Skip to main content

Jackson Women's Health Organization still open, for now.
In 1997, Mississippi had six health clinics that performed abortions. Now it has one. If the forced-birthers in and out of the state legislature had gotten their way, it would have none. But in a narrowly tailored decision, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling Tuesday that keeps the Jackson Women's Health Organization open. It's the only abortion-providing clinic in the state.

Legislation passed in 2012 required that OB/GYNs performing abortions in Mississippi had to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. But three doctors at JWHO couldn't get such privileges because they fly in from out of state. Mississippi doesn't allow hospitals to give admitting privileges to non-residents.

The Fifth Circuit did not overturn the law, but ruled that it could not be used to close the state's last remaining clinic performing abortions because the law would force the clinic to close and unconstitutionally transfer Mississippi's obligations to provide the legal procedure to other states:

“A state cannot lean on its sovereign neighbors to provide protection of its citizens’ federal constitutional rights,” Judge E. Grady Jolly wrote.

“Pre-viability, a woman has the constitutional right to end her pregnancy by abortion,” he continued. This law “effectively extinguishes that right within Mississippi’s borders.”

Mississippi officials had argued that women seeking abortions could always drive to neighboring states, such as Louisiana or Tennessee, to obtain the procedure, an argument the panel rejected.

There's more about this below the fold.

In fact, throughout the South, and in other states, laws have been passed or are being considered that require abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges. While some have managed to do so, others have not. These and other restrictive laws have reduced the number of clinics providing abortions from 724 in January 2013 to fewer than 600 today. In 1991, there were more than 2,100 such clinics nationwide.

Alabama, Kansas and Wisconsin have seen their admitting privileges laws temporarily blocked by the federal courts. But similar laws in Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah have gone into effect.

Although the ruling in Mississippi represents a victory for women's reproductive rights, it's not broad enough for more than half a hurrah. It certainly will not stop the closing of clinics elsewhere, either because of admitting privileges legislation or other laws, such as requiring clinics to meet strict (and medically unnecessary) building regulations. Nearly half the 40 clinics offering abortions in Texas have been closed in the past year because of the latter requirements.

Lawyers for the forced-birthers may argue in court that they are just trying to make clinics and clinic procedures safer for women. But out of court, they are candid about their real goal: shutting down as many clinics as they can. These crusaders have been at work on undermining women's reproductive rights since five minutes after Roe v. Wade was ruled on four decades ago. We know what the ever-growing number of restrictions means: dead women, maimed women, sterilized women. Yet some people who should know better still think the "war on women" is hyperventilation.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:01 PM PDT.

Also republished by This Week in the War on Women and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  While an improvement over the status quo ante, (45+ / 0-)

    the decision by the Fifth Circuit was so narrowly tailored as to be virtually meaningless elsewhere, even within the circuit.  I am disappointed in it, although it does help to keep the Jackson Women's Health Organization up and running.

    Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:11:25 PM PDT

    •  It would be much simpler to require all hospitals (27+ / 0-)

      to offer admitting privileges or provide abortions themselves.

      Americans can make our country better.

      by freelunch on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:54:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Therein lies a part of the problem. (28+ / 0-)

        The panel was applying Circuit precedent which said that requiring admitting privileges for abortion clinics was rationally related to a legitimate state interest.  First of all, why should the rational basis test be utilized with respect to a fundamental right?  Even assuming that that is appropriate, how can one find that it is rationally related to the legitimate interest.  There is no medical reason for it.  It seems based solely on animus against the procedure, rather than the legitimate health and safety concerns of the state.  As such, if we are not going to apply even intermediate scrutiny to the right to choose, can we at least say, as was done in Lawrence and Roemer with respect to gay rights , that irrational animus does NOT rationally relate to a legitimate state interest?

        Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

        by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 05:21:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The courts here are giving deference to states (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          catwho, Penny GC

          States are given a lot of leeway in defining just what is required in many things - in this case, regulating health safety. As we are working our way through challenges to gay marriage bans we see similar arguments put forward by the states: it's about procreation, or it's about the welfare of the children.

          In the gay marriage cases, many of the courts have decided that the state interest arguments have been baseless. Hospital admitting privileges do get clinic operators some minor additional benefits, just as wider hallways might have (very rare) benefits. And so the courts let the arguments stand to a greater or lesser extent, even though in my mind the constitutional issue outweighs the state's right to regulate.

          Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

          by Phoenix Rising on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:35:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm wondering whether we shouldn't start (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Penny GC

            I'm wondering whether we shouldn't start working towards some kind of federal clinic system for abortions and women's health care? Probably the Hyde Amendment prohibits it in some way but I'd also like to see a focus on adding abortion services into VA care.

      •  Interestingly, the dissent (7+ / 0-)

        (if I'm understanding correctly from my quick scan of it) appears to make that argument:

        The independent decisions of private hospitals have no place in our
        review of state action under the Constitution. Cf. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982) (articulating state-action requirement for § 1983 suits).

        Here, five hospitals rejected the JWHO doctors’ applications out of
        hand because they performed elective abortions. As the majority
        notes, each of these five hospitals issued letters explaining that “[t]he nature of [the applicant’s] proposed medical practice is inconsistent with [the] Hospital’s policies and practices as concerns abortion and, in particular, elective abortions.” See ante at 3 n.3. Federal law, however, prohibits entities receiving certain funding or contracts from discriminating “in the extension of staff or
        other privileges to any physician . . . because he performed or assisted in the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or abortion . . . .” 42 U.S.C. §300a–7(c).

        Thus, when a state affords private hospitals the authority to grant admitting privileges, those hospitals must faithfully exercise their authority in a non-discriminatory manner.

        (emphasis mine)

        "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

        by jrooth on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:26:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  YES (0+ / 0-)

        I'd like to see:

        Every doctor willing to perform abortions put it on his website, in his YP ads, whatever.  Just put the word out there.  If 50% of the doctors in a town are willing to perform abortions, that will knock the anti-choice crowd back on their heels.

        And, second, I'd like to see federal laws passed that every hospital where a doctor has admitting privileges is required to allow that doctor to perform abortions on site.  If said hospital is the only hospital in, say, a 100 mile radius, then absolutely no religious exemption!  Let the hospital build a (for lack of a better term) secular wing, and do the surgeries there, but no option for refusal.

        To the left, to the left....

        by CWinebrinner on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 02:05:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's good news that a state cannot transfer (22+ / 0-)

    its obligations under Roe to another state.  

    If it could, we'd be one step closer to the dystopia described in ILU-486.

    © cai Visit to join the fight against global warming.

    by cai on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:16:39 PM PDT

  •  So a given state can't palm off the well being of (15+ / 0-)

    citizens on another state, now it sounds like the adults have taken control of the trolls.

  •  I often wonder, having seen reports myself of (16+ / 0-)

    forced-birth advocates whilst in chambers advocating that their only suing to 'protect' the health of mothers and "unborn children" and then when speaking outside the courtroom sing an entirely different tune.

    I know that an attorney representing someone is not testifying unless they are sworn in, as all witnesses are - but - why can't a complainant (like a clinic being legislated out of existence because it's hallways are 3" too narrow) bring such facts (like a video tape news report showing exactly what I've described) into the courtroom to impeach this stated rationale by the other side as absolutely not truthful?

    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

    by Angie in WA State on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:38:07 PM PDT

    •  For a rational basis test (4+ / 0-)

      You have to be able to come up with a conceivable rationale for the law.  It doesn't have to match the actual intent of lawmakers.  That rationale does not have to be smart.  Stupid laws are not inherently unconstitutional. (Nor should they be.)

    •  Because it's not legally relevant. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC

      When a court looks at the intent and purpose of a statute, it's not allowed to attempt to get into the minds of the lawmakers to determine what they "really" intended.  Legislators' subjective motivations are pretty much off limits.

      So the court is left with the text of the statute itself, as well as any relevant legislative history, such as committee reports on the bill, legislators' floor statements debating the bill, and perhaps transcripts of hearings on the proposed legislation.  (N.B.: In the case of state laws, such materials are often quite limited.)  It's rare that lawmakers are stupid enough to reveal a nefarious motive on the record, so all that the legislative history of this kind of law will show is a lot of talk about protecting women's health and ensuring the safety of the procedure.

