aren't there more pressing issues in Texas, and elsewhere, that lawmakers should be focused on?



    imageimage
  • Glad we're keeping it civil so far. I'll be the minority voice here. I think you don't fully understand the other side's position - it's not about trying to sneak in some anti-woman legislation while the rest of the country is distracted by the sequester. In fact, I'm sure the proponents of the bill welcome the national scrutiny. 

    Abortion sounds liberating when you don't directly talk about it and I'm sorry that the following is gruesome, but I think people forget what we're talking about here and it's really easy to be for something when you speak about it only in the abstract. None of the filibuster testimony, or any of the above comments, go through how liberating it is to induce labor at 20 weeks, have the baby's/fetus' neck snapped with a hook, pulled out and discarded in a hazmat bag.  Or how liberating is it to ingest drugs that stop the baby/fetus's heart from beating and then to deliver alone at home and flush the remains down the toilet.

    I don't think anyone who values women, or any human being, truly believes that's liberating. And to get to your original question of how I feel about the debate in Texas, I'm relieved that more and more Americans are realizing the promise of abortion is a fraud and that we're now seeing more conversations about what the real solution might be. 

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

    BabyFruit Ticker
  • I find it hypocritical that republicans think that gun control is restricting freedom, but putting limitations on a woman's right to chose isn't.  But, I digress....

    As for the current debate, I don't know the details of the bill (is it all abortions past 20 weeks, or would they still allow for cases where it is medically necessary?), but in general, I don't object to placing restrictions on elective later term abortions, but they cannot restrict when the life of the mother or if the baby has a terminal diagnosis.  However, shutting all but 6 abortion clinics is a major step backwards.  Texas is over 250,000 square miles.  Not everyone is going to have the means to get to an abortion clinic, which means we'll be back to an era like the 1960s, where woman were risking their lives in back alley or unsanctioned clinics. How does that help women's health?

    I heard somewhere that this bill was in response to the horrible situation with the abortion doctor in Philly.  While I agree the PA doctor was horrendous, there is a huge difference between regulation and controlling the procedures and what Texas is trying to do.

    image
    laying down the law on Oahu's North Shore

    Pregnancy Ticker
  • image cecilyandgautam:

    Glad we're keeping it civil so far. I'll be the minority voice here. I think you don't fully understand the other side's position - it's not about trying to sneak in some anti-woman legislation while the rest of the country is distracted by the sequester. In fact, I'm sure the proponents of the bill welcome the national scrutiny. 

    Abortion sounds liberating when you don't directly talk about it and I'm sorry that the following is gruesome, but I think people forget what we're talking about here and it's really easy to be for something when you speak about it only in the abstract. None of the filibuster testimony, or any of the above comments, go through how liberating it is to induce labor at 20 weeks, have the baby's/fetus' neck snapped with a hook, pulled out and discarded in a hazmat bag.  Or how liberating is it to ingest drugs that stop the baby/fetus's heart from beating and then to deliver alone at home and flush the remains down the toilet.

    I don't think anyone who values women, or any human being, truly believes that's liberating. And to get to your original question of how I feel about the debate in Texas, I'm relieved that more and more Americans are realizing the promise of abortion is a fraud and that we're now seeing more conversations about what the real solution might be. 

    I appreciate your speaking up about the anti-choice side. I think we can all agree that it would be great to live in a world where there are as few abortions as possible, ideally none. But we don't live in that world. I would respect the anti-choice side more if they were focused on pregnancy prevention (which they are not) and given support to women who do carry unplanned pregnancies to term (they do not).

    But even if they did support women and try to reduce abortion in these ways, what would you do in a situation where it's discovered at a 20 week ultrasound that the baby has some horrible defect and will not surivive outside the womb? Should our laws force that women to subject herself to the risks of continuing the pregnancy and undergo the physical and emotional trauma of delivery? What if the women who already has 2 young children discovers that she has cancer at 20 wks and can either terminate and receive treatment or defer treatment until 40 wks, potentially causing her death and leaving behind the new baby and her other children? Shouldn't that be her choice in consultation with her spouse and doctors, not some lawmakers?

    Is abortion pretty? Hell no. Is it a fraud, as you suggest? Hell not to that too. It is a personal decision, a real necessity to some people in some situations, and can be a life safer.

    image image image
    DS, May 2011
    DD, April 2014

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • image pdilly2b:
    image cecilyandgautam:

    Glad we're keeping it civil so far. I'll be the minority voice here. I think you don't fully understand the other side's position - it's not about trying to sneak in some anti-woman legislation while the rest of the country is distracted by the sequester. In fact, I'm sure the proponents of the bill welcome the national scrutiny. 

    Abortion sounds liberating when you don't directly talk about it and I'm sorry that the following is gruesome, but I think people forget what we're talking about here and it's really easy to be for something when you speak about it only in the abstract. None of the filibuster testimony, or any of the above comments, go through how liberating it is to induce labor at 20 weeks, have the baby's/fetus' neck snapped with a hook, pulled out and discarded in a hazmat bag.  Or how liberating is it to ingest drugs that stop the baby/fetus's heart from beating and then to deliver alone at home and flush the remains down the toilet.

    I don't think anyone who values women, or any human being, truly believes that's liberating. And to get to your original question of how I feel about the debate in Texas, I'm relieved that more and more Americans are realizing the promise of abortion is a fraud and that we're now seeing more conversations about what the real solution might be. 

    I appreciate your speaking up about the anti-choice side. I think we can all agree that it would be great to live in a world where there are as few abortions as possible, ideally none. But we don't live in that world. I would respect the anti-choice side more if they were focused on pregnancy prevention (which they are not) and given support to women who do carry unplanned pregnancies to term (they do not).

    But even if they did support women and try to reduce abortion in these ways, what would you do in a situation where it's discovered at a 20 week ultrasound that the baby has some horrible defect and will not surivive outside the womb? Should our laws force that women to subject herself to the risks of continuing the pregnancy and undergo the physical and emotional trauma of delivery? What if the women who already has 2 young children discovers that she has cancer at 20 wks and can either terminate and receive treatment or defer treatment until 40 wks, potentially causing her death and leaving behind the new baby and her other children? Shouldn't that be her choice in consultation with her spouse and doctors, not some lawmakers?

    Is abortion pretty? Hell no. Is it a fraud, as you suggest? Hell not to that too. It is a personal decision, a real necessity to some people in some situations, and can be a life safer.

    The only pro-life social service organization that I'm aware of, the Rachel Project, is entirely dedicated to helping women in "crisis pregnancies" who carry to term - they coordinate temporary housing, prenatal care, provide baby care supplies, help women apply for public programs, and provide counseling. I know that doesn't make headlines, so that's probably why you haven't heard of it, but they exist and they do good work, IMO. Just thought you should know that's out there in the world.

    For the cancer patient who won't survive the pregnancy because she needs chemo now, or for the baby who is certain to be a stillbirth - obviously those are special cases but should the law be based upon the 1% of special cases? Or should the law address the reality of 99% of the cases and allow exceptions for special cases? Something is seriously amiss when a third of poor families' babies are discarded. 

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

    BabyFruit Ticker
  • image pdilly2b:

    Having an abortion is already much safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. I wish they'd focus more of their so-called "safety" efforts on expanding access to prenatal care and pushing for evidence-based maternity care.

    Or if they really wanted to reduce abortions, they could focus on getting more people access to family planning services/contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

    Or if they actually cared about children, then could focus on providing services to all of these babies that they think are so important to be born, but they cut off from social services as soon as they are out of the womb. Cheap child-care and job training for moms in poverty would be a good start.

    As a side note, I think Gov Perry is a complete asshat for telling Wendy Davis that because she was a teen mom and made a great life for herself, that everyone should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. He totally doesn't get that she had a choice, make a choice, and now wants other women to have that choice too.

    I was at the capitol yesterday and very much agree with this. I don't think this bill is really about the safety of women. We don't require live births to meet this level of scrutiny and we don't require vasectomies to either. No, I don't think the realities of abortion are liberating but I do think they're sometimes necessary and should be a women's decision to make.
  • Also yesterday I met my closest friend to protest this bill and I was surprised to hear that her MIL had agreed to babysit so she could attend.  Her MIL is very conservative.  Turns out her MIL called her up yesterday morning and said that 35 years ago she was raped and had an abortion. No one in her family knew about this.  She wanted her DIL to be able to attend the protest b/c she wants to keep these options available. 

  • As a very strongly ProLife Catholic, I support the Republicans in Texas who are trying to limit abortions.  I don't know all the details of this bill, so I apologize for my ignorance. I'm guessing that they are using the argument of "safety for women" when the real intention is to limit abortions as much as possible.  Until the day comes when we as a nation recognize that life begins at conception and stand up for the right to life of these innocent babies, the ProLife movement will fight as many smaller battles as it can to limit abortions.  It is perfectly within States Rights to place restrictions on abortions.
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic


    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • The bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing for sure.  I disgree that it is within state's rights to limit this choice in this way; we don't "realize" when life begins because there is scientific discord on this topic.  Therefore, those that support the bill really are asking that the government legislate morality, but are saying it is about "safety".  Which is a scary, scary thing when you are not a conservative and are raising girls in Texas.  For those not in Texas, I could start driving west from East Texas and not get out of this state in one work day.  Shutting down all of these clinics (but 6 or so) will effectively send women back to the days of coat hangers, as access to an actual, safe abortion will be destroyed.  That is the purpose of the bill, frightening.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • AgoAgo
    Seventh Anniversary 250 Love Its 500 Comments Name Dropper
    member
    image pdilly2b:

    Having an abortion is already much safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. I wish they'd focus more of their so-called "safety" efforts on expanding access to prenatal care and pushing for evidence-based maternity care.

    Or if they really wanted to reduce abortions, they could focus on getting more people access to family planning services/contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

    Or if they actually cared about children, then could focus on providing services to all of these babies that they think are so important to be born, but they cut off from social services as soon as they are out of the womb. Cheap child-care and job training for moms in poverty would be a good start.

    As a side note, I think Gov Perry is a complete asshat for telling Wendy Davis that because she was a teen mom and made a great life for herself, that everyone should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. He totally doesn't get that she had a choice, make a choice, and now wants other women to have that choice too.

    Yes! If you truly value life, then provide services to children and their mothers that make it possible for them to succeed! Medical care, childcare, paid maternity leave...until then, don't tell me that politicians care about the babies, they don't give a $hi+ after they are born.

    image

    November Siggy Challenge: Thanksgiving Fails

  • Add me to livid camp for the reasons everyone else has already articulated.

    The antichoice side is basically trying to twist a religious argument and say it's about women's safety. The problem is that abortion is safe. It is sometimes medically necessary. It can even improve lives, as much as conservatives refuse to acknowledge that. Every scientific argument they have tried to make linking abortion to depression, breast cancer, and so on has been debunked. This has nothing to do with women's health. It's about trying to legislate religion, plain and simple.
    image
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • image jf198400:
    As a very strongly ProLife Catholic, I support the Republicans in Texas who are trying to limit abortions.nbsp; I don't know all the details of this bill, so I apologize for my ignorance. I'm guessing that they are using the argument of "safety for women" when the real intention is to limit abortions as much as possible.nbsp; Until the day comes whennbsp;we as a nation recognize that life begins at conception and stand up for the right to life of these innocent babies, the ProLife movement will fight as many smaller battles as it can to limit abortions.nbsp; It is perfectly within States Rights to place restrictions on abortions.


    As a very strongly prokosher Jew, I strongly support legislation that would restrict the sale of shellfish and pork products except in special stores that have to meet additional food safety requirements. It's been shown that improperly handled pork and shellfish can cause food borne illness. Until our nation recognizes that a kosher diet is nutritionally superior to a non kosher one, the prokosher side will fight as many smaller battles as it can to limit non kosher food. States have a right to adopt food safety standards.
    image
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • image jf198400:
    As a very strongly ProLife Catholic, I support the Republicans in Texas who are trying to limit abortions.  I don't know all the details of this bill, so I apologize for my ignorance. I'm guessing that they are using the argument of "safety for women" when the real intention is to limit abortions as much as possible.  Until the day comes when we as a nation recognize that life begins at conception and stand up for the right to life of these innocent babies, the ProLife movement will fight as many smaller battles as it can to limit abortions.  It is perfectly within States Rights to place restrictions on abortions.

    As a fully realized person, my right to bodily integrity should always trump a potential life. To outlaw abortion is to force a woman to carry a pregnancy, and I cannot support that for any pregnancy, but especially if it's a pregnancy that may kill her, may not end in a live baby, and may destroy her financially, emotionally, and/or physically. That is anti-woman.

    The pro-life movement conveniently overlooks the fact that outlawing/limiting abortion has no effect on abortion rates. If they were truly pro-life, the republican party and other pro-life supporters wouldn't be slashing funding to programs like SNAP, and would be increasing family planning and contraceptive education to prevent unintended pregnancies. I can't take this viewpoint seriously when the talking points include things like fetuses seemingly masturbating in utero as proof that they can feel. Pseudo-science has no place in legislating women's rights.

    Being in support of equal choice to do with my body what is best for me and my family trumps your religious beliefs about when life begins.


    imageimage
  • image cecilyandgautam:
    image pdilly2b:
    image cecilyandgautam:

    The only pro-life social service organization that I'm aware of, the Rachel Project, is entirely dedicated to helping women in "crisis pregnancies" who carry to term - they coordinate temporary housing, prenatal care, provide baby care supplies, help women apply for public programs, and provide counseling. I know that doesn't make headlines, so that's probably why you haven't heard of it, but they exist and they do good work, IMO. Just thought you should know that's out there in the world.

    For the cancer patient who won't survive the pregnancy because she needs chemo now, or for the baby who is certain to be a stillbirth - obviously those are special cases but should the law be based upon the 1% of special cases? Or should the law address the reality of 99% of the cases and allow exceptions for special cases? Something is seriously amiss when a third of poor families' babies are discarded. 

    Just because there are some non-profits doing good work, does not mean that the government should dismantle women's rights. I am all for women "choosing life", but that it that individual woman's choice to make for herself, not my choice to make for her or some lawmaker's choice to make for her. 

    And ABSOLUTELY, 100% WE NEED TO LEGISLATE BASED ON THE SPECIAL CASES! (caps for emphasis) This is what a large part of American law is based on. That's what we have "innocent until proven guilty" and all of our other criminal legal protections - we would rather have 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person convicted. That is what our legal system is about - protecting the rights of the minority, legal equality, and ensuring due process.

    For this individual abortion bill, if you effectively close almost all abortion clinics, then no one - not even the chemo patient, or stillborn baby mama, or rape victim - no one can get abortions. These are especially the people we need to protect, and we do this by ensuring the right for all women.

    Just because you may choose to keep a pregnancy in these situations does not mean you should be able to make that decision for the rest of us.

    I am not sure where you statistic about 1/3 is from, but even accepting that at face value, I'd still argue that we need to get at the root of the problem, which is poverty and lack of ability to plan the timing of children.

    image image image
    DS, May 2011
    DD, April 2014

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • image Booger+Bear:

    image jf198400:
    As a very strongly ProLife Catholic, I support the Republicans in Texas who are trying to limit abortions.  I don't know all the details of this bill, so I apologize for my ignorance. I'm guessing that they are using the argument of "safety for women" when the real intention is to limit abortions as much as possible.  Until the day comes when we as a nation recognize that life begins at conception and stand up for the right to life of these innocent babies, the ProLife movement will fight as many smaller battles as it can to limit abortions.  It is perfectly within States Rights to place restrictions on abortions.

    As a fully realized person, my right to bodily integrity should
    always trump a potential life. To outlaw abortion is to force a
    woman to carry a pregnancy, and I cannot support that for any pregnancy, but especially if it's a pregnancy that may kill her, may not end in a live baby, and may destroy her financially, emotionally, and/or
    physically. That is anti-woman.

    The pro-life movement conveniently overlooks the fact that outlawing/limiting abortion has no effect on abortion rates. If they were truly pro-life, the republican party and other pro-life supporters wouldn't be slashing funding to programs like SNAP, and would be increasing family planning and contraceptive education to prevent unintended pregnancies. I can't take this viewpoint seriously when the talking points include things like fetuses seemingly masturbating in utero as proof that they can feel. Pseudo-science has no place in legislating women's rights.

    Being in support of equal choice to do with my body what is best for me and my family trumps your religious beliefs about when life begins.


    Wonderfully put, booger bear.
    Lilypie Third Birthday tickers Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
  • image wife07mom09:

    image jf198400:
    As a very strongly ProLife Catholic, I support the Republicans in Texas who are trying to limit abortions.  I don't know all the details of this bill, so I apologize for my ignorance. I'm guessing that they are using the argument of "safety for women" when the real intention is to limit abortions as much as possible.  Until the day comes when we as a nation recognize that life begins at conception and stand up for the right to life of these innocent babies, the ProLife movement will fight as many smaller battles as it can to limit abortions.  It is perfectly within States Rights to place restrictions on abortions.

     

    a summary of the bill:

     

    THE BILL

    The proposed bill includes four restrictions on when, where and how a woman may obtain an abortion. The first provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. Another bans abortions after 20 weeks unless the health of the woman is in immediate danger. If a woman wants to induce an abortion by taking a pill, the state will require her to take the pills in the presence of a doctor at a certified abortion facility. Lastly, all abortions must take place in an ambulatory surgical center.

     

    This IS actually placing women's lives in better hands and protecting her health.  However someone needs to look after the baby's health be it 4 weeks gestation or 24.  Personally this is not a great law because it still allows for elective abortions just supervises them. That is a step towards safety. If a womans life is at risk that's reasonable to permit.  What would I do? I pray I never need to make that decision but note that this law is not banning abortions; just after 20 weeks and that is reasonable.

     

    Is there any proof that woman are at risk for any issues under current regulations?

    What benefit is there to the banning after 20weeks? Who decides that mother's life is in immediate danger? 

    Perhaps 20weeks is reasonable to you, but to the mother who has just discovered at 20wks 1day that her baby whom she was so looking forward to having has trisomy 18 and will likely not live to birth, and if so will die within a few excruciatingly painful hours?  Should this bill pass, this woman will have to wait for her baby to die inside her or after labor.  How is this looking out for her safety?  Only 1% of abortions take place after 20wks, and it is extremely rare for them to be elective. So, in banning them, they are truly punishing families who have likely just received devastating news about the health of mother and/or baby. That is anti-woman and I cannot support it.



    imageimage
  • I know I'm in the minority, but I don't believe abortions should be allowed except in the case of the mother's life being endangered.  I know some amazing people that have been born as a result of unwanted pregnancies and I know women that have lost their babies and have had to give birth to a stillborn baby at 20+ weeks.  Their babies were absolutely "babies" at 20 weeks.

     

    ETA:  I absolutely agree that we first need to help prevent unwanted pregnancies with birth control and education.  And, I agree that we need to help support these babies once they are born and make options like adoption better known and supported.

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • image pdilly2b:
    image cecilyandgautam:
    image pdilly2b:
    image cecilyandgautam:

    The only pro-life social service organization that I'm aware of, the Rachel Project, is entirely dedicated to helping women in "crisis pregnancies" who carry to term - they coordinate temporary housing, prenatal care, provide baby care supplies, help women apply for public programs, and provide counseling. I know that doesn't make headlines, so that's probably why you haven't heard of it, but they exist and they do good work, IMO. Just thought you should know that's out there in the world.

    For the cancer patient who won't survive the pregnancy because she needs chemo now, or for the baby who is certain to be a stillbirth - obviously those are special cases but should the law be based upon the 1% of special cases? Or should the law address the reality of 99% of the cases and allow exceptions for special cases? Something is seriously amiss when a third of poor families' babies are discarded. 

    Just because there are some non-profits doing good work, does not mean that the government should dismantle women's rights. I am all for women "choosing life", but that it that individual woman's choice to make for herself, not my choice to make for her or some lawmaker's choice to make for her. 

    And ABSOLUTELY, 100% WE NEED TO LEGISLATE BASED ON THE SPECIAL CASES! (caps for emphasis) This is what a large part of American law is based on. That's what we have "innocent until proven guilty" and all of our other criminal legal protections - we would rather have 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person convicted. That is what our legal system is about - protecting the rights of the minority, legal equality, and ensuring due process.

    For this individual abortion bill, if you effectively close almost all abortion clinics, then no one - not even the chemo patient, or stillborn baby mama, or rape victim - no one can get abortions. These are especially the people we need to protect, and we do this by ensuring the right for all women.

    Just because you may choose to keep a pregnancy in these situations does not mean you should be able to make that decision for the rest of us.

    I am not sure where you statistic about 1/3 is from, but even accepting that at face value, I'd still argue that we need to get at the root of the problem, which is poverty and lack of ability to plan the timing of children.

    I only pointed out the Rachel Project because you said you'd have more respect for the pro-life movement if they cared about women who consider abortion but then carry to term and you seemed unaware of the hard work that goes into caring for those women. Interestingly, abortion clinics don't provide services for the women they have to turn away - here's a read if you're interested in what happens to the women who seek abortions and don't get them: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/magazine/study-women-denied-abortions.html?pagewanted=4&_r=3&smid=fb-share&

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

    BabyFruit Ticker
  • image Booger+Bear:
    image wife07mom09:

    image jf198400:
    As a very strongly ProLife Catholic, I support the Republicans in Texas who are trying to limit abortions.  I don't know all the details of this bill, so I apologize for my ignorance. I'm guessing that they are using the argument of "safety for women" when the real intention is to limit abortions as much as possible.  Until the day comes when we as a nation recognize that life begins at conception and stand up for the right to life of these innocent babies, the ProLife movement will fight as many smaller battles as it can to limit abortions.  It is perfectly within States Rights to place restrictions on abortions.

    a summary of the bill:

    THE BILL

    The proposed bill includes four restrictions on when, where and how a woman may obtain an abortion. The first provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. Another bans abortions after 20 weeks unless the health of the woman is in immediate danger. If a woman wants to induce an abortion by taking a pill, the state will require her to take the pills in the presence of a doctor at a certified abortion facility. Lastly, all abortions must take place in an ambulatory surgical center.

    This IS actually placing women's lives in better hands and protecting her health.  However someone needs to look after the baby's health be it 4 weeks gestation or 24.  Personally this is not a great law because it still allows for elective abortions just supervises them. That is a step towards safety. If a womans life is at risk that's reasonable to permit.  What would I do? I pray I never need to make that decision but note that this law is not banning abortions; just after 20 weeks and that is reasonable.

    Is there any proof that woman are at risk for any issues under current regulations?

    What benefit is there to the banning after 20weeks? Who decides that mother's life is in immediate danger? 

    Perhaps 20weeks is reasonable to you, but to the mother who has just discovered at 20wks 1day that her baby whom she was so looking forward to having has trisomy 18 and will likely not live to birth, and if so will die within a few excruciatingly painful hours?  Should this bill pass, this woman will have to wait for her baby to die inside her or after labor.  How is this looking out for her safety?  Only 1% of abortions take place after 20wks, and it is extremely rare for them to be elective. So, in banning them, they are truly punishing families who have likely just received devastating news about the health of mother and/or baby. That is anti-woman and I cannot support it.

    I agree.  My family and I are the 1%.  6 weeks ago, today actually, I had to terminate my much wanted pregnancy. I was 22 weeks and 2 days.  As I did not have a scan until 19 weeks and  we did not know anything was wrong until then. Our baby's diagnosis was one which would not have put my life in danger, so under this bill, in TX, I would not have had the coice to have an abortion.  So yes, I think even though there is the 1% who have abortions at 20 weeks+- there should not be a bill against it.

    Lilypie Angel and Memorial tickers
    Lilypie Third Birthday tickers
  • The part that really pisses me off is that this bill is being sponsored by someone so uneducated about sexual reproduction and violence against women that she thinks a rape kit prevents pregnancy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/jodie-laubenberg-texas-rape_n_3493220.html

    Amid a heated debate over a restrictive anti-abortion bill being pushed by Texas GOP lawmakers, one Republican argued that a proposed exemption for rape victims was unnecessary because assaulted women could simply turn to rape kits for abortions.

    "In the emergency room they have what?s called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out," said state Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R), sponsor of the controversial SB 5, according to The Associated Press. "The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development."

    As HuffPost blogger Soraya Chemaly notes, that's not the function of rape kits, typically administered to collect evidence of sexual assault. Not even close, PolitiFact Texas reports, giving Laubenberg's remark a "pants on fire" rating.

    Laubenberg's claim came in response to a proposed amendment by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D), which would have added exceptions for victims of rape and incest to the proposed 20-week abortion ban. Laubenberg's bill, passed by state House Republicans on Monday, also would shutter 37 of the state's 42 abortion clinics with new regulations that would require such the facilities to adhere to the standards of surgical centers.

    These are the people who think that they should be able to weigh in on women's health?


    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
  • image stronger509:

    I agree.  My family and I are the 1%.  6 weeks ago, today actually, I had to terminate my much wanted pregnancy. I was 22 weeks and 2 days.  As I did not have a scan until 19 weeks and  we did not know anything was wrong until then. Our baby's diagnosis was one which would not have put my life in danger, so under this bill, in TX, I would not have had the coice to have an abortion.  So yes, I think even though there is the 1% who have abortions at 20 weeks+- there should not be a bill against it.

    I'm so sorry.

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
  • image pdilly2b:

    Having an abortion is already much safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. I wish they'd focus more of their so-called "safety" efforts on expanding access to prenatal care and pushing for evidence-based maternity care.

    Or if they really wanted to reduce abortions, they could focus on getting more people access to family planning services/contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

    Or if they actually cared about children, then could focus on providing services to all of these babies that they think are so important to be born, but they cut off from social services as soon as they are out of the womb. Cheap child-care and job training for moms in poverty would be a good start.

     

    As a side note, I think Gov Perry is a complete asshat for telling Wendy Davis that because she was a teen mom and made a great life for herself, that everyone should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. He totally doesn't get that she had a choice, make a choice, and now wants other women to have that choice too.

    Ditto all of this. There's a difference between pro-life and pro-birth and this is just the latter.

    And yes, we absolutely do legislate for that 1%. You legislate for every citizen, period. This is a choice for 100% of the people, not something that is taking away from 99%. Actually, if you think we shouldn't legislate for the 1% then I would think this bill shouldn't even see the light of day, since only 1% of abortions are done at 20w+, anyway.

    A late term abortion is not something that women take lightly (which is why I also hate the "using it as birth control" notion - please). If you are getting an abortion that late, it's not like you were just hemming and hawing the whole time over whether or  not you wanted the baby. There's likely something wrong with the baby, the mom, or both. It would be physically and emotionally taxing on the mother to have an abortion so it's not something that's just going to be done lightly. 

    I don't even want to get started on how this would shutter all but 6 abortion clinics - that's the "worst" part imo,.

    my food blog

    Zachary (4/2/10) and Ian (3/20/13)

    image
  • I didn't read the bill. I have no problem limiting abortions after a certain time in unwanted pregnancies, ie if the baby can survive out of the womb on their own then don't abort them. But I fully support abortion for medical reasons. There is no reason for a woman to carry a baby to full term if there are medical issues for either of them. I've been in that situation and chose not to terminate, but I was comforted by the fact I had the option. It is my body after all!
  • image stronger509:
    image Booger+Bear:
    image wife07mom09:

    image jf198400:
    As a very strongly ProLife Catholic, I support the Republicans in Texas who are trying to limit abortions.  I don't know all the details of this bill, so I apologize for my ignorance. I'm guessing that they are using the argument of "safety for women" when the real intention is to limit abortions as much as possible.  Until the day comes when we as a nation recognize that life begins at conception and stand up for the right to life of these innocent babies, the ProLife movement will fight as many smaller battles as it can to limit abortions.  It is perfectly within States Rights to place restrictions on abortions.

    a summary of the bill:

    THE BILL

    The proposed bill includes four restrictions on when, where and how a woman may obtain an abortion. The first provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. Another bans abortions after 20 weeks unless the health of the woman is in immediate danger. If a woman wants to induce an abortion by taking a pill, the state will require her to take the pills in the presence of a doctor at a certified abortion facility. Lastly, all abortions must take place in an ambulatory surgical center.

    This IS actually placing women's lives in better hands and protecting her health.  However someone needs to look after the baby's health be it 4 weeks gestation or 24.  Personally this is not a great law because it still allows for elective abortions just supervises them. That is a step towards safety. If a womans life is at risk that's reasonable to permit.  What would I do? I pray I never need to make that decision but note that this law is not banning abortions; just after 20 weeks and that is reasonable.

    Is there any proof that woman are at risk for any issues under current regulations?

    What benefit is there to the banning after 20weeks? Who decides that mother's life is in immediate danger? 

    Perhaps 20weeks is reasonable to you, but to the mother who has just discovered at 20wks 1day that her baby whom she was so looking forward to having has trisomy 18 and will likely not live to birth, and if so will die within a few excruciatingly painful hours?  Should this bill pass, this woman will have to wait for her baby to die inside her or after labor.  How is this looking out for her safety?  Only 1% of abortions take place after 20wks, and it is extremely rare for them to be elective. So, in banning them, they are truly punishing families who have likely just received devastating news about the health of mother and/or baby. That is anti-woman and I cannot support it.

    I agree.  My family and I are the 1%.  6 weeks ago, today actually, I had to terminate my much wanted pregnancy. I was 22 weeks and 2 days.  As I did not have a scan until 19 weeks and  we did not know anything was wrong until then. Our baby's diagnosis was one which would not have put my life in danger, so under this bill, in TX, I would not have had the coice to have an abortion.  So yes, I think even though there is the 1% who have abortions at 20 weeks+- there should not be a bill against it.

    Very sorry to hear that.  My thoughts are with you and your family. 

«1
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards