I appreciate the reporting on this. Ummmm…this phrasing though…” crisis pregnancy centers, which often pose as clinics providing medical services but, in fact, exist in order to deter women from getting abortions.”
I disagree with them “posing” as clinics providing medical services. And I do think it’s okay that clinics are out there to p…
I appreciate the reporting on this. Ummmm…this phrasing though…” crisis pregnancy centers, which often pose as clinics providing medical services but, in fact, exist in order to deter women from getting abortions.”
I disagree with them “posing” as clinics providing medical services. And I do think it’s okay that clinics are out there to provide true choice to women. And pregnancy does require medical care, so there is no “posing.” And I bet no one forced these women to walk in to this clinics…so huh.
Again, I appreciate the coverage of the topic but this phasing is such a tell on the bias. If you are pro-choice then you are also pro women seeking services to keep their baby. Those services don’t have to be demonized as bad or manipulative.
Exactly. I had the same reaction... almost turned me off the entire article, but I pushed ahead. Overall, great piece, but that phrase really stood out of character.
The same, and I’m glad to see this statement challenged. The misinformation around crisis pregnancy centers is appalling. All any journalist needs to do is look at their websites which list the services provided and go in person to confirm. Although I’m glad to see this reporting, I’m disappointed in the laziness of journalists today. If you don’t know for a fact how these organizations operate, then leave the topic out of your story. Or acknowledge that this is an assumption or guesswork on your part.
This is a great point-although they can be mistaken for abortion clinics to the untrained eye they still provide free ultra sounds to tons of women early in their pregnancies.
Abortion providers have been forced for years to provide all kinds of false information to women seeking to terminate their pregnancies (for example, making abortion seem more dangerous than it is--pregnancy is actually more of a risk to a woman than abortion), not to mention subjecting them to unnecessary medical procedures such as ultrasounds.
The pro-life pregnancy centers had no such requirements and often disguised themselves as places providing "options" when they offered only one option--forced birth. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, provides an actual choice--pregnancy care for women who choose to give birth and abortion for those who don't.
Now, there are laws like S. 1373 being proposed that will make it illegal to provide information on abortion at all, including on the internet.
I certainly agree that violence is not appropriate political action but find it odd that the very people who were violent against another group suddenly become shocked now that the same violence they inflicted on others is coming back to them. Yes, when abortion providers were murdered, bland statements like "thoughts and prayers" and "we are against violence" were made, but these were perfunctory at best.
If you are providing services for women who want to bring their pregnancies to term then you should advertise as such and not try to disguise yourself as an impartial counseling center.
> "the very people who were violent against another group suddenly become shocked now that the same violence they inflicted on others is coming back to them."
But it IS NOT the same people. The overwhelming majority of people on the "pro-life" side did not commit or sanction the violence committed by a handful of anti-abortion extremists. The violence now increasing against the "pro-life" is not targeting people who have committed violence. And in that direction too, the violence is committed by a tiny extreme fraction of the "pro-choice" folks.
The non-violent groups and people on both sides are NOT legitimate targets of the violent extremists on the other side.
So you say that merely condemning violence (by extremist nominally on one's side) is not enough, it's just bland statements. OK, first show us how widely the "pro-choice" side is doing even that much - what fraction of pro-choice leaders have been condemning violence against pro-life people and groups, even with bland statements?
Tell us what actions beyond bland statements you expected from the pro-life side, going beyond the perfunctory. And then show us how the pro-choice side is now taking those actions you would expect from the pro-life side when extremists on their side are committing and threatening violence.
I don't expect that violent extremists on either side will listen to the large majority of non-violent people on the same side, but I do think the pro-choice leaders need to speak up. Silence can be seen as implicitly supporting the violence.
Also, as far as abortion being safer than pregnancy, that "fact" can easily be disputed. Statistics for abortion related injury and death are notoriously underreported. Think Kermit Gosnell. He got away with killing and injuring women for years because of his own deceit, the collusion of NARAL and other abortion rights org and the PA Department of Health.
As far as I know, PP does not provide pregnancy services for those who want to keep their babies. They provide pregnancy tests and some PP's provide postpartum exams, but going to PP is not like going to an OB. Pre-natal and peri-natal care are two different things. All you have to do is go to PP's homepage and you can see what they offer, though it can be confusing because they do list that they provide pregnancy services, but that is not the same thing as the care required throughout pregnancy, up to an including delivery.
Go to PP's website and see what they focus on. It's very telling. Also, PP doesn't provide services free of charge, except a few, like STI testing. Pregnancy related services are generally not free.
The problem with your comment and the tone of this article is stating that if some people attacked abortion clinics, then people who work, or volunteer, at pregnancy centers deserve to be attacked, or at least not be surprised when they are attacked for doing something that is helping someone who needs asstance.
"Pro-Choice" was never anything other than Orwellian nonsense. One might as well use the phrase to refer to the "choice" to own guns, drink alcohol, or own slaves! But of course we don't - we say "pro-gun" or "pro-slavery" to refer to people who want it to be legal to do those things, not to people who want to REQUIRE EVERYONE to do those things.
Ironically, one of the radicals implicated in some pro-abortion violence describes himself as "pro-abortion" while saying that he, unlike others in his camp, is truly "pro" abortion because he wants to make abortion mandatory for all pregnancies, rather than a mere "choice".
I'm not sure I see that. To me, "pro-choice" is actually a better descriptor than "pro-abortion" for anybody reasonably sane. I can't see anyone wanting universal abortion - that would end mankind in one generation. The idea was to have the ability to "choose." And of course it goes without saying that choice must come with limitations, too.
I apologize - I know I'm really dense, but clearly I am missing the point. What does 'unique monopoly on the concept of "choice"' mean? In simpler terms.
Are you saying that pro-choice people are really universal abortionists and want everybody to have abortions? Can you clarify? I'm not giving you a hard time; I really want to understand your point.
It would be interesting to hear exactly what sort of medical care they provide. If "medical" is in their name and they provide only anti-abortion counseling, it could be credibly argued that they are "posing."
As for bias, nobody is free of bias, but as articles go, I think this one is remarkably balanced. This writer is pretty good.
More balanced than most, yes, but the posing comment comes straight from democratic talking points. I'm on the board of a local center, and they provide completely free of charge: Ultrasounds, STD testing, prenatal vitamins, medical referrals, training, material goods for the whole family, AND counseling.
Common Sense should do a follow up detailing the depth and breadth of the life affirming care being given at clinics all over the US because of the goodness of people who love life. Then tell us who really is the poser in terms of caring for women.
This abortion thing can be solved. The absolutists on both sides drive me crazy. I'm a 15-week rule guy; I think that is a reasonable compromise that makes everybody at least a little unhappy, but most can live with. Then we can hopefully move on.
Agreed. Given that there is a 50% expectation of viability if born at 21 weeks gestation or later, abortions after 20 weeks end the life of a potentially viable human being. To pretend otherwise is cruelty.
15 weeks means a week shy of four months. What, for you, is magical about 15 weeks? This is graphic, but those who are ok with this shouldn't find it difficult.
Nothing is magical about 15 weeks gestational age, of course. I assume that is a rhetorical question.
Pregnancy is an analog process - a continuum - not a digital event with defined individual checkpoints, so there is no identifiable "magic point." Unfortunately, when making digital decisions about analog processes, it's like Mason said to Dixon: you have to draw the line somewhere.
Of course a 15-week gestation has human features; that's the purpose of pregnancy, you know - making a human. But one has to decide whether or not he wants to solve the problem, and if so, that means making decisions - and compromises. To my eye, appeals to emotion are not helpful. Rigid, uncompromising positions will, of course, ensure that the problem is never solved.
If there's nothing consequential about 15 weeks, then why not 6 or 20 or 35? You get the point.
Analog process? I don't know what that means. As someone who gave birth twice, I never heard my doctor suggest I was in the analog process. I was in the "development of a human being process" and knew that in weeks 9-12, fingers, hands, toes and feet were fully formed. That's not emotional, it's simply a fact. However, there's no doubt there are lots of emotions. Our bodies change, our hormones are wacky, and we understand the responsibility of developing the human growing inside of us. (That's why women aren't supposed to consume alcohol during pregnancy after understanding its effect.)