      Occasionally the official legislative history does actually reveal an improper or discriminatory motive.  The best example of that is the history of the original DADT legislation.  It makes quite clear that the intent of the law is to exclude gay people from military service based upon homophobic stereotypes.  But such instances of candor are very, very rare.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:42:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the lack of admitting privileges (17+ / 0-)

    isn't a valid reason to shut down a clinic, then why was Mississippi permitted to shut down its other clinics? It's either a valid reason or it isn't.

    Additionally, where a given clinic is located with respect to the borders of neighboring states isn't necessarily related to your own accessibility. You might actually be closer to a clinic in another state than in your own.

    What I'm getting from this is that the Fifth Circuit is concerned about the burden on neighboring states, but not about the burden on women.

    Just not seeing the logic here. My brain hurts.

    "Tea is soothing. I wish to be tense." - Rupert Giles

    by CelticOm on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:50:22 PM PDT

  •  well yes, that was a feature, not a bug (11+ / 0-)

    it was their intent to extinguish the right to abortion care within Mississippi’s borders

    i am stunned, but pleasantly so, that the court ruled the way it did

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 06:25:58 PM PDT

  •  It's a small win and I'll take it!!! (10+ / 0-)

    I'm not only pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion.  Better yet, don't get knocked-up if you don't want to have a baby, but we all know what happens in the real world for a number of different reasons. So with that said, I'm pro-abortion. Just do it early on if you can. There are TOO TOO TOO many children on planet earth that need loving/caring families that need families. We don't need to be reproducing like our species depends on it, because right at this moment in time, it doesn't!

    I think that abortion/condoms/birth control and women's/men's reproductive healthcare needs should be "on the house", readily available throughout the nation. This overly-religious silliness about screwing and birthing is not viable for the planet and those that are already here living on it.

    Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

    by Lucy2009 on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 06:37:25 PM PDT

    •  Please don't say "don't get knocked up" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Womantrust, Penny GC, arlene, Lucy2009

      Please don't say things like "don't get knocked up if you don't want to have a baby."  First of all its incredibly disrespectful to the women involved. Second of all its wrong: not all abortions are the result of accidental pregnancies.  People get pregnant and often want to have the baby but circumstances and health issues, work issues, finance and family issues can all come into play. You don't know until you've been pregnant how your body is going to handle it. You don't know if the fetus is going to be healthy or damaged. You may get pregnant while in a happy marriage and then, as the woman in the Esquire article today about this very clinic reported, have your husband kill himself in front of you and realize that you are in no position to have a baby as well as a toddler to raise alone.

      •  Sorry that phrase is upsetting to you. (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think of "getting knocked-up" as a derogatory. It's a fact of life!  Most women I know, myself included, are built like rabbits!! As a result, we have accidents; birth control isn't 100% effective; we get raped; we have life threatening pregnancies; we are financially unstable; we have abusive or absent partners; and we have babies that will not survive once born.  ALL of which, imho, are legitimate and important reasons to have safe and legal abortions available in every city in every state, and they should be covered by the ACA.

        I actually don't consider it is any of my business why a woman finds herself pregnant and deciding to end said pregnancy. It's her medical decision based on what's best for her, and her family. I've had children, and an abortion and a miscarriage. I am a staunch believer in woman's right to choose. It's her life, and only she knows what she wants, what she can handle, and what is the best thing to do.

        Hope that clarifies.

        Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

        by Lucy2009 on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 05:08:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Knocked up was always derogatory. (0+ / 0-)

          The phrase "Knocked up" was always derogatory.  It applied primarily to unmarried women. Married women didn't "get knocked up" they got pregnant.  It was a casual, slangy, expression for something that was seen as inherently embarrassing and obscene: premarital or extra marital sexual activity.  It has connotations that the sex was voluntary (which was shameful in and of itself for an unmarried woman) and therefore when it is applied to rape victims it is especially jarring.  At any rate in this comment it implied that women always choose whether they get pregnant or not which, of course, they don't as your later comment makes clear. Women don't always have a choice when/where/how to have sex and they don't have a choice when their birth control methods fail or they get raped or their fetus is damaged. So "don't get knocked up" is irrelevant and insulting advice since many women don't choose whether to "get knocked up" at all.

