[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
From NARAL:
The new Congress is about to vote on an extreme abortion ban in the House. This could be the biggest congressional fight about an abortion ban in over a decade.

Abortion is a personal decision that should be left up to women and their families – not politicians.

We have to show the new Congress that the majority of Americans want them to focus on the economy and jobs, not taking away abortion access.

Make sure your member of Congress hears from you. Tell your representative to stop this attack on abortion.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
In large parts of the country, women’s access to safe and legal abortion care is increasingly coming to depend on the willingness of judges to rigorously examine and reject new (and medically unnecessary) restrictions imposed by Republican legislatures.

In just that sort of searching review, a federal judge last week struck down as unconstitutional an Alabama law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The requirement — advertised, falsely, as necessary to protect women’s health — is one of the main strategies being deployed nationally by opponents of abortion rights to shrink the already inadequate number of abortion providers.

The decision, by Judge Myron Thompson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, followed a 10-day hearing. The ruling is a big victory for Alabama women and should be an instructive model for other courts.

The starting point for Judge Thompson’s analysis was the Supreme Court’s 1992 Casey decision, which said a state abortion regulation goes too far when it imposes an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to choose to have an abortion before a fetus is viable. The judge said that despite the state’s effort to minimize the rule’s impact, it would shut down three of Alabama’s five abortion clinics. All five provide only early abortions, well before viability. He noted that the rule would actually harm women, especially poor women, by forcing them to wait longer and travel longer distances for the procedure.


more )
[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 got this from Facebook, and I was able to find the vid on You Tube too. It would be very nice if every single anti-choice man goes through this.




Just in case the embed video didn't work, you can go here to see the vid.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Well, ladies and gentlemen, the House of Representives passed H.R.7 (AKA the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."). This bill would potentially eliminate abortion coverage in the private and public insurance markets. If that's not bad enough, the bill allows the IRS to decide whether a woman has been raped or if her pregnancy is dangerous to her health.

Here's more about the bill from NOW:
A snippet from the bill )

In order to see how your representive voted, go here. Then, after you have seen how your representive voted, either thank them or "spank" them. Hopefully, this bill dies in the senate.

P.S-For us pro-choice Marylanders, our representive voted NO!!! Thank him for voting against this bill :)

Profile

prochoice_maryland: (Default)
Pro-Choice Maryland

June 2022

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 3rd, 2025 07:54 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios