[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Catholics should not feel they have to breed "like rabbits" because of the Church's ban on contraception, Pope Francis said on Monday, suggesting approved natural family planning methods.

I had fun with this part:
He mentioned a woman he recently met who already had seven children by caesarean sections and put her life at risk by becoming pregnant again. He said he chided her for "tempting God" and added: "That was an irresponsibility."
Ooh, where do I start? I love how women are always being blamed for getting pregnant like we can magically make ourselves pregnant. Seriously, if that was the case, we wouldn't need men and sex (well, if you're having sex for procreation reasons that is). We could just say "I would like to be pregnant now" and boom-badda-bing! There's a bun in the oven. That's not the case in reality. So, where the fuck is the blame on the husband who got her pregnant? I mean...maybe it was his idea for her to get pregnant, whether she wanted to or not.

More )
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Budding atheists wondering whether Richard Dawkins is in need of a little time away from Twitter to reflect on the past few weeks are about to have their (lack of) prayers answered.

The philosopher has managed to go one step further than his controversial comments on ‘date rape versus stranger rape’ to voice his opinions on what it would be ethical for a mother who is informed that her unborn child has Down Syndrome to do.


More )

Ahem, let's go back to this one:
“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he tweeted back.
Yeah...tell that to women who tried to concieve for a long time before finally getting pregnant, Hawkins. Or women who are infertile that took a lot of IVF or other forms of fertility treatment to get pregnant. Or women who have fucking miscarried. It sucks a lot to tried to concieve for a long time only to get pregnant and lose it, whether to miscarriage or grudgingly resorting to abortion because there's something wrong with the fetus. And then, who knows how long it will take a woman to get pregnant again because despite popular belief...some of us don't get pregnant that easy just from having sex.

More of my comment )

To me, I find it personally immoral to call someone immoral for chosing to carry ANY pregnancy to term just like I do when someone is called immoral for chosing to abort ANY pregnancy.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
This is similar to the last post with supporting legislation that would fix the Hobby Lobby ruling. However, this action comes from the RCRC (Reproductive Coaliation for Reproductive Choice).

From RCRC:
The Supreme Court's ruling in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell wrongly opened the door for business owners to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, thereby restricting access to contraceptive coverage. This ruling undid our nation’s rich history of protecting individual religious liberty, twisting it from a shield that should protect everyone into a sword that gives more rights to a powerful few. That’s the bad news.

The good news is that RCRC and our allies are already fighting back. The Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act, introduced by Senators Patty Murray and Mark Udall, and Representatives Louise Slaughter, Diana DeGette, and Jerrold Nadler, would fix the Hobby Lobby decision by enacting language that would prevent for-profit corporations from using to religion to selectively comply with the Affordable Care Act. The Senate could vote on this bill as early as Wednesday!

While these bills unfortunately maintain the language that allows some non-profit organizations to deny their employees access to no-cost contraception, they are still critically needed to counter the horrible Supreme Court ruling that allows bosses to impose their religion on their employees.

It is critical that we flood Capitol Hill offices with messages from people of faith that support this legislation, so Congress knows that the proponents of discrimination don’t represent the entire religious community.


Please Take Action Now!
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
From Ultraviolent:


Last week's Supreme Court decision gutting access to birth control was devastating -- but the good news is that something can be done.

The Not My Bosses' Business Bill was just introduced in Congress to reverse the Supreme Court's decision gutting women's right to birth control coverage -- and it has HUGE momentum. The bill states that federal laws, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cited by the Supreme Court, do not allow employers to refuse to cover health care -- including birth control -- guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. It would ensure women at corporations like Hobby Lobby continue to have critical access to affordable birth control.

If we shine a spotlight on this bill and bring it to a vote, we'll know which members of Congress support affordable access to birth control -- and which side with 5 men on the Supreme Court.

Tell the Senate:
"Pass the bill to reverse the Supreme Court's birth control decision."
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Warsaw's mayor said Wednesday she fired the head of a maternity hospital who refused to perform or facilitate an abortion of a badly deformed fetus for reasons of conscience.