Where do you draw the line for slave ownership? No doubt you oppose it. That was never an emotional issue until humanity realized that one person should never own another person. For too many it was a sound business decision, that is until, thankfully, Lincoln committed to ending that scourge.
This is no different in that facts can lead us to emotional responses. Where it seems different in the 21st century, is that one group (the pregnant woman) thinks she is superior to the unborn child and therefore righteous is excising that human (and in some states) at any point along the 9/10 months gestation.
So while facts can beget emotion, facts are never wrong. The challenge is we don't all accept the same facts because the emotional choice is made (IMHO) by too many to put self above the dependent.
I've never seen more emotion exhibited than I have this last summer. From the words on pregnant belly that said, "this is not human yet" to the (un)attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice! Truly audacious.
"If there's nothing consequential about 15 weeks, then why not 6 or 20 or 35? You get the point."
What I get is that YOU do not get the point - or want to. Read it again - this time for content. THERE IS NO DEFINABLE CUTOFF POINT IN A CONTINUUM, (an analog process), so if you want to solve the problem - and that is the real question, isn't it? - you have to use the best available data and then make a decision, understanding that it is to some degree arbitrary. As Justice Brandeis said, sometimes it is more important that a thing be solved than it be solved right. I believe this issue will NEVER be solved to everyone's satisfaction, and we should quit trying to do that, but it will be solved.
I won't do your homework for you, but suffice it to say that an analog process exhibits continuous change; a digital one assumes discrete, individual states that can be easily defined. This stuff is all over the Internet - usually to describe electronic signals. Look it up; the analogy is a good one.
Your "slave ownership cutoff" example tells me all I need to know: it's black or white, yes or no, abortion allowed or never so. News flash: abortion is not going away, and all that posting gruesome pictures will do is inflame those with whom one needs to compromise.
This problem WILL be solved, and absolutists - "abortion with no limits" AND "abortion outlawed completely" - will not have a seat at the table.
After mansplaining to me, it's hard to appreciate the "cheers" sign off. It's rather prideful of you to underestimate my ability to think and reason and research and comprehend.
I absolutely wholeheartedly believe that ending life either in the womb or before natural death is wrong. I'm happy to go to my grave attempting to change minds but I won't shout at others to make my points. (All CAPS is a shout down, ya know).
News flash: Abortion did go away as the law of the land. Thank God! And I don't normally like to pit women against men on this issue, but will take this opportunity to remind you that you have no idea what it's like to carry a baby for 10 months much less see both go to the NICU for different reasons after their births. And because of that, you can't possibly understand something I understand very well, which informs and solidifies a reasoned and moral belief.
I will respond in a general way: "mansplaining" is an appropriate response to "woman-stupiding." Or stupiding of any kind by either sex. If you are, as you say, capable of research, then I suggest you do exactly that. You will find that, in not only science but in life itself, the closer you examine a topic, the less black-and-white it becomes.
I appreciate your personal experience with children - I have children myself, but while experience is of course, useful, all experience without education does is to teach you how to do it wrong. Over and over.
No charge for the "mansplaining." That's what men do: solve problems.
A+ for mansplaining. You ratcheted it up nicely with the "That's what men do: solve problems." The creativity in my own 25 year career of problem solving (master's degree in hand) and at least once a day at home is commendable. At least that what my performance reviews suggested. Just today I solved a problem, but I'll spare you the details.
Your choice to defend your points with terms like "woman-stupiding" only illustrates how obtuse this conversation has become. Research on black and white issues that in this case are life and death issues is hardly a baseline requirement to arriving at a personal viewpoint. Life and death captures it all.
You've made it quite clear that you disagree with me but your degradation into mansplaining and name calling only makes you look the fool. I don't think it's necessary to get any more degrading. Time to agree to disagree.
The “health of the mother” argument is fake. A doctor could perform a very safe and fast C Section and save the mother and baby. The point is, not to save the baby and say that was necessary to save the mother.
