Pro-Choice Maryland

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!

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.

Consider this to be a continuation of the previous entry....

An unusual courtroom discussion between doctors in a federal trial to determine if Wisconsin's requirement that abortion providers have hospital admitting privileges canstand got off to a rocky start Thursday with the judge sparring verbally with one expert.

U.S. District Judge William Conley pressed Dr. John Thorp, a University of North Carolina obstetrician whom state attorneys called to help defend the law, to quantify abortion risk rates. Thorp resisted, saying complications are under-reported and no U.S. studies on maternal deaths from abortion are reliable.

Conley then quipped the discussion reminded him of the quote popularized by author Mark Twain that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Thorp, a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told Conley that he felt "chilled" by the idea that a federal judge thought he was lying. Conley responded that he didn't mean to imply that.

( More )

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.

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 :)

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

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.

The battleground over abortion is shifting to Tennessee, where campaigns are heating up on a referendum that is a year away.

The referendum, pushed by anti-abortion groups for years, would add an amendment to the state constitution stating, "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion." The amendment would apply to all abortions, including those stemming from "circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother."

( More )

Please let this referendum fail next year