Author: has written 5289 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

70 Responses

  1. gretel
    gretel February 4, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

    I’ve been searching Thomas.gov for the latest version of the bill, but it seems the only version they have is from 1/20. Any government law experts out there (or any experts, period) know how to access copies of bills when they’re in committee? Is it possible? I’d like to read the latest version. (I’m sure my blood pressure would not like me to do this.)

    I feel completely ignorant that I did not know that all health matters in the House go to the Energy and Commerce committee. I feel so doomed.

  2. Marduk
    Marduk February 4, 2011 at 12:27 pm |

    Well the thing is really shocking but most likely the ones who actually suffer from this will be a few. There are plenty of other doctors and many people with enough common sense not to go through with it. Personally, I’m religious but i still don’t understand the sanctity ascribed to early pregnancies. And quite frankly the bill is ridiculous and unprofessional. I was sure that institutions are supposed to work professionally and ignore any aspect, be it race, sex, orientation and what-not. So i see no logic and professionalism in such a bill.

  3. Emily
    Emily February 4, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

    I’m looking for it, too, gretel. I wanted to see what the actual language said because all I have seen are summaries.

  4. Lindsay Beyerstein
    Lindsay Beyerstein February 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm |

    Here’s the text of H.R. 358:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358

    Where does it say that doctors will be allowed to refuse care to pregnant women if that might harm the fetus?

    Maybe it follows from the part about “non discrimination on abortion”? That part says that the government can’t force a doctor or hospital to perform an abortion or refer for an abortion. No exceptions for the life of the mother.

  5. BHuesca
    BHuesca February 4, 2011 at 1:00 pm |

    Yes, I third or fourth the request for the actual bill language – for us non-lawyers out here! Can’t ethically call others ignorant when I haven’t seen the language m’self.

  6. Bitter Scribe
    Bitter Scribe February 4, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

    Geez, Jill, be reasonable. They no longer allow women suspected of being witches to be thrown into rivers or off cliffs to prove innocence. Nowadays, perishing under these circumstances is practically the only way for a woman to die an honorable Christian death.

  7. dcsohl
    dcsohl February 4, 2011 at 1:30 pm |

    OK, I’m gonna give it a go. According to the NARAL site, they mention language on “page 6″ of HR 358. The stuff on page 6 makes alterations to “ObamaCare”, aka PPACA. So here is the section of PPACA that gets altered. I’m striking out language that’s being deleted by HR 358, and italicizing language that’s being added. Lack of a preview button makes me nervous, so I hope I have the formatting down…

    (c) Application of State and Federal Laws Regarding Abortion-

    (1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or protecting conscience rights, restricting or prohibiting abortion or coverage or funding of abortion, or establishing procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
    (2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION-

    (A) IN GENERAL- Nothing Subject to subsection (g), nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding–

    (i) conscience protection;
    (ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
    (iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.

    The subsection (g) that is mentioned is entirely new, added by HR 358. I won’t cut and paste it here, but you can find it here.

    As I read it, the big deal is (a) the addition of the new “protecting conscience rights” language, and (b) requiring Federal funds not be withheld from organizations that refuse to provide abortions or make referrals thereto.

    But IANAL.

  8. Lynnsey
    Lynnsey February 4, 2011 at 1:32 pm |

    This is the question I can never get the pro-fetus crowd to answer. If, in your view, the fetus is a person then how is the death of 2 people better?

    Take me, for example. I’m pregnant and I have a two year old who I stay home with. If this pregnancy was a threat to my life (or even my long-term health) how is it better that I die/suffer. If I die, the fetus is gone, my (living, breathing) son is motherless, and my family loses me. My husband, if you ignore the emotional part of losing the woman he loves, at the very least has to pay for the valuable services I currently provide. How is this better? Gah!

    This is insane.

  9. gretel
    gretel February 4, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

    On the NARAL post about this bill it states that the bill was changed yesterday morning, so it’s different from the bill as introduced January 20th (the one you linked to). I’m trying to find the most recent version of the bill to no avail.

    Lindsay Beyerstein: Here’s the text of H.R. 358:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358Where does it say that doctors will be allowed to refuse care to pregnant women if that might harm the fetus?

  10. gretel
    gretel February 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

    Exactly! I would point out that fact to your congressperson, especially if your congressperson is one of the [mean word] who cosponsored this [mean word] legislation.

    And congratulations on your pregnancy! You sound like a great parent.

    Lynnsey: This is the question I can never get the pro-fetus crowd to answer.If, in your view, the fetus is a person then how is the death of 2 people better?Take me, for example.I’m pregnant and I have a two year old who I stay home with.If this pregnancy was a threat to my life (or even my long-term health) how is it better that I die/suffer.If I die, the fetus is gone, my (living, breathing) son is motherless, and my family loses me.My husband, if you ignore the emotional part of losing the woman he loves, at the very least has to pay for the valuable services I currently provide.How is this better?Gah!This is insane.  

  11. Astrid
    Astrid February 4, 2011 at 1:52 pm |

    “Also? It’s not like letting the pregnant woman die saves the fetus, so there’s no “protecting life” here. When the woman dies, the fetus dies too.”

    Exactly. I have never understood why pro-lifers consider it advisable that the pregnant woman gives her life to prevent an abortion. I’m really hoping that the bill will be adapted to provide exceptions to save the life of the mother. Otherwise, it’d better be called the Ending Lives Act.

  12. Liz
    Liz February 4, 2011 at 1:53 pm |

    This bill is disturbing.

  13. Kristen J.
    Kristen J. February 4, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

    Wait…Where does the PLA change or delete 1303(c)? As long as this provision is intact its not an issue, right?

    1303(c) provides:

    APPLICATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES LAWS.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve any health care provider from providing emergency services as required by State or Federal law, including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (popularly known as ‘‘EMTALA’’).

  14. preying mantis
    preying mantis February 4, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

    “This is the question I can never get the pro-fetus crowd to answer. If, in your view, the fetus is a person then how is the death of 2 people better?”

    Well, it’s not better for you, obviously, but you have to remember that pregnant ladies aren’t people. They’re just props for fetus-humpers to use in their own off-off-Broadway production of “I Am the Most Moral Person of All Time.”

    If it’s any consolation, I’m reasonably sure they intend to resurrect you and your fetus once they get elected Jesus.

  15. Lynnsey
    Lynnsey February 4, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

    @Gretel…Thanks! I like to think I’m doing something right. You’d better believe Mike Kelly in PA3 has heard from me a number of times in the last few days. He sponsored HR3, too. I love it when old, white men make decisions about reproductive rights ;)

    If conservatives wanted to demonstrate their resolve to reduce the number of abortions they might try supporting comprehensive, age-appropriate, medically sound sexual health education and real, affordable access to health care, especially contraceptives. Since many of the most vocal opponents of abortion also oppose these solutions my only conclusion is that they are more interested in policing the reproductive choices of women.

  16. Kristen J.
    Kristen J. February 4, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

    If they are marking it up in committee we won’t see it until the hearings probably. They’ve set the hearing for the 9th. Do we know if any pro-choice orgs have been invited to testify?

  17. Lu
    Lu February 4, 2011 at 2:10 pm |

    Astrid and Lynnsey, having been educated in a (shockingly liberal, at that time [late 1970s]) Catholic high school, and having taken their “Marriage and Family” class (sex ed, plain and simple, by another name), I’ll take a stab at answering the question.

    It’s similar to birth control, in a way. You are allowed to use “natural family planning”—the thing where you take your temp and examine mucus as evidence of fertility—as birth control as long as you are open to the possibility of becoming pregnant and having the baby nonetheless. In other words, you know you might not want a baby right now and are actively planning against it, but you are not using barrier methods and spermicides to prevent it. There’s a Jesuitical fingernail of a difference in logic there. You are not actively stopping pregnancy; that’s for God to do. You are only planning and acting to reduce the possibility.

    Same thing with not aborting a fetus and with not letting the fetus die in order to save the mother. The “out” these people give themselves is, “We will not actively kill the fetus. We hope and pray that the mother will survive, but if she and the fetus don’t, although that’s the worst possible outcome, human intervention is not what brought it about.”

    That is only my understanding based in having been trained in the idea of Not Tampering in God’s Domain. I am not a theologian (IANAT). I am only a poor benighted fallen-away Catholic. I am totally for complete abortion rights, and I do understand the logical failings of the pro-life position.

  18. Bex
    Bex February 4, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

    @Marduk, were you aware that more than 50% of US hospitals have fewer than 100 beds? That another 20+% have fewer than 200? I work at a rural hospital with just over 100 beds. We have a single MD on duty in the ER, on a 24-hour shift. Luckily, our rural situation is an accident of California geography, and we have a number of larger, better-staffed hospitals we can transfer patients to. Most of those under-100-bed hospitals are hours away from the next health care provider. If one of those hospitals has a doctor who feels so delicate about his conscience that he won’t provide care, this bill would force women to choose between traveling long distances (and hoping they don’t die or become irreversibly injured on the way) or waiting until shift change in hopes the next doctor will be better (and they won’t die or become irreversibly injured on the way.)

    Of course, any doctor who would make use of a conscience clause is taking an “interesting” interpretation of “first, do no harm” to begin with.

  19. dcsohl
    dcsohl February 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm |

    The logic behind letting the mother die is to deter people from claiming that it’s a life-and-death deal when it isn’t. In other words, they’re all fired up that doctors might lie about the necessity of the abortion. Maybe she won’t die after all. Maybe she’d be getting an abortion for an unacceptable reason. Better safe than… safe. Wait a minute…

    As for the “new” stuff added to HR 358, it hasn’t formally happened yet. The House is not currently in session yet. Unless NARAL wants to share with us exactly what they know, we plebs won’t find out until it gets formally introduced when the House reconvenes on February 8th.

  20. Bex
    Bex February 4, 2011 at 2:18 pm |

    @Lu If God is omnipotent, wouldn’t he be able to punch a metaphysical hole in the condom if He was super-determined that a particular sex act result in pregnancy? (Deactivate the spermicide, what have you.) That’s one of the things that puzzles me about Christianity in general, that easy acceptance of limited omnipotence.

  21. Saving Lives Act: Ending Lives « Astrid's Journal

    […] an excellent commentary on a new bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow doctors to refuse therapeutic abortions even in life-saving cases. Thomas over at Blog for Choice also posts some commentary and links to further information. […]

  22. Lu
    Lu February 4, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

    Bex, I’m not sure where you’re coming from with the question, but I was only talking about Roman Catholics, and the Catholic church sez “no barrier methods” (e.g., condoms and diaphragms) and no spermicides. So, if it’s a strictly observant Catholic couple, supposedly they wouldn’t be using them anyway. And hey, we know that Catholic God = all-babies, all-the-time, so … you know there’s going to be constant spermicide-deactivating and hole-punching from the Almighty Mr. G. there. Logically speaking, of course.

  23. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable February 4, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

    Lu, I think the point Bex is making is that you can use a timing method and if you get pregnant, that’s supposed to be “god’s will.” Well, no method is 100% effective. Why do Catholics assume that god can’t act if you’re using protection? God is either omnipotent or not, right?

  24. Michael Crichton
    Michael Crichton February 4, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

    Also? It’s not like letting the pregnant woman die saves the fetus,

    In a vanishingly rare number of cases it probably does. In most case where the fetus can hypothetically be saved, an emergency delivery would probably be only slightly more dangerous to the mother than an late-term abortion would be. But that’s wingnut logic for ya, take the most extreme examples you can find, pretend they’re typical, and advocate policy around them.

  25. stephanie
    stephanie February 4, 2011 at 4:38 pm |

    How do we stop this?

  26. What We Missed.
    What We Missed. February 4, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

    […] The appalling Protect Life Act could allow doctors to deny necessary care to a pregnant woman if it hurts the fetus. […]

  27. Lu
    Lu February 4, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

    I don’t think they do assume that, PrettyAmiable (and Bex). It’s not a question of putting God’s omnipotence on trial–it’s more about what humans do, and their intent. Which was the crux of my attempt to answer the question of why “pro-lifers” seem OK with the death of the woman as long as no one meant to kill the fetus. I do wish someone who knows more about this than I do had jumped in, since I’m not doing an adequate job, but instead what we got was some kind of off-the-cuff stuff about woman-hating. Which I don’t doubt is true, but it doesn’t really answer the question. And I don’t mean to ruffle feathers or criticize the people who did answer that way; I’m just saying that, IMO, it didn’t help resolve the issue.

  28. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable February 4, 2011 at 5:03 pm |

    Lu: it’s more about what humans do, and their intent.

    But you said that natural family planning is a-okay, no? There’s literally no difference between someone trying to game the system without condoms and someone trying game the system with condoms (with the exception of reduced chance of STDs).

  29. Lu
    Lu February 4, 2011 at 5:03 pm |

    sorry to post twice in a row, but now I see dcsohl’s answer, which I missed before. That sure is part of it, too. “maybe she won’t die, and then we’ll save both”–remember that argument from the recent case in which the nun/hospital administrator was suspended (fired?) for allowing a lifesaving abortion at a Catholic hospital? Supposedly she should have just hoped it would turn out all right.

  30. Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Back Off Crazy Rape Redefinition, Find New Way To Marginalize Women

    […] while this language has been stricken from this piece of legislation, anti-abortion lawmakers have opened up a new front in the battle to turn women into brood-mares: Sometimes there really aren’t words for what passes as “pro-life” in the United […]

  31. Lu
    Lu February 4, 2011 at 5:14 pm |

    PrettyAmiable–here we reach the limits of my ability to explain the Catholic logic on reproductive matters. I know it looks like “gaming the system,” but, as it was presented to me, if that’s how and why you’re using BC, you’re doing something non-sanctioned. The fact that you’re using condoms or other barrier, or a chemical, is also a factor. Seriously, I can’t explain it. I’ve found that matters of “conscience” often come down whether you can find an arcane rule to excuse what you’re doing. Again, not a theologian. Not even a Catholic … originally trying to answer a question about abortion with an analogy.

  32. RD
    RD February 4, 2011 at 5:24 pm |

    PrettyAmiable:
    But you said that natural family planning is a-okay, no? There’s literally no difference between someone trying to game the system without condoms and someone trying game the system with condoms (with the exception of reduced chance of STDs).  

    Yeah. The persons “intent” in those two situations is the same isn’t it?

  33. Anne
    Anne February 4, 2011 at 5:52 pm |

    I think the just hoping she won’t die thing is a major part of the not performing abortion even when the pregnancy will kill her stance. One popular personal anecdote they seem to trump out is a woman who faces this situation, sticks to her guns to not terminate the pregnancy because she has faith that God will see her through, pray a whole bunch and then – happy ending – she lives and so does the baby. I guess terminating the pregnancy is evil on two counts – the abortion itself and the lack of faith that God will handle it (though if she does die, it’s God’s will and the woman and the little baby are now angels in Heaven with Jesus).

  34. Gillian
    Gillian February 4, 2011 at 9:22 pm |

    Lynnsey: This is the question I can never get the pro-fetus crowd to answer. If, in your view, the fetus is a person then how is the death of 2 people better?

    I can answer that at least: if abortion is murder and therefore a sin, then if a doctor saves a woman by performing an abortion, he* will go to hell. Whereas if he passively allows her and the fetus to die, he hasn’t committed a sin. And we all agree that’s what our laws should be about, preventing people from committing the sins designated by one particular religion.

    * of course in the Christianist’s mind all doctors are male. I mean, a female doctor? It’s like they think they’re people!

  35. Lynnsey
    Lynnsey February 4, 2011 at 9:38 pm |

    @Gillian…Oh, I see. That’s almost as good as the “it’s God’s will” argument.

    I actually had a gentleman (ahem) be genuinely surprised in an argument (via the internets) today that I wasn’t a “believer.” I was therefore “wrong.” He seemed unaware that approximately %70 of the global population isn’t Christian and ,thus, does not need to adhere to his moral imperative to let women die.

  36. April
    April February 4, 2011 at 10:44 pm |

    This has little chance of passing the Senate, right? I honestly have no other words about this. I’m appalled. And scared.

  37. ari
    ari February 4, 2011 at 11:34 pm |

    REDEFINING RAPE?? This bill is ridiculous!! please SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP IT!! and please spread the word!

    http://pol.moveon.org/smithbill/?rc=fb.share.smithbill.0.2

  38. DakotaWomen » Blog Archive » In the News…

    […] lawmakers in DC have dropped their attempt to redefine rape only to start pushing a provision that would allow hospitals to refuse to save a woman in need of a life-saving abortion. BECAUSE THEY HATE […]

  39. Eliska
    Eliska February 5, 2011 at 12:35 am |

    Kristen J.: Wait…Where does the PLA change or delete 1303(c)?As long as this provision is intact its not an issue, right?

    1303(c) is part of PPACA. As such, it’s affected by the addition of the phrase “Subject to subsection (g)” before the phrase “nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding…”. It basically says “as long as it has anything to do with abortion, you can’t discriminate against a doctor who refuses to do it”. That includes in emergency cases, and gets around EMTALA.

  40. Kristen J.
    Kristen J. February 5, 2011 at 1:13 am |

    April: This has little chance of passing the Senate, right? I honestly have no other words about this. I’m appalled. And scared. April

    Never underestimate the pressure that the forced birth movement can bring to bear on our members of Congress (or the weakness of those members to withstand any sort of political pressure). IMO, the pro-choice movement sucks at exercising any amount of political will so even though we are in the majority by quite a bit on this issue, I’d still give something like this a more than 50 percent chance of passing.

  41. Tapetum
    Tapetum February 5, 2011 at 3:02 am |

    You’re supposed to pray for a miracle and rely on God to save the mother and baby. “Better two deaths than one murder” is the quote I heard on that one.

    One of my paternal aunts gets used by other family members as a prime example of this. She was told that both she and the baby would die if she got pregnant, but when she did get pregnant could not or did not get an abortion (for reasons I’m not clear on, but it was well before Roe v. Wade). Much prayer and such later, both she and my cousin did make it through alive – but it required a crash c-section, no anesthesia.

    My other aunts use this as argument for draconian abortion restrictions. The aunt who was actually under the scalpel is devotedly, one might say ardently, pro-choice.

  42. aboila
    aboila February 5, 2011 at 9:19 am |

    I think what pisses me off the most is that this amendment, like the one redefining rape, is mainly a political ploy. They always add these on early on, knowing that they will be dropped under public pressure, but also knowing that the rest of their already extreme but not as attention-grabbing and outrage-generating bill will look more moderate and have a higher chance of passing once they make a big deal about dropping the completely outrageous stuff. Politically speaking, this amendment isn’t the point of the bill. This amendment just makes it harder for the public to focus on the incredibly dangerous and antiwoman substance of the bill, because we keep having to shift focus from one outrageous amendment to the next, none of which will likely be in the final version of the bill. Ugh!

  43. Ania
    Ania February 5, 2011 at 9:53 am |

    Can we change the language here to pregnant people? Womyn aren’t the only one that can become pregnant. Trans-men and FAAB nonbinaries will suffer from this as well.

  44. Protect Life Act « Female is an Ism.
    Protect Life Act « Female is an Ism. February 5, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

    […] New bill will let doctors refuse to save the lives of pregnant women (via librarianinlittlecanada) […]

  45. kris
    kris February 5, 2011 at 12:54 pm |

    I am very religious and have always considered myself to be anti-abortion but I think this bill is rediculous. Although it would be very unforunate for a fetus to have to be killed in order to save a woman’s life, that option seems to make more sense rather then to let both the woman and fetus die. The death of an unborn baby would be very sad but the death of a woman who is likely a mother, wife, daughter, sister, etc.. would be even more tragic so if a fetus must be aborted in order to save a woman’s life I think doctors should be required to do everything in their power to save the woman’s life even if it means the fetus dies.

  46. Kyra
    Kyra February 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    Ugh, they’re calling THAT the “Protect Life Act?”

    Call it the “Let Doctors Kill Women Via Negligence When They Don’t Even Get A Live Baby Out Of The Situation Act.”

    (If only some Democrat could file that as an amendment.)

  47. K
    K February 5, 2011 at 4:47 pm |

    Hey here’s the PDF for the actual bill if anyone’s interested.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr358ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr358ih.pdf

  48. Paraxeni
    Paraxeni February 5, 2011 at 6:50 pm |

    @marduk – oh well, if only a few heathenous whores women will die, that’s ok! Oh wait, no, it isn’t, one is too much.

    @liz – honestly, from the outside? The USA is disturbing. I say that as someone being made to suffer by my own government right now, who still thinks “Could be worse, could be American”. It’s because of the horrific stories I read every day, from women who are asking questions about how to treat life or death situations at home because they have to choose between food and rent as it is, never mind hospital bills. I dread typing “You need the ER now.” because I know that’s out of their reach. HR3 and now this? Too much.

  49. Scyntillating
    Scyntillating February 5, 2011 at 10:20 pm |

    Okay, from what I see, it’s this provision here: On page 6, the new subsection says basically that health care providers can REFUSE to perform abortions, or even recommend other places to perform them, or require training, WITHOUT “discrimination” (read: consequence in regards to federal funding, I think)

    So basically, it severely weakens the original exception to the federal funds rule (about rape and when it endangers the welfare of the mother). Basically it implies that while those two are exceptions in which federal funds MAY be used, health care providers can still REFUSE to use them for these purposes.

    Disclaimer: This is my interpretation, at least, and for all intents and purposes, it’s that of a layperson. If someone can affirm me, that’d be great.

  50. Ella
    Ella February 6, 2011 at 8:13 am |

    Perhaps I’m missing something, but I’ve read this bill several times and I don’t see how or where it allows doctors to refuse doing an abortion when the mothers life is in danger. Can someone quote the exact section that says that, or put a link.

    From what I understand it’s talking about funding and in section 2 it gives the exceptions of when funding CAN be used (in rape, incest, etc. or if the mothers life is in danger).
    Doesn’t that mean it only prohibits using federal funds if the abortion is for another reason, for example: that the woman just doesn’t want the baby?

  51. Joe
    Joe February 6, 2011 at 6:34 pm |

    “It’s not like letting the pregnant woman die saves the fetus”

    Not always the case. Doesn’t justify the bill (is this a Lieberman law? hey, she can go to another one 10 minutes away!), but late term, there have been cases of a fetus surviving when the woman dies. In a few cases, the woman will have an abortion to save the fetus. Some people rather she die. Apparently.

  52. “Protect Life Act” would allow doctors to let pregnant women die

    […] who is in danger of losing their life — that is, if that treatment would destroy the fetus. Via Jill at Feministe: In other words, it gives doctors the green light to let pregnant women die if they have a […]

  53. Nellie
    Nellie February 7, 2011 at 3:34 pm |

    The Protect Life Act…on it’s face…sounds noble. Like anything else in ideologue America…the big print gives it to you and the small print takes it away.

    It’s about time that the women of this country came to grips with the hidden, not talked about or whispered real history of this country when it comes to the rights of women…a small but powerful and connected class in this country has always and will forever treat women as things…to be owned, corralled or manipulated.

    Frankly it just boggles my mind…that there is such a woman who claims to be a Republican. Now really. How could any woman wish to be a part of an organization that only has one place for a woman…a prostitute in a red power suit.

    Biology makes us the target in this and in most cultures. We want so much to be liked…that we make a deal with the devil…small minded men with big pockets.

  54. #dearjohn and beyond | Politics & Chocolate

    […] attempts to protect the ‘sanctity of life’, anti-choicers are ready and willing to sacrifice a few women to make a point. Nothing hypocritical about […]

  55. Stupak on Steroid Agenda « Ramblin' (Wo)man

    […] to refuse to perform an abortion on a woman, even if the mother’s life is threatened.  As Jill at Feministe puts it, In other words, it gives doctors the green light to let women die if they have a […]

  56. Robin
    Robin February 10, 2011 at 1:10 pm |

    A nice response posted on a femminist philosophy blog:
    DO undead baby incubators need to pay taxes?
    http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/mombies/

  57. The Holy Men of Choice : Aaron Krager
    The Holy Men of Choice : Aaron Krager February 11, 2011 at 12:51 pm |

    […] to make the choice of whether to perform an abortion to save a woman’s life or not. No joke. Via Jill at Feministe: In other words, it gives doctors the green light to let pregnant women die if they have a […]

  58. despair. | the sanest days are mad
    despair. | the sanest days are mad February 11, 2011 at 6:46 pm |

    […] in my language choice?) with their suits and their suites and their power, who don’t think my life as a living breathing woman is as valuable as that of a fetus i am incubating? oh my god, that link, if you haven’t heard of it already…if you, as a woman, did not […]

  59. L
    L February 11, 2011 at 7:26 pm |

    I always wonder about what happens in the US when women have ectopic pregnancies? Since they are actually fairly common? And its imperative that they get that embryo out, like, NOW. Does the fact that it’s in the fallopian tube and not the uterus make anti-choicers not care about the fact that doctors must “end a life”?

    Just wondering..

  60. „Women´s health is under attack“ « mädchenblog

    […] wir mit den „Protect Life-Act“. Dieses vom Repräsentantenhaus vorgeschlagene Gesetz, soll es Ärzt_innen auch dann ermöglichen einen […]

  61. REPORT: The Five Ways That The GOP Is Trying To Eradicate A Woman’s Right To … | NJHIA - New Jersey Homicide Investigators Association

    […] offender, and some minors — from abortion coverage by redefining rape. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) then introduced the “Protect Life Act,” a bill that would “give doctors the green light to let pregnant women […]

  62. Unfassbar grausam! - hilferuf.de-Forum
    Unfassbar grausam! - hilferuf.de-Forum February 16, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

    […] […]

  63. Sometimes my heart pounds like thunder and I don’t know why I don’t explode « Pussy Goes Grrr

    […] illegal, unsafe abortions. And do you think this is the only thing? Really? Oh, no. There’s ANOTHER proposed bill that would allow doctors to refuse treatment to women if it would endanger their fetus. It’s […]

  64. GOP « warrenpeace
    GOP « warrenpeace February 17, 2011 at 1:44 am |

    […] Joe Pitts (R-PA) then introduced the “Protect Life Act,” a bill that would “give doctors the green light to let pregnant women […]

  65. Monado
    Monado February 18, 2011 at 2:10 am |

    In Nicaragua, thanks to Catholic-Church-inspired legislation, they have to let the Fallopian tube burst and the fetus die; then they can try to save the woman if it’s not too late. More women are dying.

  66. RD
    RD February 18, 2011 at 6:34 pm |

    Nellie: Now really. How could any woman wish to be a part of an organization that only has one place for a woman…a prostitute in a red power suit.  

    Scuse me?

  67. Balloon Juice » Defunding Planned Parenthood: It’s Official. The GOP Hates Women.

    […] victim”; as they attempt to pass legislation that permits Dr. Conscientious Objector to refuse to perform emergency abortion services and to also not require hospitals to transfer women to a facility that will provide such services […]

  68. ThinkProgress » Revealing Her Own Abortion, Rep. Speier Criticizes Conservatives For Failing To Empathize With Women | It's About Time

    […] assault on women’s health in our lifetime.” Blindly constructing bills to redefine rape, to leave women to die rather than perform an abortion, and to cut off support for women’s health care clinics, the […]

  69. Kelly
    Kelly February 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

    I suspect that many of those who call themselves “pro-life” are actually just “anti-abortion”.

    I have rarely seen “pro-life” people advocate against the death caused by capital punishment and war. I have rarely seen “pro-life” people advocate for programs that support the lives of actually living human beings. In fact, once a fetus exits the mother’s womb, the “pro-lifers” seem quite happy to allow it to be abused or neglected; to be hungry and homeless; to live in dangerous neighborhoods and be denied an education, clean air to breathe, open space to play, or any opportunity for a decent life. And for those women who give birth to a disabled child rather than having an abortion, the “pro-life” crowd usually wants to deny them any supports like respite care, medical care, and in-home care–unless, of course, the family can afford to pay for it themselves.

    So they really don’t give a fig about “life”. They just hate abortion and want to keep people from having one, even if it means that all involved end up dead. In their view, women have no value outside of their value as incubators and “born” children don’t matter at all.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.