Anti-choicers jailing women because they care?

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

pro choice logo

Anti-choicers are such prodigious and unabashed liars that when they don’t even bother pretending and just show their true natures it can startle even the jaded likes of me! Two developments this past week did just that. First was the conservative Fifth Circuit Court’s decision to uphold Texas’ draconian HB2, an anti-choice omnibus law passed in 2013 (amidst thunderous protest at the State Capitol and after then-Senator Wendy Davis’ now-famous filibuster) that imposed onerous and unnecessary “safety” requirements on abortion clinics in what was obviously an attempt to shut them down. The implementation of the law was delayed due to lawsuits, with a federal judge last summer calling the anti-choicers right out on their bullshit.

The most remarkable portion of Yeakel’s opinion, however, may be the fact that he does not simply analyze the effect of Texas’s law. He also accuses the state of outright dishonesty. Responding to the state’s argument that some Texans can seek abortions in New Mexico if they are unable to obtain one in Texas thanks to HB2, Yeakel notes that this argument completely undermines any suggestion that these laws are supposed to protect women’s health:

If the State’s true purpose in enacting the ambulatory-surgical-center requirement is to protect the health and safety of Texas women who seek abortions, it is disingenuous and incompatible with that goal to argue that Texas women can seek abortion care in a state with lesser regulations. If, however, the State’s underlying purpose in enacting the requirement was to reduce or eliminate abortion in parts or all of Texas, the State’s position is perfectly congruent with such a goal.

Yeakel, in other words, calls a sham a sham. He recognizes, in the words of the Supreme Court, that the purpose HB2 is to “place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” And he comes just one step from outright accusing the state of lying when it claims that the law was actually enacted to protect women’s health.

Read more

Well, whaddya know, states with the most abortion restrictions saw the least reduction in abortion!

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

pro choice logo

Associated Press released a survey they did of states that report abortion statistics where they found that while most states saw reductions in their abortion rates, states that passed no restrictions on abortion since 2011 had larger decreases in the number of procedures reported than red states touted by anti-abortion advocates as “pro-life” champions.

Despite anti-choicers passing several abortion restrictions under the bogus premises of “safety” and “informed consent”, Arizona saw a modest decrease in abortions since 2011, less than half the national average.

Preliminary statistics from the Arizona Department of Health Services for 2014 show Arizona saw a 5 percent decline in abortions since 2011, from 13,606 abortions in 2011 to 12,900 last year.
That compares with a 12 percent decline nationally since 2010, according to the AP survey of all 45 states where abortion reporting is required. Arizona changed its reporting requirements in 2010, so figures before 2011 are not comparable.

Abortion rights advocates say the small drop in Arizona compared with many other states shows that women are not dissuaded from having an abortion once they have made up their mind.

Read more

Center for AZ Policy continues to be terrible

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com Unsurprisingly, Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, who is reviving the 20 week supposed “pain-capable fetus” abortion ban, has the unflagging support of our state’s most prolific God-botherers, the Center for Arizona Policy Note how they claim that 137 post-20 week abortions take place in Arizona with no context outside of “horrors” and Kermit … Read more

Trent Franks is being terrible again

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

The GOP-led Congress is back with another attempt at banning abortion at 20 weeks. This one is supposed to be an improvement over the one rejected by a few female GOP Reps a couple of months ago over a lack of exceptions for rape and incest. The new version does contain those exceptions but the woman would be required to receive counseling 48 hours prior to the abortion (from a provider approved by the anti-choicers, natch). Gosh, thanks. LifeNews.com explains how the exceptions will be written so as not to leave loopholes for lying harlots to exploit.

Read more

Gay is the new abortion?

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

This remarkable item has gone viral:

Columnist Dan Savage calls it a “new variation on the “straight people are terrible” argument against marriage equality.”

Religious conservatives have already argued that straight people will stop getting married if gay people can and that marriage must be reserved for straight people because only straights can get pregnant by accident, and without the special inducements of marriage (a big party, a special cake, a honeymoon), straight people won’t take care of all those babies they’re having by accident. Now they’re arguing that straight people will abort their babies if gay people get married.

Man, straight people are terrible—why were they ever allowed to get married in the first place?

The anti-choice movement is an entire parallel bizarro world of crackpot bullshit so it would be easy to dismiss this as yet another weird myth, like the belief that abortions can be reversed, that has taken hold there. But there is an important context for this. The argument is being put forth in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court as it considers the latest challenge to same sex marriage.

Read more