The case — which saw the recently delivered baby put under intensive care with major brain and skull deformity — has stirred wide debate in Polish media, raising questions about the boundaries of faith in public life in a country that is traditionally Catholic but increasingly becoming secular.

Mayor Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz said she fired obstetrician Bogdan Chazan, a declared Catholic, over the case. She said a review showed that Chazan refused to perform an abortion toward the end of the legally-allowed period and failed to advise the woman on where an abortion was available and on the approaching deadline.


More )

Warsaw's Roman Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, said that the sacking of Chazan amounted to a "dangerous precedent that hurt the rights not only of the Catholics, but of all people."
The guy didn't get fired because he flat out refused doing the abortion, Mr. Nycz. He got fired because he failed to do a legal obligation of directing the patient to another doctor, who was probably more willing to help them out. However, the rights of those who are religious shouldn't always trumph the rights of other people, especially if their life is in danger. Should the rights of a person who needs a blood transfusion, for example, be trumph because a JW doctor has an issue with blood transfusions? Should the rights of a woman who needs an abortion to save her life (i.e ectopic pregnancy) be trumph because a doctor of faith (or no faith since atheists can be against abortion too) has a moral issue with abortion?

If a doctor cannot do their job, regardless the reason why they don't want to carry out a particular procedure, they should find someone else to do their job. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be in medicine then.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
The Supreme Court has been making horrible decisions lately. Frankly, I hope these decisions bite them and the supporters in the ass.

First one: WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests, counseling and other speech near abortion clinics.

“A painted line on the sidewalk is easy to enforce, but the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a majority opinion that was joined by the court’s four-member liberal wing.

The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.

What is so hillarious is that the Supreme Court has a huge buffer zone itself. If you ever protested in front of the Supreme Court before, you aren't allowed to be on the steps. You have to be off the steps when you protest. I mean...it has a 35 foot buffer zone that this clinic was trying to get. Yet, I haven't heard any one tried to get this buffer zone in front of the Supreme Court taken down because it violated their freedom of speech.

More personal thought )

Then the second, more fucked up one (imo): WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. It was, a dissent said, “a decision of startling breadth.”

The 5-to-4 ruling, which applied to two companies owned by Christian families, opened the door to many challenges from corporations over laws that they claim violate their religious liberty.

I really hope this ruling comes back and bites supporters in the ass. It would suck for these people if they had relatives denied certain medical services like blood transfusions and meds for mental illness because it went against their relatives' employer's beliefs. Worst, if their relative or friend's employer was against any medical intervention. An employer has no place in their employee's health, whether if it's reproductive or general. However, I hope this costs the republicans their power in the House between this election and the one in 2016.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
From NOW:
Join NOW and our allies on Tuesday March 25th in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as the Court considers two cases involving the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act. This case could have far-reaching consequences for millions of Americans and their health care. The two companies involved, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, are attempting to use their religious beliefs to justify discrimination against women with their refusal to cover birth control.

Join NOW for an hour of a people's mic and rally before you head to work from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Fighting for women's rights in the perfect way to start your day!


Details for Rally )

Directions to Rally )

If you can't make it to the rally (like your lovely community maintainer :P), there's a banner that NOW is creating to display to display outside the Supreme Court to make sure every supporter's voices are heard. You can sign here to put your name on the banner.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
I originally got this from here, who they got the original article from National Catholic Reporter...an independent resource.

Nicholas P. Cafardi is a civil and canon lawyer as well as a professor, including the former dean, at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. Here's a snippet of what he said in the article:
For example, Obama's Affordable Care Act does not pay for abortions. In Massachusetts, Romney's health care law does. Obama favors, and included in the Affordable Care Act, $250 million of support for vulnerable pregnant women and alternatives to abortion. This support will make abortions much less likely, since most abortions are economic. Romney, on the other hand, has endorsed Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's budget, which will cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of the federal plans that support poor women. The undoubted effect: The number of abortions in the United States will increase. On these facts, Obama is much more pro-life than Romney. (yes, you read that right)

More reasons why he thinks Obama is more pro-life than Romney )

Profile

prochoice_maryland: (Default)
Pro-Choice Maryland

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9 101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 12:46 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios