Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Republicans Shove Women Back to the Alley
Allen Peake Stealing Freedom from Women
After years of sexual abuse at the hands of her step father, Mary was just fourteen when she finally told her best friend. She was scared, but nearly five months pregnant and no longer able to hide her expanding belly, she had no choice but to tell, just like she had no choice about being sexually assaulted. If Georgia Rep. Allen Peake (R-Macon) gets his way, Mary and others like her will also have no choice about whether to continue their pregnancies.
Mirroring a Nebraska law by the same name that passed in 2010 and providing no exception for rape or incest, Rep. Allen Peake’s “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” would change Georgia law to provide that abortions at post-twenty weeks gestation be available only if continuing the pregnancy would cause the mother’s death (suicide is specifically excluded) or “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” Both criminal and civil penalties will apply to physicians who breach any of the numerous requirements of this legislation, and even those who follow all of the rules will have their names and abortion statistics available to the public. Sounds like a Randall Terry preferred reading list to me.
Below the fold are some of the other highlights of this horrific bill:
- Virtually any relative of the women or any “current or former” licensed health provider (read: disgruntled former employee of the physician) can file for injunctive relief against a doctor who violates any aspect of the statute.
- Even a medical diagnosis that a woman will kill herself if the pregnancy continues does not qualify as a reason to terminate the pregnancy.
- Regardless of the mother’s wishes, the father may sue a doctor who violates the statute. In the legislation, rapists and pedophiles who impregnate their victims are not explicitly prohibited from filing suit against the doctor.
- If a third party brings a lawsuit, they are required to use a pseudonym, but on a case-by-case basis, the court can decide whether the woman’s name is part of the public record.
- Even if the life of the mother is at risk, the fetus must be delivered in a manner that offers the best chance of survival. Presumably, this could include a Cesarean Section, major abdominal surgery.
Designed to create a “first-look” challenge to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton by substituting the viability standard relied upon in Roe for a junk-science based “fetal pain” standard, this boiler plate legislation is popping up in numerous states, as a vehicle for right-wing extremists racing to the steps of the United State Supreme Court. Peake’s bill treats women as second-class citizens with only marginally more rights than an oven used to bake a cake. He certainly does not credit women with having either a brain or a conscience.
I’m a family therapist and in seventeen years of practice, I have sat with countless women and girls who were struggling with a crisis pregnancy. Not one took the decision about whether or not to continue the pregnancy lightly. Rep. Peake should know that women are also capable of experiencing pain, and that women also deserve the protection of the law. Instead, throughout this bill, Peake carefully protects the rights of fathers and fetuses while trampling on the rights and well-being of women and targeting physicians. In Georgia, unfortunately, chances are good that some version of this bill will pass this year, and the back alley will again be open for business.
Related Posts :
Do you remember that old George Carlin joke about political correctness, that a plane crash would become ...
There is such an unremitting stream of Bad News on the Republican War on Women’s Reproductive Rights that we ...
Memo to: Tea Party Patriots, Members of National Right to Life, Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar, and the U ...
John Boehner said last week that eliminating federal funding for abortions is one of the Republicans hig ...
The First Amendment prohibits government interference in religion and conversely, religious interference ...
43 Responses to Republicans Shove Women Back to the Alley
Public Service Advertisements
jlt
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
The sad thing is that republican Women are in on the push!
Have seen these brainwashed types but usually below the Mason Dixon…now they are everywhere!
Morally reprehensible appallingly low functioning lemmings!
Scott Rose
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Excellent article, Amy. I notice that Allen Peake’s website has a survey, through which people may tell him what they think of this proposed legislation:
www.allenpeake.com/
The link to the survey is in the middle of the right hand side of the page.
Amy Morton
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Thanks, Scott. I will add the link to the post.
Hrafnkell
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
There is no doubt the Republicans hate women. Even Republican women seem to hate women. The evidence is wide-ranging and all points to the same conclusion. The GOP symbol should be a cave man with a club, not an elephant.
Sarah Jones
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Excellent work Amy. Interestingly enough, Rachel Maddow had conservative women fighting against this kind of thing last night — very worth watching. They say, “Keep government out of my doctor’s office!”
Rachel Maddow shares audio of speeches by Republican representatives in the Wyoming state legislature urging colleagues to vote against a Republican anti-abortion bill and keep government out of the doctor’s office.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2113...
Anne
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
These same cretins who don’t believe in the kind of comprehensive sex education that greatly reduces the demand for abortions also don’t believe in abortions. It’s obvious that they got into office only to wage cultural wars, because their policies are so rabidly anti-woman.
FinanceBuzz
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Largely, a great proposed law that respected the sanctity of ALL human life. This is not about the liberal straw man of protecting women from government. The liberals subject all us to government intrusion in our lives every single day on things far less critical than life itself. Their arguments suggesting that as motivation ring very hollow.
As a conservative, I oppose unnecessary government intrusion in someone’s life. However, in cases where a person is not able to speak for or defend their rights, the government has no choice but to step in and ensure that that person’s rights are protected. In this case, that is precisely the situation for the child. That child, like everyone of us has a right to live, yet it is completely and totally defenseless and incapable of defending that rights his or herself. Thus, this is one of those cases where government prohibitions and regulations are warranted. Why should a baby be afforded protection from his or her parents 1 minute after birth yet not at a point before?
The liberal position that fights tooth and nail to defend abortion is fraught with so many such contradictions. The left fights the rights of the father to protect the life of his child, yet they have no limit in attempting to hold that father financially responsible for that child (which, I agree, he absolutely should be).
I do not want to see one single mother die. However, I do not want to see a baby die either. While I cannot be more clear that I do want to see this occur, if a mother chooses to undertake an illegal or unsafe act to end the life of her child, she is doing that by choice. However, if that mother’s efforts are successful, legally or illegally, the baby loses its basic right to live with no recourse to defend itself. In a civilized society, that is abhorrent and the liberals who attempt to justify this sort of behavior should be ashamed of themselves and their callous regard of ALL human life.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Actually the conservatives push their way into your life every day too. Very hard to separate the two. Look at the conservative push on religion, you cant be gay, they are just going through the motions on abortion and you know that as well as I do. Far too many young republican women want the choice. Many major citys have some pretty tough laws on not paying child support etc. You are making that up. Flint and Detroit where I used to live has annual pickups for delinquent dads and in places had their names on tv
FinanceBuzz
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 11:36 am
I think you misunderstood. I agree with being tough on fathers (and mothers if necessary though is likely more rare) who do not take care of their children at least financially. You cannot force a parent to want to be a good parent or spend time raising their child, but you can make them stand up to the costs of raising that child.
As for being gay, or not, I do not know of any conservative saying you cannot be gay. You need to back that up. Perhaps some people are going through motions, but I am very sincere in that my stance against abortion is strongly because of protecting basic human rights. The left talks a great game on that so where are they for the most defenseless members of our society?
NoMooseStew
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
I took a 12 year old girl pregnant from daddy for an abortion. With her mom. Tell you what if you have children and want to put them through a pregnancy like that go right ahead. Poor kid. But don’t you dare to tell other people what to do.
FinanceBuzz
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 11:40 am
So you are ok with taking the life of that baby? Let’s be clear about that because that is what you are advocating. No, I do not want that 12 year old girl to suffer. However, what situations justify any of us taking another person’s life? Self defense is about the only justification I can think of (we do it legally during war but that does not apply here). Is that 12 year old defending herself against her baby? Age of the mother aside, is that baby a human life (and even if you see it as just as a fetus, is it not a human life to be in the coming months?)? In our system, in our secular values, taking a human life is about the most egregious crime we can commit. So how can you justify it even for the admittedly traumatic experience of being pregnant at 12?
AcidQueen
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
So a young girl who is raped and impregnated should be forced to carry the child to term?
And what do you propose be done once the child is born? Or do you–like all the other Talibangelicals–not care once the pregnancy comes to term?
lalamen
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
So you’re also for forcing a mother to have a child with serious birth defects, too then I gather? Look up harlequin ichthyosis or epidermis bullosa and ask myself what is more merciful ending the pregnancy or bringing a life into the world that only knows suffering and pain.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
I think you responded to the wrong person, acidqueen certainly doesnt support forcing the mother to have the child
lalamen
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Sorry! I was just on the thread and thought it was a response to the first entry! I certainly didn’t mean it for Acid Queen who clearly has her head on straight, it was for the oh-so righteous finance buzz.
FinanceBuzz
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 11:43 am
See my response to NoMooseStew as the same logic applies. As for a baby with severe health problems, why don’t we simply euthanize anyone who has a debilitating illness or is left in a similar state due to accident? If pain and suffering is a justification to end a human being’s life without their consent, why don’t we do that to a 35 year old quadriplegic who is left in that state due to a car accident? What is the difference? Life is life.
FinanceBuzz
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Rape and incest is tricky and plays to our emotions. But logically, the baby is still a life and taking a life, as stated elsewhere, is the most egregious crime one can commit by our secular values and society’s laws. I admit it is tricky, because you are forcing someone to go through a pregnancy when they were the victim of a crime and put into that situation not by choice nor by irresponsibility but by being a victim. I get that and I am sympathetic to that. But I hold life as valuable and I cannot bring myself to advocate the killing of that child. It is not an easy situation to be sure, but human life is precious, every one of them.
Sky
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
So I assume then from your rabid defense of a reproductive parasite,
ie a fetus that you feel that the death penalty should never be invoked
I would also go further and assume that you feel that war of any kind is
unjustified due to the value that you attribute to human life. How about the
logical extension to gun control, your stance on that should be very sever as
well, there should be strict gun control laws because guns kill people.
Last but not least you should be on a universal healthcare and welfare kick as
well because these children need support and life, and with “every life being
precious” you should certainly be working toward that sort of care? If not your
irrational defense of a fetus is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Amy Morton
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
You’re right. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is a a question of whether women can be trusted to make good decisions about their bodies, with their doctors or need government to step in. I trust women more than government to make these very personal, very painful, often heartbreaking choices.
FinanceBuzz
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Sorry, but this reasoning fails. This is not about a woman making a choice about her body. It is far more complicated. She is making a choice about ANOTHER person’s body. And being the mother does NOT give her the right to choose to end the right of that baby. If this were about her simply choosing medical care for HER and the effects on HER body, I nor other true small government conservatives would be suggesting that the government prevent those choices. But that is not the case here.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Many people would argue that the body inside her is her body until it leaves.
Many people say life is precious yet demand we kill our soldiers off in war.
Now obviously life IS precious, but to that degree we have come up with many ways of destroying it. Also, if life is precious how does it matter how we get healthcare? According to polls many people are against the current healthcare because its not the European style care. You are advocating for something that allows for a great deal of corruption concerning that very precious life you talk about. If you are lucky enough to have a job you have insurance.
You will find the majority do not want the “destructive Obamacare system” repealed, they want it improved. There is nothing destructive about what we have now, there is only the chance that healthcare providers will no longer be able to drop sick people, drop those “precious lives” you talk about if they get sick. Thats not destructive, thats something you should be jumping up and down for
Maxine
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
“She is making a choice about ANOTHER person’s body. ”
So are you.
laingirl
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Please tell us how you feel about the death penalty, and universal health care for the young mothers and their babies they will be forced to have.
FinanceBuzz
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 11:55 am
I do not see the relevance of the death penalty aside from the question of the sanctity of human life. But, for the record, I have mixed feelings about it. I used to be solidly in favor and I still generally favor it in cases where the guilt of the convicted is absolutely clear. However, after reading the John Grisham non-fiction book, An Innocent Man I have a different view. The government via the police and prosecutors are fallible, possibly corrupt and can very well railroad an innocent person into a guilty verdict. This is bad enough when it steals irreplaceable years from someone’s life, but with the death penalty that error cannot be corrected in any way.
Universal health care is a great idea (not to be confused with the current liberal push for government healthcare). Again, not sure of the true relevance though I assume you are making a political point. Assuming that care is available (which is something we need to work to ensure occurs once we get rid of the destructive Obamacare system), the mother or those who care about her are still responsible for choosing to buying health care. But do support universal availability. Once available, whether a mother chooses to buy coverage is entirely up to her.
Maxine
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Can you force a person to pay for someone else’s medical health insurance?
When the zygote pays it’s own insurance, we’ll talk.
And a zygote is not a homunculus.
Do you believe in preformationism?
NoMooseStew
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Smaller government indeed. Unless you are a woman. Of course you need a old man to tell you what to do with your body.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
This is not about abortion as much as it is womens rigths in my book. Abortion is just a tool to get to the rights that women enjoy in determining their own life and actions taken with their own bodies.
Dont get me wrong, abortion is most certainly an issue. But it presents a way to further break down the rights of the individual for the religious freaks to creep into your lives. Rape will be punished by punishing the woman. Euthanasia which should be a basic human right to decide will be unheard of and not discussed even thought Europe is once again light years ahead of us.
This is not about Christianity for christianity’s sake, this is control
juan
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Amy..how’s your request to unseal Austin’s divorce records proceeding? When they are unsealed it will make you and Ms Sanders look like the true human beings that you are. The people of middle ga know that you are what we would put in the same category as Ms Lucas, like to make mountains out of molehills.
Do you not think that 20 wks in sufficient enough time to make a decision for an abortion? Let me guess, you are so pro choice that a women should be able abort full time, regardless of the situation.
Pathetic….
AcidQueen
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
I’m sorry, could you please repeat that in a lgnauge more closely resembling something spoken on this planet?
Amy Morton
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Actually, yesterday both Rep. Scott and his ex-wife dropped their objection to unsealing the records. I simple think elected officials should follow the same rules as everyone else. Apparently, you disagree.
Less than 2% of all abortions are done post-twenty weeks. Those that are are often circumstances just as I described here, or cases of severe fetal anomalies that were not discovered earlier in the pregnancy. No one “likes” abortion. I simply trust women to make these difficult choices.
Ignia
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
I can certainly agree with this.
Although, there *are* unfeeling women out there. Just like there are rapists and pedophiles.
But… should we force all men to be castrated just because a (very) few of them are likely to rape women?
I mean, if this abortion bill passes, can we demand mandatory castration to ensure 1.) no rape and 2.) no abortions necessary because all men will be sterile?
Ignia
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
I mean… after all, the effects are just as permanent either way.
Woman is stuck with a massive responsibility and financial, emotional, physical, and mental burden for the rest of her life. Once that baby’s born, no going back. She would loose all autonomy and freedom for forever… because I promise you that it’s not just until they turn 18, no matter what all 18 men in America who actually make an effort to pay child support think.
Men… they have no sex drive for the rest of their lives. They are unable to produce children of their own flesh and blood even should they find a woman who would be willing to bear them one. And they would suffer complete loss of masculinity. “Who’s got the biggest balls” would no longer have any meaning whatsoever.
Lizzie Borden
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
The Republicans talk incessantly about evil of big-government yet it certainly does require a big government to police the bedrooms and doctors’ office of the entire country of some 300 million people.
Reynardine
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
It has been my experience, professional and personal, that no one hates women worse than right-wing women. Having resigned themselves to what they have been told “Gahd” wants their lives to be – having even told themselves that, as “real women”, they derive “fulfillment” from their second-class status – they are singularly enraged when they see other women who aspire to something different and infuriated to insanity by those who appear to have achieved it. These same women, who condemn non-mothers as “unnatural”, speak of pregnancy as “getting caught”, a just punishment for female participation (however unwilling or pleasureless) in sex. God – well, “Gahd” – forbid any woman should have sex and not “get caught! “Gahd” forbid any who “get caught” should get out of it! These women are poison on a rape jury, and now they are becoming poison in politics, as well.
Maxine
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
This answers why these nuts reject evolution and abortion. They believe in preformationism!
From Wikipedia
Pythagoras is one of the earliest thinkers credited with ideas about the origin of form in the biological production of offspring. It is said[4] that he originated “spermism”, the doctrine that fathers contribute the essential characteristics of their offspring while mothers contribute only a material substrate. Aristotle accepted and elaborated this idea, and his writings are the vector which transmitted it to later Europeans. Aristotle purported to analyse ontogeny in terms of the material, formal, efficient, and teleological causes (as they are usually named by later anglophone philosophy) – a view which, though more complex than some subsequent ones, is essentially more epigenetic than preformationist. Later, European physicians such as Galen, Realdo Colombo and Girolamo Fabrici would build upon Aristotle’s theories, which were prevalent well into the 17th century.[3]
In 1651 William Harvey published On the Generation of Animals (Exercitationes de Generatione Animalium), a seminal work on embryology that contradicted many of Aristotle’s fundamental ideas on the matter. Harvey famously asserted, for example, that ex ovo omnia–all animals come from eggs. Because of this assertion in particular, Harvey is often credited with being the father of ovist preformationism. However, Harvey’s ideas about the process of development were fundamentally epigenesist.[5] As gametes (male sperm and female ova) were too small to be seen under the best magnification at the time, Harvey’s account of fertilization was theoretical rather than descriptive. Although he once postulated a “spiritous substance” that exerted its effect on the female body, he later rejected it as superfluous and thus unscientific. He guessed instead that fertilization occurred through a mysterious transference by contact, or contagion.[3]
Harvey’s epigenesis, more mechanistic and less vitalist than the Aristotelian version, was thus more compatible with the natural philosophy of the time.[5] Still, the idea that unorganized matter could ultimately self-organize into life challenged dominant Christian theology of the time as well as the mechanistic framework of Cartesianism. Because of technological limitations, there was no available mechanical explanation for epigenesis. The groundbreaking scientific insights provided by Galileo and Descartes seemed instead to support preformationism.[6] It was simpler and more convenient to postulate preformed miniature organisms that expanded in accordance with mechanical laws. So convincing was this explanation that some naturalists claimed to actually see miniature preformed animals (animalcules) in eggs and miniature plants in seeds.[3] In the case of humans, the term homunculus was used.
John Myste
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
There are two issues involved:
1. Should abortion be considered merely an issue of women’s rights? There is vast philosophical diversity regarding this issue. Claiming you have the answer and here it is and anyone who disagrees is a moron is not logical. I can debate either side of that issue pretty well. Most of the usual arguments about the common case are emotional, religious or fallacious and have little to do with a well-reasoned opinion.
2. Should this atrocious bill become law? The Supreme Court has thus far decided what women’s rights are in this matter. This bill is very dangerous and a threat to women they have not known in recent history. People are challenging what they see as the common case: women use abortions as a method of birth control, by pushing a bill for the extreme case. The whole approach is fallacious. To the degree that we debate the common case to prove our position, we fail to recognize the fallacy, which alone should be enough for any sensible person to reject support for the bill.
The common case should be judged on its own merits without having to sneak around it and bushwhack children. It is a basic tactic in war to out-flank an opponent. It is cowardly and strategic, unless winning is more important than justice, and should be rejected on that basis. Those who make the issue about a woman’s right to have an abortion as a method of birth control because it is “her body and her choice,” turn the issue into one that, despite the sermonizing of woman and ministers, is not as clear as the real issue, and you move the argument from the ad absurdum question at hand to one where the nation is almost equally divided. That is a strategic mistake. Pro-life supporters who support this bill want you to change the subject to be the common case, because if it does not become about that, this bill doesn’t have a chance.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I deleted it Simply because you cannot present yourself in a responsible manner. Your facts at this point are conjecture on your part. When you can post your thoughts like a person your posts will not be deleted. If you continue to attack the authors you will not be posting here
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
All your opinion Juan. when you state facts you provide backup, when you give opinion you state its opinion.
Many people here disagree with others but they do it in a responsible manner. You odnt have to do the “shiva your problem like most liberals is FACTS” routine because you have presented none yourself.
I suggest wherever you go to post next that you learn to do it as a grown up without attacking people. I will say goodbye now. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
Sarah Jones
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
You are free to disagree with the author respectfully but keep the personal attacks out of it.
Ignia
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
All these @#%@ing “Right to Life” BS bills… and not a single @#%$@ing “Well, if you DO choose to continue the pregnancy like we are insisting, don’t worry, you don’t have to go it alone” bills
@%#$ them ALL!
prolifewoman
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 9:52 am
“Regardless of the mother’s wishes,”
I find it interesting that you at least admit that it is a child and that the woman is a mother. Why is it that when a woman “chooses” to murder her born child we get upset but when she “chooses” to murder her unborn child it is okay? In either case, doesn’t the woman know best?
Women who are faced with a crisis pregnancy need support and are at their most vulnerable to the “easy” way out. I have worked with women, and have personally known others, who were raped and gave birth to their children and those who chose to abort. The ones that chose to abort very much regreted it and suffered the consequences. Murdering a child for the sins of its father is never right. Once pregnant a woman must give birth regardless of whether it is a live baby or murdered one. In the case of the life of the mother there is no reason to intentionally murder the child. The baby should be delivered alive and given its best chance to live. If the child dies then that is an unwanted effect. It doesn’t change anything for the woman since she has to birth the child in either case.
Healthcare is supposed to fix a dysfunctional organ but in pregancy the organ is functioning exactly as it should. Therefore, abortion is not healthcare!
Ignia
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I have to disagree with this.
You’re focusing on one thing: the 9 month term. If it was only for 9 months, then most people I think would also agree that any woman should continue her pregnancy, and then just move on with her life.
But unfortunately, 9 months is only the beginning. After that child is born, it becomes a burden on the mother. Not for a few months, not for a few years… for the rest of her life. Should the mother also be punished for the sins of the father? Especially when our government does so little to actually make sure the mother doesn’t bear this burden alone?
I know at least 9 women who are single mothers to their children. I know of only 1 who has received any child support from the father, even though they all chose in the child’s favor. The other fathers have all simply moved out of state to avoid consequences of not paying child support (such as loss of driver’s license or docking of wages), or there are 2 who just said “screw this, I’m not paying even if I go to jail.” There’s 1 who has had absolutely no consequences at all for his lack of child support.
The single mother who actually received any help from the father? Her little girl was 8 years old when she got her first check for $50. She had to drop out of college, and now survives by relying on a boyfriend who abuses her. She recently sent her little girl to live with a mother who can’t even afford heat this winter after her boyfriend held a gun to her head when he was drunk and she wouldn’t “put out.”
Yes… I think that women know very well the consequences of raising a child, of taking the “hard way” out. And we know how much it will hurt for the rest of our lives. But that’s a decision we have to make for ourselves. No one else can.
ebmom
Feb. 13th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I found this post because someone posted something about Epidermolyis Bullosa, my son’s awful condition. To all the Republicans who have healthy children and apparently could not care less about other’s suffering, let me ask you a question. Are you pro-life or pro-birth? Because if you are truly pro-life, you would put your money where your mouth is, and also pass LEGISLATION who would help take care of the woman financially while the baby goes to term (like they do in Europe), and then make sure the child’s medical needs are also financially taken care of (like they do in Europe!). But… oh, no, right? You’re very ready to open your mouth, but your wallett stays nicely shut, doesn’t it? Yes, You’re pro-birth. You wash your hands on HOW a woman who was raped can financially proceed with the pregnancy (statistics show financial reasons are the #1 reason why women abort), and you could care EVEN LESS on how the child with medical needs (or healthy for that matter) will live afterwards. Take a lesson from Europe, you want abortions to go down, HELP the women and children financially or shut the hell up!!!