Olga Reyes, victim of “pro-life” politics

I feel like I’ve written this a million times, but the bodies keep piling up so I’ll say it again: “Pro-life” policies kill women. They killed Olga Reyes. And they’ll kill tens of thousands of women this year, just like they did the year before and the year before that.

MANAGUA, Nicaragua – Two weeks after Olga Reyes danced at her wedding, her bloated and disfigured body was laid to rest in an open coffin — the victim, her husband and some experts say, of Nicaragua’s new no-exceptions ban on abortion.

Reyes, a 22-year-old law student, suffered an ectopic pregnancy. The fetus develops outside the uterus, cannot survive and causes bleeding that endangers the mother. But doctors seemed afraid to treat her because of the anti-abortion law, said husband Agustin Perez. By the time they took action, it was too late.

Nicaragua last year became one of 35 countries that ban all abortions, even to save the life of the mother, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York. The ban has been strictly followed, leaving the country torn between a strong tradition of women’s rights and a growing religious conservatism. Abortion rights groups have stormed Congress in recent weeks demanding change, but President Daniel Ortega, a former leftist revolutionary and a Roman Catholic, has refused to oppose the church-supported ban.

Evangelical groups and the church say abortion is never needed now because medical advances solve the complications that might otherwise put a pregnant mother’s life at risk.

But at least three women have died because of the ban, and another 12 reported cases will be examined, said gynecologist and university researcher Eliette Valladares, who is working with the Pan American Health Organization to analyze deaths of pregnant women recorded by Nicaragua’s Health Ministry.

Sure, abortion is never medically necessary — except for the women who die when they can’t access it.

The Roman Catholic Church mobilized nearly 300,000 people to march and sign petitions in support of the ban.

“A child is not a sickness,” said Henry Romero, a priest who helped lead the campaign. “When two lives are in danger, you must try to save both the woman and the child. It’s difficult to say now that it isn’t possible to save both.”

A child isn’t a sickness, but a pregnancy can make you really fucking sick. It can complicate existing conditions. As Olga Reyes’ family now knows, it can kill you.

So no, it isn’t “difficult to say that it isn’t possible to save both.” It only gets difficult if you think that pregnancy is punishment, and women should have to die for their embryos. And women are dying, from ectopic pregnancies and from botched illegal abortions — and they aren’t being treated for those, either:

Some doctors privately admit to carrying out what they believe are illegal procedures, while others say they won’t jeopardize their careers.

“Many are thinking that instead of taking the risk, it is better to let a woman die,” said Dr. Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine.

Doctors frequently see women coming in with infections, many likely brought on by illegal abortions that they refuse to disclose for fear they might be punished, said Dr. Carla Cerrato. Because the people with some medical training who used to do illegal abortions have disappeared, Cerrato said, women more frequently take drugs or pull the fetus out on their own using wires or other crude objects.

“What we are seeing are complications that before we never saw,” Cerrato said, sitting in the dingy pre-labor room at a crowded public hospital in Managua.

She added that she sees hysterectomies and severe infections that leave women sterile or dead because obstetricians can’t take any action that might harm a living fetus.

“We have to wait until the fetus dies,” she said. “But often, for the woman, it’s too late.”

Thank your friendly neighborhood pro-lifer.

(Thanks to Mnemosyne in the comments for the link)

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

33 comments for “Olga Reyes, victim of “pro-life” politics

  1. Bitter Scribe
    November 8, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    President Daniel Ortega, a former leftist revolutionary and a Roman Catholic, has refused to oppose the church-supported ban.

    That’s really disgusting. To think I once sympathized with this guy.

    “When two lives are in danger, you must try to save both the woman and the child. It’s difficult to say now that it isn’t possible to save both.”

    So does this Father Romero have a medical degree to go with his theological degree?

  2. D.N. Nation
    November 8, 2007 at 9:23 pm

    Said it in another thread, but it still applies:

    Pro-lifers are long on rhetoric, tiny on logistics. When dealing with scenarios such as this one, it’s easy to wax bullshitic about the sanctity of childhood and love. It’s also fucking nonsense in the face of reality. And it’s a killer.

    “When two lives are in danger, you must try to save both the woman and the child. It’s difficult to say now that it isn’t possible to save both.”

    Difficult? Nah. Here goes: It wasn’t possible to save both.

  3. November 8, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    Thanks, Jill F., for putting a human identity on this atrocious abortion ban. Here is the pieces I wrote on both Wednesday and moments ago:



    Here is a piece of tonight’s article that every one should read:

    […]We all know that when there is a pregnancy that can result in death, it is 100% impossible to save the mother and the fetus. This is every bit true here in 2007 as it was in 1972, 1963, 1925, 1860, 2 a.d. or even 1220 b.c.[…]

  4. November 9, 2007 at 12:00 am

    It is hard to live in a world where the people are clearly insane. As in this case.

    An ectopic pregnancy is NO WAY has anything to do with a fetus that might live. Ever. Even in America in the Bad old days, doctors performed surgery on women dying of ectopic pregnancies. Without QUESTION!

    It is as though these doctors know nothing about medicine whatsoever (and clearly nothing about ethics).

  5. Jamie
    November 9, 2007 at 12:14 am

    Stupid stupid stupid STUPID morons, the lot of them. It’s honestly news like this that makes me scared if I have a daughter.. if I start a family.

    People are DYING… no one is coming out of complications like that alive, but the Pro-Lifers(what a contradiction that name is for those twits) keep on marching blindly, sprouting the knowledge of the ignorant or misogynistic. Or both.

  6. November 9, 2007 at 12:20 am

    When two lives are in danger, you must try to save both the woman and the child.

    I wonder if they’re opposed to disaster triage as well.

  7. November 9, 2007 at 7:39 am

    I hope this Romero guy gets to face the victims of this idiocy in the afterlife. Although it would be nice if he got his comeuppance on earth.

    The very word “pro-life” is a lie.

  8. Brad Jackson
    November 9, 2007 at 9:22 am

    It isn’t stupidity, Jamie, its evil.

    I suppose its possible that somewhere down in the lower echelons of the movement, there are people who really, honestly, think what they’re doing is about “saving babies”. I doubt it, but its possible.

    But its an absolute certanty that the leaders of the “pro-life” movement have no interest whatsoever in reducing the abortion rate, and are completely dedicated to making pregnancy a punishment for sluts.

    Especially given the “pro-life” movement’s increasingly visible hostility to contraception, it is self-evident that they are not interested in ending abortion, but merely in hurting women.

    The dead women, the injured women, the women suffering due to the laws they pass are not accidental, they are the *GOAL* of the movement. They don’t want to end abortion, they want, purely and simply, to hurt women. Not, or at least not solely, out of sheer malice, but because its a mechanism of control.

    The feminist movement has been right about that since the dawn of the “pro-life” movement, and as the “pro-lifers” achieve victory in some places the correct analysis of early feminists is becoming glaringly obvious.

    They want dead women. They want injured women. This is their purpose, this is their goal, this is their crowning achievement. It isn’t stupidity, it isn’t that they were so dumb they didn’t realize that abortion is sometimes medically necessary, they know that perfectly well and are comitting murder by proxy to further their political aims.

    And we have a word for people like that: evil.

  9. RKMK
    November 9, 2007 at 11:03 am

    I don’t suppose there’s any way some non-profit legal team can sue the pants off legislators for the deaths of their family members due to this legislation?

    (Disclosure: I am totally unfamiliar with Nicaraguan legal system. Just thinking out loud about my own potential options if my government ever decides to legislate that the lives of myself, my sisters, mothers and friends are disposable.)

  10. Libertarianchick
    November 9, 2007 at 11:24 am

    If she had an ectopic pregnancy 2 weeks after her wedding, she probably got pregnant on her honeymoon.
    According to the church, she did everything right by not being an unmarried slut, and yet she still had to die. What hope do the “sluts and sinners” have?

  11. Dianne
    November 9, 2007 at 11:57 am

    It is as though these doctors know nothing about medicine whatsoever (and clearly nothing about ethics).

    I have more sympathy with the doctors than that, given what appears to be happening to those that defy the law (from the post above): “Because the people with some medical training who used to do illegal abortions have disappeared…” Normally when a country bans abortion a thriving illegal abortion industry pops up almost immediately. Even in countries with fairly draconian penalties for providing an abortion (once again, see Romania). That fewer and fewer people with even vague qualifications are willing to perform them in this case is ominous…particularly in light of the use of the word “disappear”, which has a specific meaning and not a pleasant one in Latin America. I would like to think that any medical professional would defy this stupid law and do the right thing anyway, but, well, I’d be scared if I lived in Nicaragua. And I’m not really sure what I’d do.

  12. November 9, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    Not only have I named Henry Romero as this week’s Asshole of the Week, but I also put him as one of the 106 Biggest Assholes of the Year currently.

    And Brad Jackson, excellent points. American “pro-life” forces can no longer hide their true colours. This is what the pro-choice candidates should be saying on the campaign trail:

    “The anti-abortion activists want dead women. And the way the far right will get to their goal is by banning abortion”

  13. November 9, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    My Bread and Roses homegrrl fern hill has a superlative post over @ Birth Pangs that goes into further detail re: Nicaragua’s draconian abortion policy and how it’s affecting women. fern also uncovers some unsavoury info about Ortega (who fits the pro-life=anti-woman metric to a fucking ‘T’.)

  14. Chava Firestein
    November 9, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    This is totally insane. I did not think even the Catholic Church holds the position that a woman must die rather than remove an ectopic pregnancy . . . there is ZERO chance that the fetus will live!

    I find this attitude repugnant, and I do not favor unrestricted abortion for religious reasons myself. Even the most fundamentalist religious Jewish perspective on abortion is that it MUST be performed if the woman’s life is in danger. You must even perform one at nine months, if it comes to that. And depending on the specific case, abortion to preserve the mental state of the mother is also allowed (rape, incest, extreme youth or other situations).

    There are some non-evil people who are against abortion, but these misogynist assholes are not pro-life. They are pro-death and pro-fear. I think fetal life has value, but it does not have more value than the life of the mother — when those things come into conflict, you have to choose the mother.

  15. Raincitygirl
    November 9, 2007 at 5:43 pm

    My cousin (a nurse) and her partner (an economist) are actively looking to leave Nicaragua, and according to my uncle, the current ban is playing a role in their desire to move on. They have one small child already and it wasn’t an easy pregnancy. They want to have more children in future, and my cousin, as a healthcare professional, is highly aware of the potential dangers. She’d like to RAISE the kid she’s already got.

    Oh, and if my other cousin lived in Nicaragua, she’d be dead twice over already. She had to abort a planned pregnancy years ago because she was diagnosed with cancer while pregnant. Survived, recovered, and later went on to have two healthy children (who wouldn’t exist without that abortion). They started trying for a third child last year, but she had an ectopic pregnancy and narrowly avoided bleeding to death despite living in a First World city with an excellent (and free) hospital nearby.

    Incidentally, this type of thing is going to hurt the economy and ability to provide services. My cousin living in Nicaragua is Dutch, and thus expats are less likely to stay (plus, you know, nurses may be underpaid but they’re kind of handy to have around). Plus, her partner is Nicaraguan, went to Nicaraguan schools and university, did his graduate work in the US, then came back home to put his international experience to work. Now he wants to emigrate. I’m sure he as an individual is not so terribly important that he can’t be replaced, but it’s not a good sign for the future when expats and the local educated elite want out.

    Of course, the consequences are far, far worse for people who don’t have money, don’t have another country they cna go to, nor have they had the opportunity to get higher education and the kind of skills that could get them decent jobs in the West. Still, Olga Reyes was a law student, so she presumably came from a fairly privileged background. She still died.

  16. William
    November 9, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    but it’s not a good sign for the future when expats and the local educated elite want out.

    What do you mean? Thats part of the goal. See, its kinda difficult to drive a country back to the 17th century and put the church in charge if you have a widely educated populace or citizens and immigrants who have had a little taste of freedom. Better to get rid of all those trouble-makers and get back to the important business of enforcing your morals anyone unfortunate enough to be in your vicinity.

    And I don’t want to hear about how the loss of educated professionals will hurt anyone else. Suffering is good for the soul, it builds character and maintains a strong faith. Besides their reward will be in the hereafter, the meek shall inherit, blah blah, pass the collection plate around and pop out a few more proles.

  17. Raincitygirl
    November 9, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    Oh, I see. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

  18. JuniorPartner
    November 9, 2007 at 8:19 pm

    Clearly a “no abortion in all scenarios” law is utterly ridiculous.
    With that said, is an “abortion on demand, no questions asked” rule any more desirable? This post rightly points out the fallacy of a dogmatic position on one side of the issue, but surely there are thousands of “victims” (unborn babies) stemming from more liberal abortion policies. It’s a bit unfair to paint all people who self-identify as “pro-life” with extreme positions like the one in Nicaragua.

  19. brightbluelizard
    November 10, 2007 at 12:50 am

    JuniorPartner: I can see why you’d be uneasy with a totally liberal abortion law -afteral, this opens up the interesting can of worms: just when does personhood start?
    However, keep in mind women don’t become pregnant so they can have abortions; they have abortions for medical reasons (as already discussed) or they were caught off guard (were raped/forgot to use contraception/contraception failed) or -in an insane number of cases- just don’t have access to affordable & effective contraception.
    So the abortions that will be performed are all necessary. No one has any business telling a woman when her physical/emotional/mental/financial health isn’t quite bad enough to merit an abortion (just how would you have the state decide on these things anyway?)
    What’s more, a few years ago the World Health Organization did a survey which showed that countries with the most liberal abortion laws had the lowest abortion rates, not b/c abortion was legal but b/c most of the public had access to effective & affordable contraception AS WELL AS thorough & reliable sex ed in school.

    If you are serious about preventing abortion, lobby the state to enforce comprehensive, medically accurate & reliable sex ed in ALL schools. Lobby for subsidies for contraceptives (i.e. the pill, condoms) which should be in all high schools & university campuses at least, plus a few other public places so the rest of the community can access them. Overhaul the medical system so that women can receive affordable prenatal care & receive affordable operations such as DUI’s or hysterectomy’s -as well as abortions, b/c the more accessible abortion is, the earlier women will have them, which is not only medically safer but also ethically less ambiguous, if you’ve trouble with abortion right through the 9th month.

    Public policy is not just about what you personally think is “moral” but about what’s going to work while doing the least amount of harm.

  20. Brad Jackson
    November 10, 2007 at 10:18 am

    JuniorPartner There’s also the fact that your strawman “abortion on demand, no questions asked” is one of the more idiot rantings of the so-called “pro-life” movement, and has no relation to legal abortion in any country on the planet, and has no relation to any position ever put forth by pro-choice advocates.

    In the US, for example, Roe v Wade established a tripartite scheme of increasing restriction on abortion as fetal development progressed. During the first trimester, abortion is relatively unrestricted, and it is during this period that the vast bulk of abortions take place. During the second trimester abortion is much more restricted, and generally only takes place if there are health problems or indications of fetal malformation. During the third trimester abortion is strictly limited to preserving the life or health of the mother. Do you see “abortion on demand, no questions asked” there dipshit? No? What a fucking surprise, because that’s never been the goal of the pro-choice movement, its a filthy fucking lie you so-called “pro-life” scumbags like to toss around and nothing else.

    Compare to, for example, Northern Ireland, where the so-called “pro-life” crowd has managed a virtual ban on all abortion.

    Remember Ms. D? She was 17, and her fetus suffered from anencephaly, a condition where the head doesn’t close off, preventing the formation of large important parts of the brain (like the frontal lobes), the survival rate for babies with anencephaly is roughly zero, 55% don’t survive birth, and those few who do typically die within 24 hours. So, the woman was essentially carrying a corpse in her uterus. But you wonderful fucking “pro-life” people wouldn’t let her travel to England where she could get the corpse removed from her body. The condition of her fetus was discovered in her 4th month, so you evil fuckers made her carry a corpse for five months, then give birth (with all the risk that entails) to a corpse. Yup, that slut was well and truly punished, that’ll teach her to go around acting like a human being. Thanks a lot asshole.

    And, in a poll conducted in N. Ireland this year a whopping 25% were opposed to aborting a fetus that couldn’t survive outside the uterus. Yeah, you and your allies sure are motivated by goals other than slut punishing.

    You and your allies are *NOT* in favor of life, and never have been. The “pro-life” positions you try to dismiss as “extreme” are, in fact, the mainstream pro-slutpunishing position, and not extreme in the slightest. Every single place you vile thugs have gotten power those “extreme” positions have been coded into law, so they aren’t fucking extreme, and I’d take it as a kindness if you’d stop trying to lie and tell us they are.

    Meanwhile the bullshit strawman you pulled out of your ass has never been advocated by any pro-choice movement, and in countries where abortion is legal has never been implemented or even considered.

