Pro-Choice Maryland

The campaign, masterminded by 26-year-old anti-abortion crusader and “proud millennial” David Daleiden, is meant to let us in on the fact that abortion is disgusting.

When asked, in an interview with the National Review, what one question he would ask Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, Daleiden replied, “I would ask her if she knows abortion the way Planned Parenthood providers know abortion.” Proud millennial David Daleiden wants to make sure that 57-year-old Cecile Richards, who has given birth to three children and publicly discussed her own abortion, really understands what abortion is.

Daleiden is enacting a very old strategy, akin to standing outside a clinic with a sign informing women that their unborn babies have fingerprints at nine weeks’ gestation. This approach has taken on new life in recent years, as improving ultrasound technology has offered an ever-sharper view of fetal development, leading those in both the anti-abortion and the reproductive-rights movements to argue that a public, moral, and rhetorical reckoning with the carnal implications of abortion is necessary.

The videos are likely to have an impact: not on public opinion about abortion, which rarely changes meaningfully, but perhaps on Planned Parenthood’s funding, and almost certainly on laws made by state legislatures in the parts of America where abortion has already become so inaccessible — thanks to elaborate facility requirements, waiting periods, parental-consent-and-notification laws, earlier gestational cutoffs, and a dwindling number of providers — that it might as well be illegal.

But as a broader strategy, the notion that educating women in the grotesqueries of termination will be a game-changer is absurd. As Richards could tell Daleiden if he asked her his question, women already know what abortion is. We know more about blood, innards, fetuses, and the babies they may become — in short, about life in reproductive bodies — than anti-abortion activists seem to understand.

Disclaimer: This is a snippet from the article. It's not the beginning of the article.

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.

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.

I took this action through Planned Parenthood:
President Obama is holding the line on making no-cost birth control available to women no matter where they work. Now it's our turn. The administration has 60 days to collect public comments on the rule -- I made mine in support and I need you to add yours right now