This would be funny if I didn’t hate them all so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seems like the proper defendants are the physicians and hospitals denying the care

You know you are just parroting talking points fed to you, right? These aren’t *abortion* doctors who are speaking out (who I know you already think are the spawn of the devil but who are actually providing essential medical care). The doctors in this article and who are speaking out more broadly about the the dangers of these new laws are regular ER and OBGYN doctors who only have their patients health at the forefront of their concern. The “pro-life” group had 50 years to strengthen support for pregnant women and to make early stage abortions less needed but they did diddly squat. Now the movement is bringing death, injury and trauma to many women and doctors who deserve better for our country and health care system. Abortions done later are almost always done out of medical necessity. You are causing harm - grave harm.

They know that. That’s what the purpose of all the forced birther laws are: inflicting maximum damage on the largest number of women possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seems like the proper defendants are the physicians and hospitals denying the care

You know you are just parroting talking points fed to you, right? These aren’t *abortion* doctors who are speaking out (who I know you already think are the spawn of the devil but who are actually providing essential medical care). The doctors in this article and who are speaking out more broadly about the the dangers of these new laws are regular ER and OBGYN doctors who only have their patients health at the forefront of their concern. The “pro-life” group had 50 years to strengthen support for pregnant women and to make early stage abortions less needed but they did diddly squat. Now the movement is bringing death, injury and trauma to many women and doctors who deserve better for our country and health care system. Abortions done later are almost always done out of medical necessity. You are causing harm - grave harm.

Anonymous wrote:We have two children but there is no way in hell I would risk getting pregnant again. One of my sisters has decided not to have a second child in my third sister and her husband have decided not to have any at all and instead are using their money to travel.

What states do your siblings live in?

We have two children but there is no way in hell I would risk getting pregnant again. One of my sisters has decided not to have a second child in my third sister and her husband have decided not to have any at all and instead are using their money to travel.

And more good news as Nevada advances a ballot initiative:

Some good news: Wisconsin anticipating its law being overturned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cue Republicans shocked, shocked that this is lowering the birth rate.

This is the logical outcome. I'm actually shocked the forced birthers didn't bother to game plan this out. But I guess the definition of being a anti choice forced birther is being totally disconnected to reality.

There are probably lots of women out there who are going to voluntarily opt out of having kids, and possibly getting married, to avoid all this anti choice caused mess.

+1 At least two of the women who have suffered horrible outcomes because of the new laws have had their tubes tied rather than attempt to have more children.

Anonymous wrote:Cue Republicans shocked, shocked that this is lowering the birth rate.

This is the logical outcome. I'm actually shocked the forced birthers didn't bother to game plan this out. But I guess the definition of being a anti choice forced birther is being totally disconnected to reality.

There are probably lots of women out there who are going to voluntarily opt out of having kids, and possibly getting married, to avoid all this anti choice caused mess.

At least some people are finally getting it.

“House GOP leaders had hoped that inserting abortion policy into every major piece of their government spending plans would help win over conservative members and placate influential outside groups agitating for more aggressive action on the issue. But so far, the move has helped to seal the demise of what is usually among the easiest appropriations bills for Congress to pass, drawing fierce and rare pushback from more than a dozen moderate Republicans.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/13/abortion-policy-funding-agriculture-bill-00115529

Anonymous wrote:Cue Republicans shocked, shocked that this is lowering the birth rate.

Of course it is depressing birth rates as was predicted. Do you want to carry a pregnancy in Texas or see some one you care about carry a pregnancy in Texas? Well neither does anyone else.

Anonymous wrote:Cue Republicans shocked, shocked that this is lowering the birth rate.

“But we thought it would make more White women have babies!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seems like the proper defendants are the physicians and hospitals denying the care

You seem like someone who should actually read the article. If you did, you’d know that on the contrary, one of the plaintiffs in the Idaho lawsuit is an emergency obstetrician who is forced by law to deny the care.

Why would they read the article? It might make them think and thinking might lead them to question their sheep like devotion to their forced birther politics and once that cat is out of the bag, they might not vote straight GOP. So no, PP will not actually be reading any of the things posted on here. Unless it’s from Life News! They’ll read that!

Cue Republicans shocked, shocked that this is lowering the birth rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It seems like the proper defendants are the physicians and hospitals denying the care

You seem like someone who should actually read the article. If you did, you’d know that on the contrary, one of the plaintiffs in the Idaho lawsuit is an emergency obstetrician who is forced by law to deny the care.