    So, in summary, fuck you and the strawman you rode in on.

  21. Mercredi
    November 10, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    I’ve heard tell that the Nicaragua ban does not prohibit all treatment of ectopic pregancies – namely, it’s still permissable to treat them, so long as the death of the embryo is just a “side effect” of removing the tube/cervix/wherever it’s implanted – but that doctors either do not know of this technical exception, or are too afraid they’ll be penalized regardless.

    Assuming that’s true… what’s then very striking to me here is that the Catholic Church was a powerful force pushing for the ban, but yet haven’t seem to have used their considerable power to educate people in Nicargua on a broad scale that this life-saving (and to my knowledge, consistent with Catholic doctrine) technical exception exists, and that it is permissible for doctors to save women with ectopic pregnancies.

  22. JuniorPartner
    November 10, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Brad Jackson:

    I wasn’t implying that “abortion on demand no questions asked” is in fact the law in the United States. But it is a fallacy to conclude from that that, within the so-called “pro choice” movement, there are not significant numbers of people who do in fact want such a law.
    This was not a debate on the status of abortion law – the actual status is quite clear. Casey v. Planned Parenthood is in fact now the law, not Roe vs. Wade.

  23. JuniorPartner
    November 10, 2007 at 3:40 pm


    You’re quite right that many positive social outcomes probably flow from more liberal (as opposed to completely restrictive) abortion policies – e.g., the reduction in the crime rate observed after Roe because of abortion’s disparate impact on population groups more likely to commit crimes. I was not trying to make a public policy argument, merely pointing out the oddity of focusing strictly on women as “victims” when people rarely discuss unborn babies as victims. I am not trying to take a metaphysical stance here – in fact I don’t think it’s possible to answer such a question, or even a coherent one to ask. But precisely because it’s impossible to answer these questions using abstract reasoning as opposed to empirical evidence, it makes little sense to refer (as “pro choicers” often do) to women as “victims” and unborn kids not. Such a claim requires an untenable background assumption (that it is possible to distinguish, based on ability to suffer “victimhood,” a woman from a fetus).

  24. sophonisba
    November 10, 2007 at 8:24 pm

    and that it is permissible for doctors to save women with ectopic pregnancies.

    It was mentioned before, but is worth repeating that under this rule, doctors are only allowed to save women by performing unnecessary surgery to remove womens’ functioning reproductive organs, frequently rendering them involuntary infertile. As you say:

    so long as the death of the embryo is just a “side effect” of removing the tube/cervix/wherever it’s implanted

    And taking out a woman’s cervix or fallopian tube just for kicks is NOT an acceptable way to treat an ectopic pregnancy. It’s an awful “compromise” whereby the rules say, sure, you can live, as long as we get to damage you a bit.

  25. Brad Jackson
    November 10, 2007 at 8:50 pm

    JuniorPartner Even assuming that you are correct and there are people looking for the strawman you put forth, an assumption I see absolutely no evidence to support, the fact remains that in the entire civilized world, where abortion is legal, that particular line of bullshit has never been achieved, nor seriously proposed.

    However, the policies you attempt, falsely, to dismiss as “extreme” from the so-called “pro-life” people are routinely implemented in the nations where they have gained power, and are proposed frequently and at high levels in nations where they have not yet gained power. Therefore they must be assumed to be the mainstream goals of the pro-slutpunishing movement. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have been implemented, now would they?

    Which is why I say your entire argument is simple bullshit, a pathetic attempt to deny reality, and to smear the pro-choice argument as, and I quote your own words: “abortion on demand, no questions asked”, which is a demonstorable lie. Thus the ire, venom, and profanity. You were, and are, spewing one of the most pathetic and stupid lies of the “pro-life” people. Lies calculated to play on the emotions of others and give your true agenda the mask of reasonability when it is in fact a movement devoted to the cause of making women’s lives miserable.

    Further, I do not discuss fetuses, and let’s use the proper terminology here, “unborn baby” isn’t a medical term anymore than “partial birth abortion” is, its yet more propaganda, as victims because they aren’t people you insufferable twit. They are *potential* people, but so are the 25%-50% of fertilized eggs that are, without any medical intervention whatsoever, mensturated out. Unless you’re going to start weeping over that, your crap about fetuses being the victims of abortion is just that, crap. Do you hold cute little burrial ceremonies for tampons?

    And, tell me, was the corpse you and your allies forced Miss D to carry in her body for 5 months a victim? No. It was Miss D who was victimized by the pro-slutpunishing movement’s routine, mainstream, policies.

    The reason that we focus on women as victims of the pro-slutpunishing movement is, surprise, because they are, and the goal of your vile movement is to victimize women as can be seen by simply looking at any country where your kind has gained power. Every single place the forces of evil have won has implemented the policies you try to dismiss as “extreme”. Every. Single. One. You seek to make women victims, and then ask why we see women as victims, nice bit of insanity there chum.

    And, finally and most importantly, if you actually cared about reducing the number of abortions, as opposed to the slut punishing agenda you really care about, you’d be pushing for increased reality based sex education, starting as young as possible and continuing through high school, freely available contraception, and increased public spending on contraceptive research. Planned Parenthood is the single most successful group at preventing abortions that exists in the USA. How much was your last donation, and how long ago was it?

  26. Jicklet
    November 10, 2007 at 11:34 pm


    “Abortion on demand, no questions asked.”

    How many laws do we have in the United States prohibiting medically necessary procedures? How many laws prohibiting elective surgeries to improve the quality of life? Why should abortion be different from any other medical procedure?

    It shouldn’t.

  27. William
    November 10, 2007 at 11:54 pm

    I wasn’t implying that “abortion on demand no questions asked” is in fact the law in the United States. But it is a fallacy to conclude from that that, within the so-called “pro choice” movement, there are not significant numbers of people who do in fact want such a law.
    This was not a debate on the status of abortion law – the actual status is quite clear. Casey v. Planned Parenthood is in fact now the law, not Roe vs. Wade.


    I’m gonna go right ahead and say it: so what? Lets say I support “abortion on demand, no questions asked.” So what? On a fundamental level, when considering the concept of competing rights, why does it matter? I know, you’re arguing about dogmatic, absolute statements, but from what principle does moderation flow?

    Its the 400 pound gorilla of the abortion debate. Whenever you have a situation of competing rights, you end up with a winner and a loser. When discussing abortion you end up with two possible final outcomes: a fetus dies or one individual’s body is used (potentially against their will) in order to ensure the survival of another. Your argument is that we should find a balance and work to avoid dogmatic extremes, that there is a middle ground between abortions-for-all and abortions-for-none.

    The problem is that, in ever refusing even a single abortion, you set the precedent that an individual’s body can be claimed by another in the name of survival. Are you comfortable with that? More importantly, are you comfortable with that precedent out in the wild, subjected to the elaboration of courts and legislatures? Allowing abortion can easily be looked at from a property rights perspective, a self-defense perspective, or a privacy rights perspective without creating any new law. The same cannot be said of denying abortion.

  28. Interrobang
    November 11, 2007 at 3:39 am

    I’ll go all out and say I’m absolutely in favour of abortion on demand, no questions asked. It’s not my business to make decisions on medical treatment for other people; that’s between them and their doctors. I’m also not in favour of other people who ought not to be even disinterested observers meddling in people’s private medical decisions. That is the right we’re talking about here, the right to have a medical procedure performed without outside interference. The base precedent is not about abortion, it’s about whether any of various classes of individuals are fully enough legal persons to be trusted to make their own medical decisions without outside intervention.

    If legal adults don’t all have the same rights, we don’t live in anything resembling a fair society. For what it’s worth, owing to strict biological considerations (like that fetuses don’t live independently and need to use someone else’s body to survive), I roundly reject the idea that a fetus should have equal or greater rights to a legal adult or a minor.

  29. bmc90
    November 12, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    Ever wonder why Jr. Partner and the entire Cathlolic Church aren’t in Iraq and Darfur sheilding the bodies of born children from bombs if they care so much about “life”? The lives of children never have been the agenda.

  30. Citizen Kane
    January 25, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    My wife had an ectopic pregnancy in 1999. She’d have died without emergency surgery.

    So whenever I hear a pro-lifer telling me that there’s no such thing as a medically necessary abortion, I tell him or her my story. And then I tell them how noble I think it is that they believe my wife should have died for their principles.

    At that point, they’re usually speechless. Shame it doesn’t last.

Comments are closed.