Yesterday in an 11-hour filibuster, Texas state senator Wendy Davis (D) helped kill an anti-abortion bill that threatened to close nearly all of abortion clinics in the second most populated state in America. Davis was set to filibuster for the full 13 hours needed to kill the bill before the midnight voting deadline, but her efforts were halted after 11 hours when Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst ruled that her discussion of mandatory ultrasound testing was off-topic. That’s when protesters — or an “unruly mob,” as they’ve been called by some — took over and completed Davis’ efforts with what they called “a people’s filibuster,” chanting and roaring through the midnight voting deadline.
“Although some Republican lawmakers later claimed the bill had passed in time, Democrats denied that the vote was completed before the clock ran out on the session. A time stamp showing the vote completed after midnight was the deciding factor. ‘This will not become law,’ Sen. John Whitmire (D), told The Austin American-Statesman.”
In response to this news, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, tweeted: “The official vote was recorded at 12:03 a.m. Know why? Because of you.” And because of Wendy Davis. #StandWithWendy
![\"\"](\"https://d5nxst8fruw4z.cloudfront.net/atrk.gif?account=r/y/j1a0Sn00OI\")
Jessibel5 June 26, 2013, 12:06 pm
Unruly mob, Dewhurst? You mean…the voices of the people you’re supposed to be representing?
I stayed up until 1:20 watching this, and Twitter broke a few times. AND THEN! Leticia Van de Putte mic dropped on Dewhurst and the crowd cheered for 15 minutes! It was amazing.
j2 June 26, 2013, 12:37 pm
Good outcome! Yay, Wendy Davis!
The protester/mob part troubles me, though.
pinkjellyfishy June 26, 2013, 2:18 pm
Here’s how it looked:
Opinions will vary on whether that’s an “unruly mob” or not.
rachel June 26, 2013, 2:57 pm
I mean, I know that 60 or so year old woman I saw a picture of getting arrested looked super threatening.
6napkinburger June 26, 2013, 3:08 pm
Dude, that is the smallest picture ever!
katie June 26, 2013, 12:11 pm
Craziest, most awesome past 48 hours in America.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 12:11 pm
Ahhhhhhhhhhh. I watched this all evening and was SO nervous every time someone stopped her. I went to bed extremely unhappy because it was reported that the bill has passed and was super confused, yet very happy to wake up and find out that nobody was letting the Republicans get away with cheating.
landygirl June 26, 2013, 12:20 pm
Sadly I missed the Senator speaking but I did watch the last hour or so and it was a beautiful sight. Also, props to Sen. Leticia Van De Putte who asked, “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?”
Between this and the dismissal of DOMA and Prop 8, it’s a great day!!
pinkjellyfishy June 26, 2013, 1:20 pm
Ugh, Dewhurst, he was so frustrating! Luckily, his insistence on ignoring Senator Van de Putte’s move to adjourn was his downfall.
And to think, earlier in the day she attended her father’s funeral. What a woman.
Addie Pray June 26, 2013, 12:20 pm
Wendy Davis rules, and I want a pair of her tennis shoes.
Jessibel5 June 26, 2013, 12:29 pm
I need new running shoes and I’m totally getting hot pink ones now!
applescruffs June 26, 2013, 12:44 pm
What a bad ass! Leticia Van De Putte, too, for setting off the crowd. Incredible.
rachel June 26, 2013, 12:52 pm
Wendy Davis is amazing! Senators Van de Putte, Zaffirini, and Watson did a great job in the final couple hours too, in putting off the vote for as long as possible before the crowd stepped in.
wcgreen June 26, 2013, 12:57 pm
I can’t support anyone who disrupts lawful legislative procedures. These protestors/unruly mob were wrong to interfere.
Jessibel5 June 26, 2013, 1:12 pm
Well, except that that point they weren’t exactly lawful, legislative procedures because the rules were being bent left and right by the time it got that far. The situation had broken down so badly that the Lt. Governor was calling for a vote on the bill without having the required vote to end the filibuster, had ignored a parliamentary inquiry that requested the explanation of why the filibuster was being shut down when there were only two germaneness violations when there were supposed to be three (they claimed that a back brace adjustment was the third “strike” but that does not apply to the germaneness rule) and the germaneness complaints were pretty sketchy at best. While I’d completely agree with you in a normal circumstance, the Lt. Governor was creating bias in the rules as he went, and I think that sucked too. I don’t know, I’m totally happy the bill didn’t get passed, so I’m biased myself, and totally had flashes of “Do You Hear The People Sing” while it was going on.
rachel June 26, 2013, 1:13 pm
Yes. This.
Jessibel5 June 26, 2013, 1:18 pm
Yes to mine or wcgreen’s?
Chuckles looked at me last night while we were watching and was like “if someone had “germane” in their drinking game, they’ll need to be checked on right the f*ck now…”
I later saw the best Tweet ever about this situation. “If I was there and they voted after midnight, I would take a piece of that place home. You’re not going to get my womb AND all these doorknobs.” Tumblr and Twitter was chock full of comedy about it all night. This is why I love the internet.
rachel June 26, 2013, 1:42 pm
To yours! So much was screwed up about those proceedings, I’m glad the people were pissed about it!
The friend I was talking to last night said we should have made a drinking game out of “parliamentary inquiry”.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 1:26 pm
Yeah, I agree with Jessibel. The Republican leaders were not super consider with following lawful procedure.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 1:36 pm
Ugh, *concerned.
A La Mode June 26, 2013, 7:53 pm
Considering the fact that they were trying to enact a law whose foundation is in religious beliefs, and that we are supposed to have a total separation of church and state, the protesters were “wrong” in a far, far less severe way than the people trying to push this bill through.
Guy Friday June 26, 2013, 1:01 pm
Devil’s Advocate for a moment: would we still feel this way about the crowd interrupting and delaying the vote if the bill not being passed was one that, say, gave same-sex couples the right to marry? I like the result here, but I’m not sure I like the idea that a crowd of loud people can delay any bill. What’s to stop them for doing this for a bill that HELPS people?
rachel June 26, 2013, 1:06 pm
I was thinking last night that now that there’s a precedent, they’re going to have to come up with a solution. Like the republicans wanted to do the vote late because they were delayed by the crowd. They obviously couldn’t just DO that, but maybe in the future that will be allowed?
Addie Pray June 26, 2013, 1:13 pm
“Hi, I’m Guy Friday, I’m a buzz kill this morning.” … But point well received. We’d HATE the reverse. Why? Not because of the tactic employed, but because they’d be doing it to promote EVIL! Here, what we are (or at least I am) applauding is Wendy Davis for having the guts (and stamina!) to fight for what’s RIGHT in the face of all those haters. It’s not a procedural point, it’s substantive.
Guy Friday June 26, 2013, 1:23 pm
Well, but isn’t it? I mean, that’s like saying it’s fine for a cop to search your condo for no good reason whatsoever because, hey, he ended up finding a CD on your computer that you illegally downloaded 2 years ago, and that’s a crime! They’re doing it for what’s RIGHT in my scenario, but does that make it right to do?
I get that people are willing to overlook the crowd because of the result, and I understand that, but my whole career is based on the principle that the means don’t justify the ends. And it’s like the DOMA thing; it cuts both ways. If we can say that the federal government can’t stop states from allowing same-sex marriage, then we also have to admit that we can’t stop states from outlawing abortion, since Constitutionally they’re roughly on the same level.
(I mean, seriously, I’m not trying to be argumentative. It’s a genuine concern of mine.)
GatorGirl June 26, 2013, 1:25 pm
Guy Friday, I completely agree with everything you’re saying (including that I’m on the *right* side). States rights man.
Addie Pray June 26, 2013, 1:31 pm
First, I am completely with you. The example you gave re: the search, not ok with that. And I would never say it’s ok because it’s done for the “right” reason. … Really, I’m with you on that 100%. So to your point about the crowd: I’m not sure what happened with the crowd; was it illegal? If so, I would likely agree with you. I don’t see it like that, but I don’t really know what happened. So… I guess I can’t speak on the issue. Congrats, you shut me up, haha.
There’s too much excitement going on and I legitimately need to work, grrr.
Addie Pray June 26, 2013, 1:34 pm
*But* my sense is this is not a black and white, legal v. illegal thing that happened. And when there is a lot of gray, there’s room to look at the situation from many angles and come up with a coherent logical rule for why sometimes it’s ok and sometimes it’s not…,. And if you give me the time to think about this, i’ll come up with it. 😉
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 2:06 pm
I think that it’s way too early to be concerned that this is going to start a new phase of mob rule where the people burst into legislatures everywhere and delay votes. This is one event in one state legislature. If it did become a problem, I’m sure that most governmental bodies would have procedures for closing galleries, etc. They threatened to last night, which implies that it’s legal?
If you look at history and the way things are today, I seriously don’t think that the government needs protecting from its own people.
Grilledcheesecalliope June 26, 2013, 2:27 pm
I don’t think state’s rights are valid when they state is impeding on the rights of it’s citizens. However I dislike filibustering and don’t think it should be a thing. But my annoyance about the fact that someone can literally talk for so long that a bill can’t be voted on is erased by my disgust that this was a bill in the first place
6napkinburger June 26, 2013, 3:36 pm
State’s rights AREN’T valid when the state is impeding on the consitutionally protected rights of its citizens (thank you 14th amendment, whoo hoo!). [This is me agreeing with you.]
Guy Friday June 27, 2013, 9:26 am
But — understanding that I’m neither opposed to abortions nor gay rights — here’s the thing: neither of those are Constitutionally protected rights. The Supreme Court had to do some mental gymnastics in both cases to try and say these things fit under the “Constitutional rights” we have. And before you say “Well, they DID say it, so it makes it Constitutional,” keep in mind that the Supreme Court has also said in its history that:
-blacks are property (Dred Scott v. Sandford)
-“separate but equal” was constitutional (Plessy v Ferguson)
-foreigners — specifically, the Japanese — could be interned indefinitely (Korematsu v. United States)
-Congress can’t prevent states from violating any “rights” that Congress hasn’t explicitly said they can’t violate (City of Boerne v. Flores)
-Laws of general applicability can invalidate the freedom of religion (City of Boerne v. Flores)
-the mentally ill can be forcibly sterilized (Buck v. Bell)
That’s not to bash the USSC; every court makes bad decisions. But it’s not a constitutional right just because the court ruled on it. Things are either constitutional or they’re not, and technically speaking “constitutional” means “protected in the Constitution”
pinkjellyfishy June 26, 2013, 1:28 pm
Luckily it wouldn’t be so easy to recreate the same circumstances in which this happened. The crowd was able to be loud and “unruly” for those last 12 or so minutes before midnight because DPS lost control of the situation and couldn’t escort everyone out into the already packed halls in that amount of time.
All the other times (since Sunday) people have been escorted out of the gallery left and right by DPS. They weren’t allowed to make a peep, so it can be stopped in most cases. Let’s just hope there aren’t that many people as passionate about delaying a marriage equality bill!
sobriquet June 26, 2013, 1:29 pm
Did you watch it? The crowd didn’t start screaming until after 11:45… around 15 minutes until the deadline. They hadn’t even started the vote yet. In fact, it seemed like they were still waiting to vote on the filibuster. If they had been screaming for hours, I could see your point. But 15 minutes until midnight? That’s just badass!
pinkjellyfishy June 26, 2013, 1:38 pm
Very true! If the screaming started hours before the midnight deadline, DPS would have had plenty of time to clear the gallery, arrest everyone, and give the Senate time to vote. A person arrested for disrupting the TX Senate floor proceedings can get 48 hours in jail.
Addie Pray June 26, 2013, 1:41 pm
is that what ahppened?
I CAN’T HANDLE THIS – EVERYBODY, GET TO WORK, NO MORE YOU’RE KILLLING ME IT’S TOO HARD TO NOT GET ENGAGED IN THIS CONVO
sobriquet June 26, 2013, 1:58 pm
Yes, that’s what happened! They started roll call while ignoring Leticia Van de Putte’s parliamentary request (or something). They had muted the Dem’s mics near the end… shady stuff. That’s when she gave that awesome quote: “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?” and the crowd just went crazy. That was less than 15 minutes until midnight. They hadn’t started the vote… still hadn’t even voted on the filibuster at that point. They had a slim chance of pushing the bill through even if the “unruly mob” hadn’t interfered.
The noise didn’t die down until after midnight, 12:02 or so, when they attempted to vote. The legislative website recorded the vote on 6/26- after the deadline- and then they changed the timestamp to say 6/25! Images here:
Shady all around.
pinkjellyfishy June 26, 2013, 2:17 pm
Once a person is recognized and moves to adjourn, all debate must immediately stop, then the vote is taken to adjourn or not. That’s why Van de Putte demanded to be heard, a call to adjourn from the floor is proper protocol and stops all actions and debate and requires immediate response by the chair and takes precedent. Hence pretending not to hear her, that would have run the clock out easy peasy without the crowd getting involved.
Guy Friday June 27, 2013, 9:29 am
I’m not suggesting the Texas GOP wasn’t acting shady with the time-stamp thing. But, again, the ends don’t justify the means. The crowd effectively stalled the bill long enough to have the clock run out. Maybe if the proper procedure was followed the bill still wouldn’t have passed, but maybe it would have. You can’t know for certain. And the fact that the crowd played a role in screwing with procedure is still bad. It’s like when your baseball team wins a game by home run when a fan leans over a wall and prevents the other team’s outfielder from catching the final out. Yeah, you won, but not legitimately.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 1:31 pm
My feelings about the situation had more to do with how they were trying to pass it. If they were following the rules, the filibuster would have succeeded, and there wouldn’t have been a reason to protest. If there wasn’t a filibuster at all, most of those people wouldn’t have been there, not to mention that it wouldn’t have been coming down to 15 minutes. They would have just voted that day at like 11 a.m. and been done with it. This particular situation is not super common.
Aside from that, though, I believe that many other governmental bodies simply just arrest protesters and go on about their business. North Carolina has arresting dozens of people every Monday.
Addie Pray June 26, 2013, 1:38 pm
“if they were following the rules, the filibuster would have succeeded, and there wouldn’t have been a reason to protest” <— WLS. And there you go, GF, this makes it different. Assuming it's true. I need to read about it.
EVERYBODY STOP, NO MORE NEWS, I CAN'T HANDLE IT I HAVE TO GET THIS WORK DONE
I'M GOING TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK THE EXCITEMENT IS KILLING ME.
MsMisery June 26, 2013, 2:03 pm
Oh man, the news coming out of North Carolina AND Virginia lately has been HO-RI-FY-ING.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 2:06 pm
I KNOW. I grew up in N.C. and haven’t lived there in about five years, and I’m just completely appalled. My family always tells me to move back, and I’m like, yeah, right.
HmC June 26, 2013, 3:48 pm
I get your point Guy Friday, and in many context I would agree with you that it’s a little scary that a mob can win by shouting out a legislative process. HOWEVER, in this particular context, the key issue that makes this circumstance fine with me is that the anti-choice side misappropriates the legislative process in unfair and deceptive practices. That is, they use a ruse of protecting women by forcing them to use “surgical centers” etc., when really their SOLE purpose in pushing forward such laws is to discourage and prevent abortions altogether. They’re fighting dirty, so to me, fighting a little dirty in retaliation is warranted.
Guy Friday June 27, 2013, 9:31 am
No, it really isn’t. I’m sorry, but that’s a bad excuse. So if your significant other cheats on you, it’s somehow moral to cheat on him/her? When we were kids, weren’t we taught that two wrongs don’t make a right?
If you violate rules and laws to win, you’re no better than they are. That’s how I see it.
Lindsay June 27, 2013, 2:55 pm
I think if everyone just lay down and let corrupt government officials walk all over them, we wouldn’t have a lot of the civil rights we have today.
HmC June 27, 2013, 4:28 pm
But no one violated any laws here, that I know of. One side plays dirty not by breaking laws, but by violating their spirit ie. pushing forward legislation with a hidden agenda. The other side, this time, pushed back by also using legal, yet kind of grey area tactics. If anyone was doing anything illegal ie. cheating, that would alter my view.
I think you’re so tied to your identity as a criminal defense attorney that that seems to be the only way you’re able to look at the world. It’s not all so black and white.
meadowphoenix June 27, 2013, 12:07 pm
Considering this country was founded on civil disobedience, and for good or for ill every movement since has utilized it, I think you are a little late in bringing up this completely unheard of view on the power of the people. It’s pretty much a function of our democracy at this point.
And I personally would not care if 2nd amendment activists shouted down gun regulation bills, if the party bringing the bill had done such shady tactics to shut down a lawful filibuster. A people governed corruptly are not governed at all and they should be allowed to reflect that in their actions.
Jessibel5 June 26, 2013, 1:20 pm
Texas, stop trying to make SB5 happen.
It’s not going to happen.
mandalee June 26, 2013, 1:25 pm
Love your post. It’s so fetch. lol
SpaceySteph June 26, 2013, 1:35 pm
Sadly, it probably is going to happen.
Jessibel5 June 26, 2013, 1:40 pm
I know 🙁 But it is heartening to see the amount of people who are against it standing up!
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 5:11 pm
New special sessions just called. Boo. 🙁
othy June 26, 2013, 5:43 pm
Boo indeed.
SpaceySteph June 26, 2013, 7:11 pm
The worst part is how many internet cretins in the comments are appalled by Wendy and the gallery going all filibuster but not appalled by the behavior of the Republicans and their shady take on “rules.”
I would love to say that they will win this bill but pay for it in the next election… but I’m really scared that’s not true.
Also I’m a bit more scared to get pregnant now that I know that if a life threatening condition is discovered in month 6, I’m going to have to die for their religious beliefs.
SpaceySteph June 26, 2013, 7:53 pm
Oh to be clear, that wasn’t the comments here. Just general internet comment sections with articles about this.
Jessibel5 June 27, 2013, 2:23 pm
Dammit, are you in TX? When you get pregnant you can come live with me in MD until it’s over. I’ve repeatedly told Chuckles that if there’s a “Jessibel or the baby” situation, always go with Jessibel, because there’s only one. I’m terrified to get pregnant now too, and I’m in a state that allows for health of the mother! Your last sentence is really the truth though, isn’t it? “I’m going to have to die for their religious beliefs” It’s insane, that they’re ok with that.
SpaceySteph June 27, 2013, 5:13 pm
Yup, I live in Houston.
The law actually does allow for the life of the mother, but WHO decides whether the life of the mother was really at stake? What if it’s chemo and I have 6 months to live… is that long enough to have the baby and then get chemo in the eyes of the law? Would a doctor risk prison to try to save my life?
6napkinburger June 27, 2013, 5:02 pm
Someone someday will have to explain to me why anti-choicers (who aren’t catholic)* aren’t out on the streets distributing condoms by the boatload, funding condom education and generally all around preaching the goodness of condoms. Don’t want there to be abortions? Stop all unwanted pregnancies. Think that (somehow??) oral contraceptions is “murder”? Stop the sperm from getting near the egg.No sperm meets egg? No conception, no fetus, no baby, no abortion, no nothing. It really is that simple.
*Catholics make sense to me, especially old school ones, who think that sex is truly truly truly for procreation and is still a sin/lusty even in a marriage, and that g-d is hanging out there with the sperm making miracles happen, which condoms get in the way of. Or something. But I get that. Most right wing nutjob christians (I don’t know if they are fundementalists or evangelicals or what) believe that sex for pleasure within a marriage is totally ok and that condoms within a marriage are actually ok too. So while sex outside of marriage is bad/sinful/evil, whatever, condoms aren’t the source of any sin by themselves. So I don’t get it.
6napkinburger June 27, 2013, 5:04 pm
And I left out the main part — is that being anti-abortion is their number one political issue and abortion is like the worst thing you can do. So while sex outside of marriage is bad, abortion is MURDER. How can you not want to stop the murder by accepting a little bit of sin? IF you’re going to over eat, at least eat an apple and not a bag of candy. How is “do less evil” NOT their mantra?
SpaceySteph June 27, 2013, 5:16 pm
I really don’t know.
I think they really, truly believe that if they make abortion hard enough to get and tell you about sin enough that you just… won’t have sex. I think it really is all about controlling women not to be slutty…. and giving out condoms goes against that.
Also you should read this article. The author is a former evangelical who is now an atheist, and losing faith in the pro life movement- realizing that it wasn’t really about saving the babies- was really her turning point away from Christianity. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
cdobbs June 26, 2013, 1:27 pm
Way to go Wendy….Davis!
Miel June 26, 2013, 1:34 pm
I woke up this morning, read about senator Davis and DOMA, and I was so excited I wanted to share the two news on DW right away. Now apparently I wasn’t the only one thinking this way. I’m just so happy !
MackenzieLee June 26, 2013, 1:53 pm
I had no idea who Wendy Davis was until yesterday, but the more I read about her the more I like her. The fact that she was a single teenage mom and the first person in her family to graduate college is pretty remarkable.
MsMisery June 26, 2013, 2:02 pm
Baddest bitch in the state of Texas!!!!
Alena June 26, 2013, 2:03 pm
I’m so happy about this result, though I’m disappointed that I wasn’t able to watch it. However, I must add that I’m pretty disgusted with a few of the people coming out of the woodwork with their opinion right now.
Last night a girl I know (Conservative Republican and Christian who is actually pro-life) posted, “I don’t understand. Wendy Davis wasn’t allowed to eat, drink, use the restroom, sit down or lean on the podium for 13 hours because that would be breaking the rules. But the senators can still vote AFTER the midnight deadline has passed?! #standwithwendy #sb5” Someone then commented, “Did you suddenly become pro-abortion?”
Ugh. There’s not much that raises my hackles more than calling people who are pro-choice “pro-abortion.” I don’t go around calling people who are “pro-life” things like “anti-womens’-rights,” “anti-choice,” “anti-individual-rights.” Other than this, I’m typically incredibly hard to insult. Do many other people feel this strongly about the term “pro-abortion”?
rachel June 26, 2013, 2:06 pm
I was following the comments on the live feed last night and a lot of people were using “pro-abortion”. Ridiculous. I also loved (/s) the comment to the affect of “Look at how hard these people will fight for the right to kill their own offspring”
Alena June 26, 2013, 2:13 pm
Holy cow, that’s ridiculous. I’m not sure why some people are so convinced that all people who are pro-choice actively want to terminate any and all of their own pregnancies. It’s such a strange conclusion to jump to. A vast majority of the people I know who are pro-choice would never even consider having an abortion.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 2:14 pm
Yeah, it was like how the one senator told everyone to thank their mothers for being pro-life. My mother is certainly not pro-life.
Miel June 26, 2013, 2:24 pm
They said that ? Wow, I must never repeat that to my mom, she would be so insulted. This is horrible.
pinkjellyfishy June 26, 2013, 2:33 pm
That was Senator Eddie Lucio, he’s a democrat but super Roman Catholic and pro-life. That was ridiculous.
kerrycontrary June 26, 2013, 2:45 pm
” A vast majority of the people I know who are pro-choice would never even consider having an abortion.” YES. I would not have an abortion at this point in my life, but do I think it’s better for a 14yr old girl to have to go through a pregnancy and give birth only to live in poverty OR give her baby up for adoption rather than having an abortion? No.
GatorGirl June 26, 2013, 2:58 pm
I think Biden said it best when he said something along the lines of “Abortion may not be the right choice for me, but it’s not the governments job to make that choice for a woman.” something along those lines.
And I also think the same line of thought can apply to same-sex marriage.
theattack June 26, 2013, 3:07 pm
I also think it’s sad that in order to beg for respect as a pro-choice person, you have to declare that abortion isn’t a choice you would personally make. I’m not saying anyone’s wrong at all for saying that, but I think it’s sad that anyone ever feels the need to. I’m a pro-choice person who thought I would never choose that for myself until I ended up in the situation myself. My choice to have an abortion makes my opinion invalid in many discussions about it.
kerrycontrary June 26, 2013, 3:16 pm
Oh no, there are times I would’ve had an abortion and I have no problem admitting that. I think I was pro-life until I started having sex and went “oh shit, I don’t want a baby and even though I’m on BC and we used a condom I’m still a little nervous”. I would’ve had an abortion in college and I don’t think there’s anything wrong about it.
theattack June 26, 2013, 3:20 pm
Oh I know you don’t. I really didn’t mean that any of you who said that think it’s wrong at all. It is a cultural barrier though that even people who are clearly advocating for something (ie: the right to have an abortion or a gay marriage) have to proclaim that they themselves wouldn’t do it in order to be heard by the opposition. Just as straight allies and male feminists are necessary for the movement, so are pro-choice women who wouldn’t choose abortion for themselves. Those of us who would or have done so aren’t valid. Of course we would want abortion rights. We’re irresponsible people who want to have slutty sex and enjoy killing babies. I think most of the progress we’re making at this point in abortion rights has to be fueled by people who are removed from it. Maybe that will change soon.
kerrycontrary June 26, 2013, 3:38 pm
I wish a lady politician could step out and be like “I had an abortion and I don’t regret it and I’m pro-choice” and everyone would support her. Because I gaurantee there are lady politicians who have had one, and man politicians whose wives had them.
theattack June 26, 2013, 3:41 pm
Absolutely. But unfortunately it’s just not safe right now, in a political or a physical sense. It’s strategically better to keep quiet about it and silently push women’s rights forward than it is to risk losing your office to some bigoted idiot or even being murdered for your choice.
Jessibel5 June 27, 2013, 2:52 pm
I think there is one who stepped up and said that, I’ll have to Google who it was. I think it was last year.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 3:59 pm
I agree with this SO MUCH.
Jessibel5 June 27, 2013, 3:03 pm
See, whenever I hear someone say that, I always think to myself “It’s not like they relish this decision, it’s obviously not a decision they came to lightly…” One of my friends had one when we were in our early 20’s. The guy who she was having consensual sex with refused to um…remove himself…to put on a condom even though she kept pushing at his chest and asking him to. He finished before she got to the point of physically pushing him off of her, which was her next plan of action, she said. (She and I had many a discussion as to whether that then constituted rape and we could never come to a conclusion. She wanted the sex, but she didn’t want the without-a-condom-sex). She got pregnant, went back and forth for a few weeks, decided that the abortion was the best choice for her (btw, he offered to pay for half, borrowed the money from his bro, and then never gave her the money and used it for an xbox instead. How do I know this? He was my roommate at the time and I saw the check on his dresser. Check disappears, new XBox comes into existence the same day. Then he BRAGS about what he did. I was disgusted enough with him to kick him out). She agonized over the decision. Agonized! Cried! Had anxiety attacks. She knew it was the right decision for her, but it’s not like she WANTED to do it. And then she cried for another year. She called me on the due date crying. She made comments like “if I had had the baby, it would be learning to crawl right about now”. But she knew that it wouldn’t have been fair to bring a child into her situation. So…yeah. It’s not like people have sex just to go get them because they’re fun. I wish the other side would realize that.
6napkinburger June 26, 2013, 3:26 pm
Best example of how to rage against that bias is in the West Wing’s “the Supremes” with Glenn Close. Best episode of any show ever.
theattack June 26, 2013, 3:27 pm
I will definitely check that out. Thanks 🙂 I’ll just assume it’s Not Safe For Work though.
6napkinburger June 26, 2013, 3:32 pm
Well, not unless your work allows you to watch 45 min episodes of shows streaming on netflix or amazon prime. But there is nothing “NSFW” about the episode. (I would watch it with a child old enough to understand what an abortion is and what being “pro choice” means). And then you get the amazing line “Josh Lyman is gesticulating wildly”, which is just …the best.
LadyinPurpleNotRed June 26, 2013, 3:35 pm
Good suggestion! That’s a fantastic episode!
Alena June 26, 2013, 11:49 pm
I agree that it’s sad that people feel that need. But I think it serves a different purpose: it can also illustrate the point that even though people don’t think abortion is the option they would go for, they readily believe that others should still have the option. It’s kind of like straight people in favor of gay marriage. They’re not going to do it themselves, but they think that other people should be able to do it.
SpaceySteph June 27, 2013, 8:00 pm
Good point theattack!
There was absolutely a time when I would have gotten an abortion and it was not even that long ago. My ex had just dumped me and it was about 2 months after we’d last had sex (we were long distance… and I was on the pill) and I was nauseous and late and I read about morning sickness and the timeframe fit and as I’m peeing on the stick I knew with absolute certainty that if I was pregnant I would be getting an abortion.
As it turns out, I wasn’t pregnant, I was nauseous from the sads and not eating or sleeping very much because of it, which probably interrupted my cycle making me late(I lost about 20 pounds in the month after we broke up from simply not eating… it was the best- and worst- diet ever.)
If more of us told these stories, then pro-lifers who know us would not be able to just continue believing people who get abortions are heartless sinner murderers. They know us and they know that we are real people with real problems and real feelings and making really hard decisions.
Alena June 26, 2013, 2:09 pm
Needless to say, I had to respond to him because his initial comment and the subsequent one were grating and screamed “ignorant.” His second comment compared abortions to wanting slavery.
Here I’m insulted because he is being so judgmental, but I’m judging him because he seems… well, stupid. Oops.
GatorGirl June 26, 2013, 2:10 pm
Yeah, I think it’s a stupid word too. Also, kudos to your friend for acknowledging that even if she didn’t agree the procedure was screwed up.
Alena June 26, 2013, 2:28 pm
Now that I’m rereading one of her comments, she strikes me as not particularly in either camp, almost like she could be pro-choice but she doesn’t understand what being pro-choice is. I notice that with a fair amount of people who say they’re pro-life, but perhaps I’m misinterpreting the definitions.
I think she did a good job defending herself. I took pictures to show her response, it was nicely worded. http://imgur.com/a/Wbiz6
GatorGirl June 26, 2013, 2:49 pm
Yeah, I think she is leaning more towards the middle too, but what she says is well written. Also, that guy arguing with her is wrong…the parties (Democrats and Republicans) of today are essentially opposite from what they where in the Civil War era. I don’t get why he threw that in…to try to make it seem like the Democrats of today supported slavery back then? What? Weird.
Jessibel5 June 27, 2013, 3:11 pm
I’ve found a lot that some Republicans refer to that to…I guess make their point more valid? I sometimes read news on Breitbart just to see what the “other” side says and in the comments the people there often point out that Lincoln was a Republican, and “HE was so well loved by you Dumbocrats and libtards!”…except…the parties switched ideologies later on.
kerrycontrary June 26, 2013, 2:43 pm
People are so stupid! No one is pro-abortion. Literally no one except some random psychos want MORE abortions. Most pro-choice people are pro-choice anti-abortion, i.e. prevent unwanted pregnancies so women don’t even have to make that choice. I couldn’t even engage with someone who uses that word seriously.
MackenzieLee June 26, 2013, 8:22 pm
or BGM
6napkinburger June 26, 2013, 3:20 pm
I totally use the term “Anti-choice”, because that’s what it is. You can be “pro”-life and pro-choice — they aren’t mutually exclusive. (You can be against abortions but believe that the constitution allows women that choice). But being Pro-life with a capital P (and affiliating yourself with the political movement) doesn’t just mean that you support life or believe that life starts at conception or that fetus’ feel pain or that abortion is murder — it also means that (because of that belief), you do not believe that either the constitution allows women the choice to terminate a pregnancy or that women should be allowed to make that choice. To me, that’s Anti-choice.
I’m not a gigantic fan of abortions and I even think that babies come from G-d (which is a whole other thing), but you can pry my (and every other woman’s) right to choose from my cold, dead hands.
ktfran June 26, 2013, 3:44 pm
Anti-choice. I love it. I’m using that now. Thanks.
Northern Mermaid June 26, 2013, 8:30 pm
I use “Anti-choice” and “anti-abortion” too. Pro-life is such a cop-out, political bullshit name. Someone who is “Pro-Life” is not pro-life. They are anti-abortion. I think they way I look at the world: pro-choice, pro-workers rights, pro-healthcare, pro-gun control, pro-financial accountability for the government, pro-environmental legislation, pro-infrastructure, pro-food health and safety regulation, etc. as “pro-life.”
so there. 🙂
Northern Mermaid June 26, 2013, 8:42 pm
I forgot to add that “Pro-Family” gets me equally riled up. You’re not “Pro-Family” You’re “Anti-Marriage Equality.” someone who thinks that people should be allowed to have the same rights as everyone else regardless of their sexual preference, who want to build a stable home and create love, community, and build a FAMILY, are “pro-family.”
I think they should just rename both the “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Family” movements to “Pro-bigot” because that’s what they are. End rant.
Alena June 26, 2013, 11:54 pm
Personally the reason I try to stay away from calling people “anti-choice” is that they get offended (because who wants to believe they’re anti-choice, not pro-life?) and tend to not react well. Discussions don’t tend to go so well when people feel insulted and get defensive.
Personally I believe that a lot of the people who claim they’re “pro-life” are very anti-choice and anti-women’s-rights, but I just try to avoid the name calling. Maybe I just try to be nicer than I really need to be.
sobriquet June 26, 2013, 2:05 pm
I was at the capitol for a couple hours yesterday afternoon and then had the live feed on my computer from 5 pm until it was cut off. My boyfriend and I were glued to it by the end. I was following it on twitter until 2:30 in the morning. I hope everyone had a chance to see Wendy Davis speak… it was incredible. Filibustering in Texas is actually pretty difficult. You can’t just read the newspaper for 13 hours, you have to stay on topic, only one person can speak, that person cannot sit down or leave at any point… I mean, I would have had to pee like 2 hours into it. I don’t know how she did it.
Such an unlikely victory for Texas democrats. First a citizen’s filibuster to keep this thing going for a few days and then Wendy Davis stepped in and Leticia Van de Putte finished it off. Incredible.
rachel June 26, 2013, 2:09 pm
Yeah, the whole “germane” thing was interesting. I thought the famously long fillibuster in the national government had a senator just reading a phone book or something. It makes sense that it should be on topic, but it sucks that it’s what killed the fillibuster.
painted_lady June 26, 2013, 3:09 pm
Yeah, I think Strom Thurmond was reading recipes and the phone book during some vote that worked against segregation.
I feel like it’s also really telling that Dewhurst said she was off-topic by referencing the abortion pill and transvaginal ultrasounds. It’s like, dude, you’re either reaching or you really don’t have any clue whatsoever.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 4:31 pm
I also doubt the rules were put in place in order to create a “gotcha” moment where the other side could catch someone accidentally straying from that specific bill. It was likely just to avoid someone going up there and purposely talking about random nonsense for hours.
6napkinburger June 26, 2013, 4:47 pm
She’s not saying that the rules are wrong, but that his application of them was. Discussing the the abortion pill and transvaginal ultrasounds IS on topic to the bull, which discusses how and when abortions should be able to be performed. So that’s how he was “reaching” or has no “clue.”
6napkinburger June 26, 2013, 4:47 pm
* bill. Freudian slip?
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 5:01 pm
Oh, I know. I was agreeing with her and adding extra commentary.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 5:03 pm
I guess I wasn’t very clear, but my point was that the legislators WERE using it as a gotcha when they shouldn’t have been. I think it would have been much more fair to simply ask Davis to return to the bill at hand, but they were only doing it to make her stop.
6napkinburger June 26, 2013, 6:40 pm
Oh I get it! Right on, sista!
pinkjellyfishy June 26, 2013, 2:24 pm
They can’t even LEAN on anything while filibustering! I can’t even imagine… I mean just OUCH.
sobriquet June 26, 2013, 2:17 pm
For anyone who wants a quick run down of the highlights of last night (and the days leading up to it) this is a good article:
sarolabelle June 26, 2013, 3:19 pm
this is SO sickening! What is wrong with saying that an abortion can’t happen after 20 week and the abortion must be done in a surgical center?!?!!
So sad that she did this. This is NOT something to cheer about!
LadyinPurpleNotRed June 26, 2013, 3:31 pm
Yes… Having more than 5 places to get abortions in the state of Texas is terrible. Damn that woman! Amiright?
mandalee June 26, 2013, 3:32 pm
What is wrong is this law would have shut down something like 90 percent of clinics in the state of Texas, severely limiting the access of women to these services.
Also many fetus deformities and life-threatening problems for the mother and fetus are not detected until later in the pregnancy. I had an aunt who had to terminate a pregnancy at 23 weeks because it was it was either that or having her die as well. She luckily survived and is now a mother of two children.
What’s really sickening is using bad science and religious beliefs to legislate the availability of health service to nearly half of our population.
kerrycontrary June 26, 2013, 3:34 pm
First of all, it’s not like people get abortions at 20 weeks left and right. It is usually reserved for very rare circumstances when a woman finds out that her pregnancy is not viable at the 20 week ultrasound (where they spot for physical abnormalities and other birth defects). So some women can find out that their baby will most likely die before its born. Or that it has a 99% chance of dying within a few hours of life. Or it will lead a very painful, difficult, and oftentimes short life. So yes, I think a woman should be able to make the very difficult choice of ending her pregnancy after finding out news like that if she wants to. Most women are advised to get an abortion before 12 weeks. And requiring that it happens at a surgical center would shut down a lot of abortion clinics and restrict many doctors from practicing at them. Texas is HUGE. Some women do not have the means or ability to drive 6 hours to get an abortion. Closing down abortion clinics does not lessen the number of abortions, it just makes more women have unsafe abortions.
theattack June 26, 2013, 3:37 pm
Abortions don’t need to happen in surgical centers for one thing. I took a pill at the clinic and then went home where the abortion happened twelve hours later. It was perfectly safe, and I was comfortable at home. If I had had to stay at a surgical center for that it would have been way too expensive (and forget health insurance covering something like this) and unnecessary. The surgical center portion of this was just a way to shut down clinics and make abortions inaccessible.
SpaceySteph June 26, 2013, 7:27 pm
Yeah I think this is a hugely important point because the bill’s supporters are saying “we just want abortions to be safer for women” but what they are really doing is making smaller, rural abortion clinics without the means to upgrade to surgical center levels have to close their doors.
And it has no basis in medical fact. This article (http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2013/06/24/texas-lawmakers-approve-abortion-restrictions) mentions that several medical professional organizations advised against the bill. Abortions do not need to be done in a surgical center, this is straight up government interference in the Dr./patient relationship.
SpaceySteph June 26, 2013, 7:29 pm
Oh here’s one: http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2013/Hospital_Admitting_Privileges_for_Physicians_Providing_Abortion_Services
SpaceySteph June 26, 2013, 7:35 pm
Here’s another: https://www.texmed.org/uploadedFiles/Current/Advocacy/Public_Health/TMA%20Letter%20to%20Full%20House%20SB%205HB60_62313.pdf
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 3:55 pm
Yeah, what Mandalee and Kerry said. If they were really, truly ONLY concerned with making it safer for women to have abortions, then they wouldn’t have been trying to shut down all the clinics. Having no facilities is a lot less safe because people are going to just be more desperate.
othy June 26, 2013, 4:57 pm
And don’t forget about the admitting privileges issue. In order to be declared a surgical center, the doctors there have to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. However, the vast majority of hospitals refuse to give admitting privileges to doctors who preform abortion. It’s essentially a way to outlaw abortion 99% of the time while technically falling under the Roe v Wade standards.
katie June 26, 2013, 8:10 pm
wow, yea, you really have no idea what you are talking about…
you should really read up on pregnancy, how it works, when things develop, when certain abnormalities/fetal death/ect can be detected, what happens to a woman if there is no way to get the bad fetus out, ect. also research past birth rates, death rates, and death rates of women in childbirth and womens death rates relating directly to carrying a pregnancy. its not pretty.
this isnt about women just wanting to have an abortion at 20 weeks willy nilly- as others have said, that is pretty rare. and, just for the record, if you want that to be even MORE rare, we need greater sex education, greater access to birth control, and greater access to abortions that could be performed at an earlier date. that notwithstanding, i can think of two cases recently where the woman DIED AT THE HOSPITAL because their catholic countries wouldnt perform the life-saving abortion procedure.
i really hope that you are willing to lay down your own life in the name of not having an abortion just for the sake of not having an abortion -because of your own need or want- and having your potential child die regardless. ffs.
SpaceySteph June 26, 2013, 9:56 pm
I think the other really important part of this debate is the poor rural woman. Texas is a huge damn state and there is also a large portion of the population that live in the middle of nowhere.
For someone like that, who already had to make a 2-3 hour drive to an abortion clinic, now might have to make a 10 hour drive (EACH WAY! That’s a whole day spent getting an abortion) because those other abortion clinics don’t meet the surgical center rule. And as was one of Wendy Davis’s “not germane” points, the sonogram bill makes it that they’d have to do this twice. One day for the sonogram and a second separate time for the abortion.
Then you limit their window to 20 weeks, and yes I agree that nobody should wait to get an abortion for 5 months if they aren’t forced to. But now these rural women have to travel 40 hours for the two round trips to go get an abortion. Then you knock off one month (at least) where they were pregnant and didn’t even know it. How many times in the last 4 months did you have time to drive 10 hours, four times for a medical procedure. Now imagine you live paycheck to paycheck… Or imagine you’re a 14 year old girl raped by your father. Who is going to drive you 5 counties over, if your support system is the one that put you in this mess?
This bill is not a problem for a middle class adult living in Houston, who has access to good birth control, a primary care physician, a supportive husband, and a decent sick leave policy at work (aka me). Barring no late-term complications, I have absolutely no reason to seek an abortion after 20 weeks.
But I’m not the only type of woman in this state.
theattack June 27, 2013, 9:14 am
Oh my god, I love this comment so much. THIS is the problem!
A La Mode June 28, 2013, 4:24 am
You know, I read your comment this morning, and I got to thinking about how many women there may be even just in my own city, where the public transportation is an utter joke, who may be having babies because they don’t have the autonomy to get to a clinic.
I want to volunteer or start a community where anybody can sign up, state how far they’re willing to drive to help a woman get to a clinic, and then women in need can search the site to see if there’s anyone willing to drive to where she is and help her out. I don’t even know how to Google for something like that, but I think it would be a great resource.
Addie Pray June 28, 2013, 8:49 am
What spaceysteph said x 100!
temperance June 27, 2013, 5:35 pm
It’s taking away a woman’s right to choose by eliminating most of the clinics. I’m very pro-choice, so I’m celebrating.
Even if I wasn’t pro-choice, I think I’d be sick of MEN deciding what women can and can’t do with their bodies. After they tried to take away my birth control, I was done.
6napkinburger June 26, 2013, 4:21 pm
Offtopic but awesome: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/10-ways-doma-repeal-affects-marriage_n_3503775.html
SpaceySteph June 26, 2013, 8:01 pm
Hey so my twitter feed was the best this morning. A bunch of Jews were pointing out that Jewish religious law a) does not hold a fetus equal to a human and b) where the life of the mother is at stake, requires an abortion to save the mother’s life. Which is not to say that getting an abortion for every accidental pregnancy is viewed as ok, but it is viewed as not just ok but REQUIRED if the mother’s life is at stake.
(good summary here:
Anyways, where this is hopefully going is a supreme court case on “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” but whoever first brings the suit is probably going to be a high risk mother past the 20 weeks who is denied an abortion and therefore will be dead by the time of the ruling.
Lindsay June 26, 2013, 8:30 pm
I’ve actually always wondered why stuff like this or same-sex marriage hasn’t been addressed in a First Amendment sort of way like that. Because part of it, to me, is that I’m pissed off that there are laws like this that are primarily rooted in things that Christianity says are wrong.
SpaceySteph June 26, 2013, 9:37 pm
Speaking as a somewhat religious non-Christian, it’s very frustrating to me to see Christianity’s tenets codified into law. Then people who are not religious at all think that all religions are bad/controlling/overreaching when in fact I’m over here not trying to get laws passed based on my religious views and generally disagree with these laws they do pass on the basis that your adherence to my religion or any other is really NOT my business.
And its not even when my religious laws are in direct conflict to the Christian laws (like the Jewish laws on abortion). Religious law should not be codified into civil law, that’s the whole fucking point of the first amendment.
Grilledcheesecalliope June 26, 2013, 9:28 pm
Rick Perry just couldn’t let Wendy Davis be great. He is such a sphincter.
John Rohan June 27, 2013, 4:18 pm
Without getting into a heated argument, I just wanted to at least speak out and remind everyone that not every DW reader is pro-choice, and not all of us see State Sen Wendy Davis as a “hero”.
Think of what she’s defending. Yes, it’s freedom for some, but there is another group of people affected by this law, and they have no way to make themselves by heard through rowdy protests.
I also can’t help pointing out that abortions after 20 weeks are illegal in France, and France isn’t exactly a bastion of conservative misogynistic religious fundamentalists.
A La Mode June 27, 2013, 4:21 pm
Given that this is Wendy’s website, not yours or anyone else’s, I think it’s perfectly appropriate that Wendy titles her articles however the fuck she pleases.
John Rohan June 28, 2013, 7:28 am
WTH? … I never said Wendy shouldn’t title her posts the way she wants to.
Seriously – can you be any more defensive?
GatorGirl June 27, 2013, 4:24 pm
Well, good news is Wendy didn’t title her post “Wendy Davis: A New Hero for all Dear Wendy Readers” or “Wendy Davis: A New Hero for John Rohan”.
Also, I’m curious who this “other group” being affected is if the law does not pass?
A La Mode June 27, 2013, 4:29 pm
I’m sure he’s referring to the hypothetical children that maybe might result from the pregnancy.
GatorGirl June 27, 2013, 4:40 pm
Oh crap, yeah NEVER would have thought of that. What? haha.
A La Mode June 27, 2013, 4:42 pm
Yeah it’s really nothing more than a sore-spot-stabby type of argument since it’s a purely hypothetical projection on their part. No basis in logic or rational thought. But it’s a pretty good cornerstone for an argument devoid of logical reasoning.
GatorGirl June 27, 2013, 4:46 pm
I mean…how can you be a “person” with legal rights if you don’t exist?? This is why I can’t engage in conversations like this. It’s mind boggling!
A La Mode June 27, 2013, 5:03 pm
I had a convo about this on Facebook and he called me immoral, a monster, sickening, selfish, ignorant, and a piece of shit. It was so nice to hear that from someone who proclaims that they value all life.
GatorGirl June 27, 2013, 4:41 pm
Also, when did we start giving hypothetical, not yet to be conceived embryo’s a voice in politics?
John Rohan June 28, 2013, 7:41 am
GatorGirl,
Some of us believe that once you cross a certain threshold, especially at 20 weeks, personhood is no longer theoretical, but real.
BTW, all embryo’s have already been conceived (another word for “fertilized”). It is a medical impossibility for there to be an embryo which is “not yet to be conceived”.
GatorGirl June 28, 2013, 8:34 am
Right, I’m aware of how biology works, thanks. But currently these embryo’s are hypothetical because they don’t exist (meaning the eggs aren’t fertilized currently when the legislation is being created).
And it’s great that SOME people believe personhood exists by 20 weeks of pregnancy – but why should I be forced to adhere to your beliefs? if you believe an embryo is a person at that point- don’t get an abortion! Easy-peasy! Same thing with gay marriage – if you don’t believe in it, don’t get married to someone of the same gender! I have no issue with having different personal beliefs, I think they are all great and valid. I do have an issue with my life being limited and my rights being infringed upon because of laws created based on someone else’s views.
John Rohan June 28, 2013, 1:32 pm
Personhood isn’t just *my* belief. A line is always drawn somewhere – even the majority of the most ardent pro-choice people at least that a child has personhood even after being born. Parents don’t have the option to decide when their own children become human beings. I don’t think you want to change that.
And let’s compare this to gun control. If you don’t believe in guns, don’t buy one! Easy-peasy! But the reality is that these things affect many other people besides just the one person who has the freedom to have that abortion or buy that gun.
GatorGirl June 28, 2013, 1:39 pm
Gun control is hardly applicable. Guns have the potential to harm another living breathing human being, while a choice I make for my own body does not. What I choose to do with my own body is no business of anyone else, and it’s a woman’s choice to decided what to do with her body. And yes, an embryo inside a woman’s uterus does count as part of her body. Especially when the embryo isn’t viable with out said woman.
It’s useless to debate this.
SpaceySteph June 28, 2013, 4:54 pm
Well if 20 weeks is your threshold then you ought to support making it easier to get abortions before 20 weeks so that women can make their choice prior to the time the fetus becomes a person.
The part of this bill that is TRULY egregiously anti-choice is the one that would close all but 5 abortion clinics in Texas and leave half of a VERY large state completely without a clinic. And even your darling France knows that.
Wendy June 27, 2013, 4:26 pm
Well, I said that Wendy Davis was a hero for women’s rights, not a hero for misogynist right-wing douchebags.
bethany June 27, 2013, 4:47 pm
Bonus points for excellent usage of the word douchebag.
Imsostartled June 27, 2013, 6:25 pm
Boom! Nice Wendy. 😀
John Rohan June 28, 2013, 7:33 am
I looked at this comment a few times and I’m going to assume that “douchebag” was directed at some theoretical misogynist right-wing person who was pushing for this law, not at me.
(BTW I never said I was really pushing for this law either).
If “douchebag” was directed at me personally, it’s best to say it plainly, so there are no misunderstandings.
Wendy June 28, 2013, 8:16 am
Not directed at you personally, but at the people who go out of their way to limit the rights and freedoms of women in this country.
Lindsay June 27, 2013, 5:42 pm
Who says the U.S. has to have all the same laws as they do in France?
SpaceySteph June 27, 2013, 11:38 pm
I wonder actually about how easy it is to obtain an abortion in France? See, I would be a lot less afraid of the 20 week limit if abortions were available to people who needed them for the first 20 weeks.
My problem with this bill, as I explained upthread, is that it both makes abortions more difficult to obtain AND shortens the window in which to get one.
Want to reduce late-pregnancy abortions? Make it easier for women to access abortions when they first decide to get them. Instead, the laws are going the opposite way- reduce number of abortion clinics so women have to travel farther. Require a sonogram and then a 24 hour waiting period before the abortion can be performed. All of these things together are simply designed to stall a woman who wants an abortion so she can’t get one in time. So call it like it is. It’s not “informed consent,” it’s not “safe facilities,” and it’s not “fetal pain.” It’s forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
SpaceySteph June 27, 2013, 11:41 pm
Oh and then I googled and found this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/france-free-abortion-law_n_2998962.html
Apparently abortions in France are 1) Free and 2) being made available in every hospital. And birth control is free too. If this were true in the US, then the time limit would not be as huge a limit on women’s bodily autonomy.
Although I would still want an exception for the life of the mother.
Grilledcheesecalliope June 28, 2013, 12:39 am
I stared at this post for literally 15 minutes trying to figure out who these voiceless people were. I get it now. Btw a 20 week old fetus is tiny like 1 pound or less tiny, also rarely can a baby born at under 22 weeks be saved. And by rarely I mean only within the last 8 years and had to live in the hospital for more than 6 months.
katie June 28, 2013, 8:58 am
oh, fuck off with your “another group of people effected” bullshit- that is so laughably transparent i cant even stand it.
you do not care about the kids, and neither do anyone else who is for ridiculous legislation like this. you wanna know what our country would look like if the politicians actually cared about the kids? well first off, and probably the greatest indicator, we would have great school systems. meanwhile in reality, school budgets are being cut left and right, teachers are compensated for shit, and schools close all the time. if the politicians actually cared about the kids, and really wanted every child conceived to have a healthy, happy life full of opportunity (which is something i can get behind, btw), there would be extremely effective sex ed. there would be birth control for everyone, and everyone would be encouraged and shown how to use it fully and effectively so there wouldnt even, theoretically, be any pregnancies that were intended. there would be heavy investment into real men’s birth control, so that any man that didnt want to have a child (like, say, the millions of deadbeat dads who could give a shit about the kids they created) wouldnt have to. we would make it available and easy to find, and easy to use. we would educate women about their bodies and how to listen to them, and then women would know within a much smaller timeframe if they were pregnant, and how to proceed. we would give women proper healthcare, especially related to having kids, and options about childcare and returning to work and having a work/life balance. we would also, maybe, tell women that if their lives are threatened that their doctor will be able to save them- so women like me, who are kind of on the fence about kids anyway, wouldnt be scared off because we have to fear for our own lives.
the way to reduce abortions is to reduce conceptions. period. the way not to do it is to make it roundabout illegal and nearly impossible for millions of women,who will *keep conceiving if you dont educate and give them better options* and then tell another thousand or so that they just have to die. people against this do not care about children, they care about controlling women. if they actually cared about children, i could probably get behind all of the ideas on how to reduce unwanted pregnancies, make sure that parents actually want their children, ect. but this is not it. its just not.
John Rohan June 28, 2013, 1:24 pm
*Sigh*… this is one reason why I hesitate to say anything against the hivemind on this site. Being told to “fuck off” simply for having a different opinion is incredibly juvenile.
But you can spare yourself the rage and hyperventilation anyway; I am not this strawman you are shouting at. Despite your cartoon portrayal of me as someone who hates kids, is against education funding, family planning, and birth control, I am nothing of the sort. So rage all you want to, because it has nothing to do with me.