COVID-19 & Healthcare

Anti-choice leaders are lying as part of “strategy”. Believe that.

by

lsn-logo
More like Lie Site

This Life Site News article I linked to yesterday continues to get comments (more than a hundred now) and most of them express vehement opposition to the article’s thesis that the anti-abortion movement is not interested in prosecuting women. It appears that plenty of loyal readers of the site very much want to punish women and are offended by the suggestion that they don’t.

Here’s one comment, among the many, from an irate rank-and-file anti-choicer who bristles at the notion of letting women who murder their unborn children (in her opinion) escape from criminal liability:

All these many years I have considered myself pro-life, only now to be told by professional pro-lifers that I am most definitely not. How disappointing…

I’m sure somewhere in 126 comments it has already been said, but I do not understand this view that all women seeking abortion are ‘victims’. As a woman, I find this highly insulting. Certainly some women are coerced and threatened into procuring abortion, especially very young women and this must be taken into account, (and punish the one guilty of coercing her to the fullest extent!) but far too many women merely use abortion as birth control, many of them guilty of multiple abortions. I reject the claim that these women bear no responsibility for the murder of their own offspring. Factor in the advent of ultrasound and internet and it is even hard to give the benefit of the doubt that they are truly ignorant of the life growing within them not being merely a ‘clump of cells’. (The main reason PP hates ultrasound requirements and informed consent laws) Even Dorito’s commercials erode the chance of ignorance! They almost certainly know that it is a human life that they are taking, or are willfully ignorant.

Read more

The punishment that awaits women in Arizona for abortion

by

uterus-state

If you haven’t watched it yet, the Thursday night Rachel Maddow abortion segment is a must-see for how brilliantly the MSNBC anchor eviscerates the disingenuous claim by the glib professional anti-choicers that they don’t intend to make criminals of women under criminal abortion bans and for how she takes the Beltway pundit class to task for the way they have allowed said glib professional anti-choicers to lie flagrantly about that in response to Donald Trump’s comments indicating his support for punishing women at a town hall on Wednesday.

But the Beltway knuckleheads aren’t the only ones deserving of a stern tongue-lashing. There are several prominent media people here in Arizona who were all too eager to run with some bullshit Planned Parenthood “sting” videos, produced by known anti-choice lying creeps, last summer. That was some highly titillating stuff for them, warranting several TV spots, angst-ridden newspaper editorials, and the burning question of whether Planned Parenthood was “toxic” to Dem electeds on the Sunday Square Off political show. Strangely, there’s been no mention this Trump statement in local media, despite the winner of the Arizona GOP Presidential primary (by a lot) having been endorsed by such luminaries as Joe Arpaio and Jan Brewer.

Read more

Presidential candidate Trump calls for punishing women for abortion, to the surprise of no one who has actually paid attention to anti-choicers

by

It never fails.

That was an anti-abortion organization in response to Donald Trump’s statement that women should suffer “some kind of punishment” for abortion on MSNBC. Here’s someone with a very good question for the March For Life:

Here’s me weighing in, because I pay attention to this issue:

Read more

FDA clowns Center for AZ Policy, other anti-choicers, with new medication abortion labeling guideline

by

cap logo
Ha ha, losers.
The sex-obsessed theocrats at Center for Arizona Policy thought they had scored another big win on the harlot-punishing front by passing SB1324 and sending it to Governor Ducey’s desk on Monday. The bill would require doctors to use outdated FDA label recommendations when dispensing abortion medication. Here’s CAP pretending to care oh-so-much about women in a “fact” sheet about the bill:

Currently in Arizona, abortion providers do not dispense the dangerous and deadly abortion pill in compliance with the protocol approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The abortion pill, also known as RU-486, Mifeprex, or mifepristone, was approved under a special section of the FDA’s rules reserved for drugs that the FDA does not believe can be distributed safely without following certain restrictions.[i] Thus, the FDA approved mifepristone only if it is dispensed following specific guidelines, which are contained in the drug’s prescribing information and label.[ii]

Read more

SCOTUS asks for additional briefing in ACA contraception cases

by

The Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon asked lawyers on both sides of seven birth control cases to make new proposals to find a new way to spare religious non-profit institutions from any role in providing birth-control techniques for their employees, while still assuring that those services are available.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog writes, Court seeks new way to decide birth-control cases:

ProtestorsThe Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon, looking for a new way to spare religious non-profit institutions from any role in providing birth-control techniques for their employees even while assuring that those services are available, asked lawyers on both sides of seven cases to make new proposals on how both might be done.

In the two-page order, which the Justices apparently had been working on since they held a hearing last Wednesday, lawyers were told to file one new brief on each side of the controversy, and then single replies, and to submit all filings by April 20.  There was no indication that the Court would hold a new hearing on this deep controversy under the Affordable Care Act.

From the specific wording of the new requirement, the Court appeared to have accepted — at least tentatively and maybe only as the basis for further exploration — the view of the non-profit hospitals, schools, and charities that any step they take would involve them in a violation of their religious objections to some or all contraceptive methods, but also to have accepted — again, perhaps only tentatively and for further analysis — the government’s view that it had to work through those non-profits’ existing health insurers to assure cost-free contraceptive coverage to their female employees of child-bearing age.

Read more