Pro-Choice Maryland

North Dakota didn't set out to become the abortion debate's new epicenter.

It happened by accident, after a legislative caucus that once vetted abortion bills languished, leaving lawmakers to propose a flurry of measures — some cribbed from Wikipedia — without roadblocks.

Long dismissed as cold and inconsequential, North Dakota is now trying to enact the toughest abortion restrictions in the nation. The newly oil-rich red state may soon find itself in a costly battle over legislation foes describe as blatantly unconstitutional.

( More )

Lawmakers on Friday took a step toward outlawing abortion altogether in the state by passing a so-called personhood resolution that says a fertilized egg has the same right to life as a person. The House's approval sends the matter to voters, who will decide whether to add the wording to the state's constitution in November 2014.
Hopefully, history repeats itself again by voters overturning this like it did in Colorado and Mississippi.

Also, I'm happy to see that there are some republicans that aren't happy about this bill and think it goes too far. They realize that this wouldn't only hinder abortion, but it would hinder IVF and make miscarriage a crime...two things that also affect lifers as much as choicers.

With all of this said and done...it makes me happy I'm not from a state like ND. It also makes me happy that I live in Sweden because I wouldn't have to worry about this stupid shit. I was already lucky to be living here when I miscarried in 2010 because I bleed so much that a blood transfusion was required. If I had been refused a D&C, I probably would've bled to death regardless if I had the blood transfusion because I would've continued to bleed until the fetus (who was already dead) was removed (as I have O negative blood while the fetus had a positive blood type).

There is nothing subtle about H.R. 212, the “Sanctity of Life Act,” sponsored by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) and co-sponsored by 64 other Republicans in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). The CRS summary of the bill is short and to the point:

“Sanctity of Human Life Act – Declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is the person’s paramount and most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have the authority to protect all human lives.”

Got that? Personhood begins with fertilization. Period. Someone didn’t read the next chapter in the science book.

The Ectopic Pregnancy
Any family that’s endured the trauma of a detected ectopic pregnancy (or worse still an undetected instance) has a “dog in this fight.” This is not an insignificant number. The American Academy of Family Physicians reports: “Ectopic pregnancy occurs at a rate of 19.7 cases per 1,000 pregnancies in North America and is a leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester.” (2000) The National Institutes of Health report ectopic pregnancies in a range of 1 in every 40 to 100 pregnancies. [NIH]

And, there is something else the author and the co-sponsors of the bill should be aware of:
“An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). It is a life-threatening condition to the mother. The baby (fetus) cannot survive.” [NCBI]

H.R. 212
CRS Summary for H.R. 212

Oh, FFS

From Naral MD:
You've heard the term "man up?" The very same men leading the War on Women want you to "woman up." No, seriously. This is a real thing.

"Woman Up" is a new campaign to soften the image of anti-choice congressional leadership. The very same men behind it -- Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), and Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.) -- are leading the charge to wage the War on Women. The irony is almost laughable.

A feminist-sounding campaign name can't erase the onslaught of legislative attacks these very same politicians launched on women: Rape audits. All-male panels on birth control. Defunding Planned Parenthood.

Take action with NARAL Pro-Choice America and tell these anti-choice politicians that the only "Woman Up" campaign that matters is the one that ends their War on Women.

Btw, the initial email I got from Naral had this quote from Boehner:
And now, now we are going to have a fight over women’s health. Give me a break. This is the latest plank in the so-called War on Women. Entirely created, entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain.
"John Boehner On ‘War On Women’: ‘Give Me A Break’," Talking Points Memo, April 27, 2012

( My Comment )

I got this snippet from the middle of the article. It's very long, but I think it's an interesting article even though some parts make me roll my eyes.

Last summer, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld this expanded interpretation of the chemical-endangerment law, ruling that the dictionary definition of “child” includes “unborn child,” an interpretation that will be challenged when the state’s Supreme Court considers Kimbrough’s case in the coming months. But the implications of that ruling go far beyond Alabama. Critics like Ketteringham argue that Alabama’s chemical-endangerment law offers a back door into what has become known as the “fetal personhood” argument.

Personhood USA, an organization based in Colorado, was founded in 2008 by Keith Mason after he became frustrated by the mainstream anti-abortion movement’s incremental approach of restricting the availability of legal abortion. “From my perspective, I saw a movement that was largely dying or dead and had a lack of enthusiasm from younger people and from people who had been in the fight for so many years,” he told me. “Something had to change. Personhood is that rallying point, because it’s the crux of the issue.” His movement seeks to establish the fetus’s right to live as equal to that of the mother’s.

Personhood advocates regard fetal rights as a civil rights issue, and they often compare themselves to abolitionists. “I think it would be unequal protection to give the woman a pass when anyone else who injects drugs into a child would be prosecuted,” Ben DuPré, director of Personhood Alabama, said. “What it boils down to is, aren’t these little children persons?”

The goal of Personhood USA is to establish that a fully rights-endowed person is created when sperm meets egg. To that end, it has introduced initiatives and measures in legislatures in 22 states. Though none of these measures have become law, some, like Proposition 26 in Mississippi, have made it to a ballot referendum, and other measures have passed legislative chambers in North Dakota, Montana and Oklahoma. The problem with those measures, from a legal perspective, says Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, is that “there is no way to treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as separate constitutional persons without subtracting pregnant women from the community of constitutional persons.”

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

First of all, I want to vocally say that as a pro-choicer I DO NOT support what these two people in the article are advocating for. I do think that many pro-choicers would agree with me on this for a few reasons.

( More )

Personally, I don't believe in killing a born entity unless it's for survival purposes (i.e self-defense, for food-with animals). I mean, the biggest reason why I had been pro-life originally was because I mixed up abortion with infantside since I thought it was killing a baby (a newborn). So, of course I'm not going to support that even as a pro-choicer. Sorry to these Ethicists. IMO, you are advocating infantside and I don't support choices like that.