[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
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
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
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 )
[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
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 :)
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
From NOW:
All women have the right to have the children they want, raise the children they have, and plan their families through safe, legal abortion, and access to contraception, and pre and post-natal care. For those rights to become a reality, women in all communities need to have the resources and the economic, social and political power to make health decisions about their bodies, their sexuality and their reproduction.

Sign the NOW Pledge to protect reproductive rights
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
From PP:
Birth control is basic, preventive health care that millions of women rely on every day. Over 99 percent of sexually active women use birth control at some point in their lives, for a wide variety of reasons. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are now required to cover contraception with no out-of-pocket cost, a landmark step for women's health that gives many women access to affordable birth control for the first time.

Now a handful of out-of-touch, mostly male employers want to take that coverage away — and force their own beliefs onto tens of thousands of employees. They think they should have the power to withhold coverage they don't agree with. They want the right to interfere with their employees' personal, private medical decisions — and the Supreme Court could give it to them.

Those private medical decisions go far beyond access to birth control. If the Court rules in favor of these employers, it could pave the way for employers to deny coverage of other basic health care, like vaccines and mental health treatment, based solely on their personal beliefs. Birth control access shouldn't be up to your boss. Add your name to our letter today.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
From NOW:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has introduced a nationwide 20-week abortion ban. Your Senators — pro-choice or not — needs to hear from you. Please join us in emailing your Senators! Please join us in emailing your Senators!

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. 14th, 2025 09:07 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios