-
September 22, 2007 8:15 AM
Have they forgotten that Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land?
Last week, I blogged about the need to support the new Planned Parenthood clinic in my home town - Aurora, IL. We were worried that anti-abortion zealots would do something to keep it from opening. Low and behold, they did. They are claiming that Planned Parenthood misled the city in the permitting process by filing under their subsidiary, Gemini. Planned Parenthood says they had to do that to ensure the safety of their contractors. Long story short, they've ended up in federal court.
My sister Nancy who lives near Washington, DC called me in what could only be described as a tizzy after hearing a story about the issue on public radio.
It was so embarrassing to be listening to a national news broadcast about Aurora, Illinois blocking a Planned Parenthood clinic like the people from Aurora are a bunch of Neanderthals.
She and I have had lots of talks about why this clinic is so needed in the community. When we were in Jr. High more than 20 years ago, we regularly had classmates who were pregnant and had babies -- some of whom later dropped out of school. And we all hear stories about what kids these days are doing that won't get them pregnant but could make them very sick.But, the most important reason this clinic should open is not only are the public health services they provide are desperately needed, they are perfectly legal.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
Recent CREDO Blog entries
-
This Modern World
-
November 11, 2009 -
November 5, 2009 -
October 29, 2009 -
October 22, 2009 -
October 15, 2009
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
No they haven't forgotten Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. They are actively planning to overturn it and thanks to the ultra conservative Supreme Court they just might. An interview on NPR this week about the Supreme Court and its justices pretty much came to that conclusion. And as he pointed out that isn't the only issue the Supreme Court has attacked women on just the one most talked about.
The Roberts Supreme Court is very aggressively anti-woman and anti-small guy.
Why do the lost children always get left out of these debates?
It is not about anti-woman, it is about those womans babies.
Let's get one thing straight. A fetus is a clump of cells and, when wanted by the mother, a hope or a dream. A fetus is not a baby until it is viable and born.
I am also from Chicago and was back there last week, too, when this was front page news. These zealots who just can't keep their rosaries out of our ovaries may just get their way with the conservative Roberts Supreme Court.
I also noticed a couple of churches that had signs in front of them that read shit like "Save our babies" etc. which is sickening, but the creepiest one was at my old school where, at the side of the church where there once was a beautiful flower garden, they now have a bunch of these tiny gravestones all over it with 'names' on them that read "murdered child". I wish this were not true.
The so-called "pro-life" motherfuckers sure have no problem when
1. Babies get POISONED by Big Oil/Chemical/Coal/Nuclear/Food/Media
2. More children being shipped to Iraq and getting killed.
3. Lack of healthcare and proper education for children.
Btw Franco, thanks to the rightwing terrorists purposely aiding you former dictator Pinochet, more children were killed or rendered parentless. Happy now?
P.S.: Don't worry, the law of the land will "stay". It's just that it, like all other safety issues, will be rendered irrelevant as it is getting chipped away just like the "partial birth abortion" ban in 2003 showed. Btw, the cons misused the phrase "partial birth abortion" to cover up their real TERRORIST agenda.
It is the law of the land; but that, in itself, doesn't make it right. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were once the law of the land.
Whatever:
On what are you basing your assertion that a "fetus" is a clump of cells? A "blastocyte" looks like a clump of cells; and I could follow your reasoning at that stage of development. But a "fetus" has head, arms, legs and a beating heart. A "fetus" also has brain waves and nerve endings and is likely able to feel pain. From my position, it looks like the "clump of cells" comes from taking the idea that abortion is always okay as a premise.
Maxpayne:
I oppose abortion (once the being is able to feel pain, and allowing for exceptions in the case of actual safety issues); but I have no love for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Media, etc. I want the action in Iraq to stop. And I want to see healthcare and education improved. I take issue with your broad statement.
A literal reading of the term "partial-birth abortion" is a condition where birth is conducted partway and then turned into an abortion. If you can show that this term is used where birth is not conducted partway and then turned into an abortion, I would like to hear it.
--------------------
My opposition to abortion is based on a simple premise. I believe that it is always wrong to cause pain for the fun of it. Saying that there should be no restrictions on abortion includes allowing a mother, when there is still a foot in the womb to wrap the umbilical cord around the neck and strangle.
I believe the real question is what restrictions are reasonable. I also believe that the all-or-nothing people have their eyes very tightly closed on the issue.
I think nearly everyone from both sides of this debate would agree that fewer abortions would be a good thing. I just happen to think that the best way to achieve that goal is by ensuring access to reproductive health care including contraception. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood's clients are there for exactly those reasons.
I think nearly everyone from both sides of this debate would agree that fewer abortions would be a good thing. I just happen to think that the best way to achieve that goal is by ensuring access to reproductive health care including contraception. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood's clients are there for exactly those reasons.
Let's all just stick to the safety of both the mother and child and determine what to do from there and kill the "abortion" debate and let God, the woman, and the doctor work it out from there. There are other important issues that desperately need to be taken care of.
pvblivs. We are just going to have disagree strongly on this.
Fact is, I haven't seen any of the conservatives who are so deeply opposed to abortion stepping up to take responsibility. On the contrary, under guidance of the party of responsibility it seems we are dumping responsibility for children, elderly, and everyone in between. Conservatives don't want to pay for children's healthcare (around here they are foolish enough that they even begrudge paying for childhood immunizations). They don't want to pay for children's educations and they don't care if children don't get enough to eat and would like to put an end to all of it.
Tell me when the country is ready to pay enough to support their children and given them a chance at a decent future and if I agree with your assessment then we'll talk about whether abortion should be allowed or not.
In case anyone is still looking at this
Politicalgrrl:
I fully agree that contraception should be more readily available.
Whatever:
I don't really fit the "conservative" mold; but I do think that the responsibility for raising children goes first to those involved in the pleasurable event that produced them. Most people would be horrified if you replaced abortion with killing ten-year olds. Your requirements for discussion are equally valid either way.
--------------------
Incidentally, I want to see better public education, because I think society is better served when paths are open to all.
Join the Discussion