Quote reblogged from Pro Choice Teddy Bear with 39 notes
…scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.
Source: cancer.org
Post reblogged from malice in wonderland with 1,544 notes
Paul Ryan is pro-life because of “reason” and “science”?
Source: pantslessprogressive
Link reblogged from PAX AMERICANA with 607 notes
Mitt Romney's Son Tagg Signed Abortion Clause in His Surrogate Birth Contract →
TMZ has learned Mitt Romney’s son Tagg — who had twins this year through a surrogate — signed an agreement that gave the surrogate, as well as Tagg and his wife, the right to abort the fetuses in non-life threatening situations, and Mitt Romney covered some of the expenses connected with the arrangement.
We’ve learned Tagg and his wife Jen, along with the surrogate and her husband, signed a Gestational Carrier Agreement dated July 28, 2011.
Paragraph 13 of the agreement reads as follows: “If in the opinion of the treating physician or her independent obstetrician there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate.”
Translation: Tagg and Jen gave the surrogate the right to abort the fetuses even if her life wasn’t in danger.
Choice for you, but not for me, eh Mitt?
Source: destroythegop
Post reblogged from alimarko with 40 notes
Doc-lawyer uses both trades to fight abortion laws - CBS News
McCormack came to him early last year, saying that she was a single mother living on between $200 and $250 a month and faced felony charges.
Authorities say on the day before Christmas in 2010, McCormack took abortion drugs to terminate a pregnancy that was more than five months along. An acquaintance heard that she’d done it and called police, who looked into the claim said they found a fetus in a box on her porch.
The county prosecutor charged McCormack under an Idaho law that makes it illegal for anyone other than a health care professional to be involved with terminating a pregnancy. Hearn defended McCormack and the case was dismissed. But it wasn’t a total victory, a judge tossed the charges “without prejudice,” meaning she could be prosecuted again at any time.
Meanwhile, Idaho lawmakers passed the fetal pain law.
Such regulations ban abortions after 19 weeks of pregnancy, under the premise that a fetus may feel pain at 20 weeks.
The scientific research that bolsters the measures has been the subject of heavy debate, but such bans have been gaining momentum among conservative legislators. A plan passed last year in Idaho with overwhelming support.
Hearn didn’t want McCormack living with the constant threat of prosecution and decided to turn the tables. Rather than wait for the law to come after his client, he and McCormack decided to go after the law.
They sued in federal court last September, fighting for McCormack’s right to take medication to induce an abortion and for doctors’ rights to prescribe such drugs. They also took aim at the fetal pain abortion ban, which they felt also violated women’s constitutional rights to privacy.
But U.S. Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled the lawsuit wouldn’t get class-action status and that McCormack didn’t have the right to challenge some aspects of the law because she wasn’t currently pregnant and seeking an abortion.
So Hearn went one step further, filing a motion to intervene as a plaintiff himself, in his role as a physician who may want to prescribe abortion-inducing drugs in the future.
Source: sarahlee310
Link reblogged from alimarko with 48 notes
alimarko: Why is this called a "controversy" or a "debate"? →
I’m so goddamned tired of hearing about the “women’s health debate” or the “women’s rights controversy” or several other phrases floating around about the GOP’s intense desire to make this upcoming election about the personal choices and health of women instead of real issues that the government…
And I hope some people see this, but it’s just getting worse. Especially here in Conservative Republican-land….
Link reblogged from alimarko with 48 notes
alimarko: Why is this called a "controversy" or a "debate"? →
I’m so goddamned tired of hearing about the “women’s health debate” or the “women’s rights controversy” or several other phrases floating around about the GOP’s intense desire to make this upcoming election about the personal choices and health of women instead of real issues that the government…
Post with 3 notes
New idea: Chastity belts for all Republican* men whose wives/significant others are past child bearing age.
*Or any man who does not support women’s access to reproductive health care and contraception.
Photo reblogged from The Frisky with 8 notes
Hero Of The Week: Georgia Rep. Yasmin Neal, Who Wants To Ban Vasectemies - The Frisky
Page 1 of 2
