And of course, these late term procedures are usually performed for a wanted pregnancy in which something has gone horribly awry. That’s the case in which preserving a woman’s fertility, that is, not perforating her uterus, is usually very important to her.

I’m gonna even go one step further and say that “not having a perforated uterus” is probably very important to (dare i say) every woman, not just the ones who had wanted pregnancies.

It’s interesting how they see the main risk of an abortion gone wrong as to the doctor who might get sued. Not to the woman who might be injured or even killed. Almost as though she is irrelevant and not really a real person in all this.

I perceived that as “you can’t convince/trust women not seek abortions, so you have to discourage the people who provide them”. I think these are two sides of the same attitude.

which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.

*shudder*

Clearly, this is not so.

When the other side embraces to opposite ideology, which is that “If you don’t agree with us, you’re wrong, and you shouldn’t be allowed to say that,” and you continue to proclaim that to be a valid opinion that you respect someone for having, you lose. Combining that with the opposite ideology saying “We want to kill you — we want you to die a horrible death for a belief that is peculiar to us — and if you don’t agree with us you’re wrong, and you shouldn’t be allowed to disagree” and you pretty much have how we arrived here today.