Pro-Choice Maryland

First, the Good News :)
Late Wednesday night, Republican Congressional leaders announced that they would be dropping the planned vote for today on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which, if implemented, would have instilled a nationwide ban on all abortions after week 20 of a pregnancy.

The Washington Post reports that the vote was abandoned largely because of the failure of many Republican women to support the proposed bill — led by Reps. Rene Ellmers (R-N.C.) and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), who had raised concerns about public fallout with female and younger voters.

Since it was introduced during the first day of the new Congressional session, the bill has been the source of great controversy and public outcry, including from the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), one of the bill’s co-sponsors, had explained that the bill was necessary to prevent “defenseless children” from being “torturously killed without even basic anesthetic.” Research has shown, however, that a fetus is not able to sense pain until the beginning of the third trimester, or 28 weeks, at the earliest.

Late-term abortion is typically done only in instances such as the discovery of debilitating conditions in the fetus — many of which would make survival outside of the womb impossible — or when the life of the mother is at risk; in fact 99 percent of abortions are conducted before the 21st week of pregnancy.
Yes!!!

( Unfortunately.... )

*Heavily editted since I learned about the bill passing after I posted about asking your rep to say no to the H.R 7

There are plenty of reasons why a woman might not have children. For many, it’s a choice to be childfree. Some are waiting for the right partner. Others might want to be mothers, but have had difficulties starting a family.

But the one thing many women without kids share is an awareness of constant judgment on their non-mom status. In an interview in January’s Allure, Jennifer Aniston addressed the issue head on: “I don’t like [the pressure] that people put on me, on women—that you’ve failed yourself as a female because you haven’t procreated. I don’t think it’s fair,” she said. “You may not have a child come out of your vagina, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t mothering—dogs, friends, friends’ children.”

( Rest of the article )

This is the best statement in the article that articulate my personal feelings about this:
As for the “selfish” label, Notkin says it’s in the eye of the beholder. “One could be called selfish if they have more than four kids, too,” she says. “All decisions that we make about ourselves and our lives are selfish.”
She is absolutely correct on this. The sad reality is that regardless what kind of choice a woman makes, it's going to be seen as her being selfish by someone. If a woman choses to have a child, she's selfish. If she choses to have more than one or whatever magic number you want to use, she's selfish. If a woman aborts a pregnancy, she's selfish. If a woman choses not to have children ever, she's selfish. If a woman choses to give her kid up for adoption, she's selfish. If a woman choses to use contraception, she's selfish. If a woman choses to get sterilized, she's selfish. If a woman choses to have sex, she's selfish. If a woman choses to abstain, she's selfish (see where this is going).

This is a classic example of "You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't". This is why it's imperative that when women make decisions regarding their personal reproductive health that they decide what they want for themselves rather than basing it off of other people's opinions because she's not going to make anyone but herself happy (yes, and that's selfish in of itself which brings me to ask "When have humans ever been 100% not selfish)

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.

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!

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.

This apparently happened last year, but I just came acrossed it when I was looking up abortion laws in Ireland pertaining to what I read that was related to the last entry.

Remember how I mentioned the death of Savita Halappanavar nearly two years ago on here? Well, that story had sparked a huge debate in Ireland over abortion. I'm happy to say it has lead to this (although I had been confuzzled because I thought abortion was already legal there in the case to save a woman's life if it was threatened until I re-read the the aboriton law of Ireland again and read that health was not involve in that exception).

Abortions under limited circumstances will be allowed in the Republic of Ireland under a new law.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act will allow terminations to be carried out where there is a threat to the life of the mother.

It will also be allowed where there is medical consensus that the expectant mother will take her own life over her pregnancy.

Irish President Michael D Higgins signed the bill into law on Tuesday.

He decided not to refer the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill to the Supreme Court.

( More from the article )