  •  on TRMS tonight (23+ / 0-)

    they had an interview with an abortion care provider who is 72 years old.  Last week, protesters stood on her front porch, screamers held up signs across the street from her home with signs in the shape of arrows labeled "ABORTIONIST" and the police had to be called.  The protesters on her porch told the police they were "delivering the mail."  Which is both laughable and amazingly creepy.

    In the interview, she said they motivated her to keep doing what she does because she is "at the end" of her life anyway.

    I am so sick of this, so tired of this, so disgusted by the fact that we can be "heartened" in any way by the fact that a federal court, charged with upholding Constitutional rights, found today that the last clinic in the state of Mississippi cannot be closed because to do so would force women to travel to other states to exercise a Constitutional Right.  They couldn't even summon themselves to say that these absurd and unnecessary restrictions in and of themselves are unconstitutional.

    And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. ~ Rainer Maria Rilke

    by noweasels on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 07:22:25 PM PDT

    •  It's appalling (6+ / 0-)

      to me that the constant introduction of obstacles between women and their constitutional right to abortion are not considered undue burdens.

      That is exactly what they are - in both intent and practice.

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

      by lcbo on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 09:58:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't think the court judged that way because (0+ / 0-)

      of the inconvenience for women having to go to the next state. Sounds to me like it was a money issue - Mississippi can't make other states pay the bills for it's citizens. You surely don't think women are as important as money, do you???

    •  Delivering the mail, huh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Isn't that impersonating a federal mail carrier?  Pretty sure there's a law against that....

      To the left, to the left....

      by CWinebrinner on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 02:13:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  MB, you may know this, but... (7+ / 0-)

    ...a 2-1 decision is a "panel decision". This means that the judges didn't merit this case highly enough to give it "precidential" priority.

    An en banc decision has precedential priority, ESPECIALLY if it's unanimous.

    So, while certainly important and other, later rulings need to address it, the ruling isn't precedential.

    Please know that I'm on your side on this. My only goal is to clarify the magnitude of the problem we face in a court system that's been stacked with bugfuck crazy GOP nominees, due in large part to the GOPs previously successful blocking of Democratic nominees to the Federal Court using, among other things, the "pocket veto" during the Clinton administration.

    "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

    by Timbuk3 on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 08:22:51 PM PDT

  •  It's essentially a war on poor women (13+ / 0-)

    Who can't go out of state to get abortions.

    Then, they are put down for having more children than they can afford, and made into easy prey for men with money.

    It's all quite sadistic on the part of the forced birthers.

    Women create the entire labor force.
    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 08:29:41 PM PDT

  •  tactics that the prochoice movement needs to adopt (7+ / 0-)

    1) Is to strongly advocate on behalf of abortion doctors, escorts, staff, etc...

    2) Women who have had abortions need to "come out" and own the issue -- and own it fearlessly and without apologies.

    The antichoice movement always plays the good cop/bad cop routine by directing all their wrath at abortion providers, while glad handling the women that they wish they could prosecute. Roe Vs. Wade will never be outlawed outright. But it can certainly be regulated into oblivion. Shame and stigma are the weapons of choice used against women who've had abortions. Anyone here who is gay who can shed light on the potential boon and drawback on the coming out tactic on choice, their input would be welcome here. Maybe I'm looking at things with rose colored glasses, but it seems like state after state is allowing for same sex marriage, while reproductive rights are on the wane. I remember when conservative politicians would openly label gays as "moral perverts" in campaign speeches back in the 1990's. Now they can't really run on that. It's usually condescending glad handling and false compassion that they extend to gay people. Why are gay rights on the rise while reproductive rights are on the wane in the 21st century?

    •  Because Teh Stoopid has not declined at all, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but only shifted focus? Push it back here and it bulges out there....

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 01:05:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some points of disagreement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Women who have had abortions need to "come out" and own the issue -- and own it fearlessly and without apologies.
      Where are the men like yourself going to be when we are risking our lives, our jobs, our homes, our families by putting ourself out like this? It's all well for you to say; you've never had an abortion. You may or may not have helped a woman make her decision and live with whatever feelings she had about it, if any, but you haven't had to experience this for yourself.
      Shame and stigma are the weapons of choice used against women who've had abortions. Anyone here who is gay who can shed light on the potential boon and drawback on the coming out tactic on choice, their input would be welcome here.
      Yet you demand that we subject ourselves to that shame and stigma, no matter what.

      When MEN show up in massive numbers to demand WOMENS rights instead of demanding that we out ourselves, we may have a chance of getting things done. Until the men are out there en masse on the front lines, both online and offline, defending those women who do out themselves, it won't be safe for us to do so.

      Go look at Twitter sometime, at the threats of rape and death made to outspoken women. Look at how your fellow men think they have a right to treat women. If you want us to be safe outing ourselves, you have to make the environment for us to do so safer. You need to push back. You need to track down the men who are making these threats and report them to the police. You need to get up petitions at demanding that Twitter take action. You need to be the ones putting your bodies and your online identities on the line. Facebook is just about as bad.

      Until men are willing to attract armed protesters to your front door; until you're willing to have your real name, photograph, social security number, job and work address, boss's name(s) and contact information, home address, email address(es), car license, family members' names and identifying details (including those of your children) published online on sites maintained by anti-choice extremists; until you're out in public every weekend or day wearing a brightly colored shirt that says in large letters "I PAID FOR AN ABORTION"; until you're starting and funding abortion funds; until you put not only will but action behind that will out there for all to see...only then will things start to be safe for us women to put out there that we have had an abortion or (horrors!!) more than one.

      An organ donor saved my life! Shop Kos Katalogue

      UID#39520 01/06/2005

      by Kitsap River on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 02:29:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So you can go down to 1, but you can't go to 0? (4+ / 0-)

    And the law can stay on the books in case the number goes up to 2?

    Here's what I don't understand about this: if "dumping off on other states is the standard", then doesn't that dictate that certain cities HAVE to have clinics.

    As a hypothetical example, wouldn't closing a clinic in El Paso under a law like this be dumping the problem off to NM?

    I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

    by AZphilosopher on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:11:02 AM PDT

  •  "Settled law" is something that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, jayden

    unreconstructed Southerners don't understand.

    "To take another person's life from the bench is no better than to take another person's life from the street"

    by commonmass on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:12:08 AM PDT

  •  Seems to me that it's not all that narrow a ruling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC
    “A state cannot lean on its sovereign neighbors to provide protection of its citizens’ federal constitutional rights,” Judge E. Grady Jolly wrote.
     “Pre-viability, a woman has the constitutional right to end her pregnancy by abortion,” he continued. This law “effectively extinguishes that right within Mississippi’s borders.”
    While it would allow for a ridulously small number of clinics per state (one for Texas?) the principle goal of closing a state totally to clinics seems to be banned in this ruling. An at least theoretical victory for pro-choice.
    •  It's narrow (0+ / 0-)

      In the sense that the ruling seems to apply only to Mississippi and seemed to leave room for the possibility that the court would uphold similar laws in other states if they didn't threaten to close all abortion clinics in the state.

      It also refused to rule on the argument that the clinic would have been closed due to the actions of private parties and not the state, holding that the state's brief waived that argument because it admitted the law was likely to close the clinic.  So, there is a chance that argument would work in a case concerning a law that closes all clinics in another state.

  •  I'm really surprised it took so long (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, TofG, Kathy Scheidel

    for a court to issue a ruling like this. Legislators that have pushed for these laws have generally made it clear that their real aim is to make abortion unobtainable as a practical matter.

    Stephen Colbert does superb satire. Pity those offended by it.

    by VirginiaJeff on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:24:53 AM PDT

  •  To the forced birthers out of sight is out of mind (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, TofG, Womantrust

    They don't care if a woman has an illegal one or attempts one and damages herself in the process or even dies.

    They actually welcome that outcome.

    "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:25:52 AM PDT

  •  I've written this before and I'll write it again. (4+ / 0-)

    This is perversion:  unfettered sexual access and domination.  Forced pregnancy and banning birth control should have made that mindset absolutely clear.  But apparently not, as if people don't want to face the reality of re-asserted slavery laws.  The perversions of the American taliban are a grotesque reality and Edmund Burke's, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," rings loudly thru the entire willfully oblivious inattention of the public.  Of course, there's also the condescending snottiness of women who are sure an unwanted pregnancy would never happen to them.......but that's another creepy story.

    If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu.

    by CarolinNJ on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:27:17 AM PDT

  •  OK, have to chime in right here. Abortion is not, (7+ / 0-)

    and I repeat NOT always about unwanted pregnancy. I had two, 2 mind you very wanted babies aborted because they were horribly deformed, would probably not have survived the birthing process, and were horribly disabled.
    All abortions are not unwanted children. period. full. stop.
    Oh, and my first child was still born and if these neanderthals had their way I would be in jail for having a still born child for goddess sake.
    It really makes my head hurt to have to explain this on a liberal, left leaning, progressive site.
    Damn, I need more coffee...
    Peace and Blessings!

    “When you victim-blame, be aware that in all likelihood, at least one woman you know and love silently decides she cannot trust you.” ` Steph Guthrie

    by Penny GC on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:37:11 AM PDT

    •  condolences. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, Penny GC

      Why hello there reality, how are you doing?

      by Future Gazer on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:47:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks FG, it still hurts. They were wanted even (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Womantrust, Future Gazer

        if I was not trying to get pregnant and was using protection to NOT get pregnant. My first would be 29. I have 2 amazingly wonderful girls and then more heartaches which would be 4 and 5. After delivering a still born at nine months, there was no way I could go through all that, AGAIN, TWICE. Just not mentally possible.
        Thanks again for the condolences, I just wish people would understand that there are many and numerous reasons to end a pregnancy.
        Peace and Blessings!

        “When you victim-blame, be aware that in all likelihood, at least one woman you know and love silently decides she cannot trust you.” ` Steph Guthrie

        by Penny GC on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 11:04:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You and my mom would be great friends. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Penny GC

          Similar circumstances.

          #1 was fine, albeit dark-skinned for her liking. #2 was a no brainer discovered at beginning of 3rd trimester (late term abortion) #3 is me, white as snow. #4 got shot with x-rays because she was unaware that she was pregnant (so subsequently aborted).

          Why hello there reality, how are you doing?

          by Future Gazer on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 01:29:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My condolences to your mother as well FG. This is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Future Gazer

            a very common story, just personal and private. It should remain in my heart and I should not have to speak of it unless I want to speak of it. It is my story after all. But, and this is a big but for me, I HAVE to speak out. For my daughters, for their children and for all the women in the world to be able to make the best decisions FOR THEM in their lives, their way.
            I just want my daughters to be able to make their choices, their way, for their reasons. Not because some man told them so.

            Clearly, no one is free until we are ALL free.
            I am tired of fighting the same battles year, after year, after step forward, ten steps back, race to the front again only to be beaten back.
            My body, my choice.
            Hope my sharing has helped someone else or changed a mind or something, something arrglebarrgle.
            Peace and Blessings!

            “When you victim-blame, be aware that in all likelihood, at least one woman you know and love silently decides she cannot trust you.” ` Steph Guthrie

            by Penny GC on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 02:34:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you, I just made the same point upthread. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC

      Thank you for being willing to come forward and discuss this. What a terrible, terrible, situation to have been in. I completely empathize and respect you for making those decisions.

      •  Thanks. IT was and still is hard. But, like with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, CWinebrinner

        LGBT stories of 'coming out' This is mine. This is my closet, come look inside! My mother gave a child up for adoption right out high school. I have since met her. My great aunt tried to give herself an abortion during the depression and left 4 orphans and a husband in her wake. This is my family issue and I am here to speak truth to nonsense.
        Stay out of my decisions and my daughter's and I will stay out of yours.
        I have a novel or two in my head that I really need to find some time to just get it out. Purging for my soul as it were.
        Thanks again aimai, we are not alone and unless more of us are willing to speak the horrors of forced birthing will continue.
        Peace and Blessings!

        “When you victim-blame, be aware that in all likelihood, at least one woman you know and love silently decides she cannot trust you.” ` Steph Guthrie

        by Penny GC on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 11:26:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Dumping on other jurisdictions isn't a new conc... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Penny GC

    Dumping on other jurisdictions isn't a new concept and runs the whole gaumet (so) from abortion to pushing poor people out of the gentrified parts of town to crumbling slums. Now they build new buildings to resemble quaint crumbling buildings.

  •  remove the neanderthals (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC

    If you want to save our country "Get out and vote every election and make your same "THINKING"voters do the same!

  •  the anti-abortion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    zealots will try and turn that bldg red sooner rather then later.

  •  If this story was even REMOTELY funny.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Which it ISN'T....

    ....I'd suggest that local Planning Departments would have justifiably shut down any business trying to get away with painting their facility THAT color....

    Years ago my company worked on mobile homes instead of commercial buildings, there was a guy in a park in Santa Cruz or Soquell who hadda double-wide painted that color, and his Cadillac painted to match.


    And now, back to our regularly scheduled collective outrage....

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 12:31:43 PM PDT

  •  MS is a part of Somalia, no? (0+ / 0-)

    I hope folks in the great state of Mississippi know the way to Memphis. Or Nashville. Or New Orleans. Cuz ain't nobody in the other 49 states surprised by the backwardness down there. No, it's not right that certain U.S. states are actually a part of third world nations. But there's no denying reality.

    If you live in ol MS, fight on, sisters and brothers.

    We will never have the elite, smart people on our side. - Rick Santorum

    by easong on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 06:33:48 PM PDT

a gilas girl, Angie in WA State, CathiefromCanada, Chi, oofer, Radiowalla, Odysseus, Gooserock, TrueBlueMajority, Powered Grace, mslat27, eeff, Sandy on Signal, missLotus, susans, shanikka, bwren, Iberian, splashy, navajo, sidnora, revsue, NYFM, Steven Payne, Timbuk3, mungley, davidincleveland, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, capelza, jrooth, dewtx, ChemBob, eru, quaoar, most peculiar mama, Hastur, Sandino, noweasels, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, vigilant meerkat, Clytemnestra, edwardssl, emeraldmaiden, Themistoclea, Naniboujou, arlene, fou, raincrow, blueoasis, DarkestHour, gpoutney, justiceputnam, geekydee, blueoregon, bartcopfan, PatConnors, Thinking Fella, One Pissed Off Liberal, bear83, john07801, BeninSC, flumptytail, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, dclawyer06, shesaid, mbh1023, jayden, jnhobbs, on the cusp, TomP, gizmo59, JeffW, MikePhoenix, Youffraita, Calamity Jean, mayim, glendaw271, Womantrust, Parthenia, JamieG from Md, lostboyjim, maggiejean, Throw The Bums Out, LibrErica, Denise Oliver Velez, Larsstephens, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, commonmass, smileycreek, FogCityJohn, serendipityisabitch, Polly Syllabic, cai, ericlewis0, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, fiercefilms, soaglow, kerflooey, slowbutsure, mikejay611, Nicci August, zukesgirl64, laurnj, Carolyn in Oregon, badscience, Santa Susanna Kid, Free2bMe, BarackStarObama, VirginiaJeff, shaso, IB JOHN, enhydra lutris, whaddaya, Liberal Mole, Joe Jackson, bakeneko, leftykook, Lucy2009, No one gets out alive, Laurel in CA, Rejoinder, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, quill, bluezen, anodnhajo, Chrislove, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, a2nite, Horace Boothroyd III, Lorinda Pike, peachcreek, jan4insight, belinda ridgewood, MartyM, avsp, etherealfire, Glen The Plumber, George3, this just in, flevitan, poopdogcomedy, Yo Bubba, Ree Zen, ORswede, howabout, Smoh, Gardener in PA, CenPhx, Future Gazer, Penny GC, Will Stark, Gurnt, hbk, CelticOm, august88, drigden, CWinebrinner

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site