Did you mean "until delivery" or "through delivery"? Until delivery sounds like once the baby is delivered, you can't kill it. But through delivery sounds sounds like you may kill a newborn. The rest of your comment looks like you are allowed to kill a newborn in NYC. Which?
That distinction is meaningless. Is killing the baby in the uterus right before birth any different than delivering the baby letting it die? Babies born as early as 32 weeks survive easily with proper care. They are almost fully developed at that point and can feel pain. So aborting a baby who could survive outside the womb is not just murder, it is cruel.
Veerrrrry dishonest take. "No one forced these women to walk into these clinics" Yeah they walked in because some of these clinics make it seem like they offer abortion and then once you're in you get a pro life lecture. The ones that say upfront "no abortions offered here" are fine.
Really? You think that most women are so feeble-minded that if they mistakenly enter a pro-life pregnancy center wanting an abortion they are somehow tricked into keeping their babies? Or that they are so egotistical that they experience harm when faced with someone with a different opinion? Speak for yourself, but most women I know can make their own decision even when faced with an alternative option. Furthermore, most people call first when looking for medical services, in my experience. I've gone into many businesses in my life looking for something I couldn't find, but it never resulted in life-altering choices, and I never considered it a form of injustice. Women who are that simple minded really should hide out in a cave, or find a caretaker, but don't paint us all with the imbecile brush.
Actually, yes. I have seen it happen twice. Young, vulnerable teens, alone. First one “kept” the baby after being told she was a “murderer” is she aborted the fetus. She then lost custody - she just was overwhelmed and unprepared and had a breakdown. Child now somewhere in limbo. Second one just as sad. Drifting in and out of homeless shelters... now scoffed at by these very same self-righteous church ladies as a “welfare queen”. Oh, the irony!
Thank you. This is exactly how I feel about this. Am I somehow not to be trusted to make medical appointments responsibly because I am a pregnant woman? Am I too stupid? Too hormonal to think straight? So meek and mild that I just accept whatever the doctor tells me even if it is completely counter to my own wishes - even to the point of giving birth to a child? I wouldn't seek care from a new doctor of any kind without doing some basic research on their practice and determining if they offer the services in which I am interested. If I went to a doctor and they couldn't meet my needs in regards to a particular procedure I would find another practitioner. I sincerely do not know a single woman who wouldn't do the same.
To be fair, there are a host of facilities around the country that purport to offer education, but once you walk in you get left-wing indoctrination instead.
This take seems intellectually dishonest. A pregnancy crisis center that doesn’t offer abortions should not have any further duty to advertise “no abortions offered here” as Planned Parenthood would have to say upfront “no talk of God will be found here”.
Really? They should post a sign so we aren't confused. If you'll just do a simple Google search of "planned parenthood and God" you'll find on their website an entire section, in there it says "...We are all created in God's image, and as clergy it is our responsibility to encourage people to be good stewards of their bodies..." But, you are correct, they don't talk about it there. Who's the real POSER?
OK. But no one forced them. And "lecture"? They are still free to walk away. I do think it is best for clinics to say "no abortion here." But the phrasing this reporter used is biased and makes it seem like they are doing this bad thing. And what is "veerrrrrry dishonest" about what I said?
Clients locate Planned Parenthood or a Pregnancy Support Center by searching the internet, making a phone call, or through the grapevine which allows them to understand the services offered before even arriving at the clinic. Also most clinics' receptionists would answer a client honestly when asked does this clinic provide.....
In any other situation, if a practitioner misrepresented the services they offered, you’d agree it was wrong. But because it’s a cause you believe in, it’s fine. I bet if there was a “gender counseling clinic” that, sike!, only did transitions, you’d take my meaning. Let the pro and anti abortion clinics clearly differentiate themselves.
I think you are wrong; I worked as an escort for clinic years ago and 'misrepresentation' was NOT the big issue. What was a big issue was that there was NO clinic to get counseling on EVERY option available to these women at such a difficult time.
There is no One solution for everyone. You can’t ever get EVERY option on any topic from one place. This is a difficult time and yet here we are, advising abortion is the only answer to future success or having a child is the only path to salvation. Neither of these statements are true. And there are some clinics that try. Read through these comments. SuzyQ works in one and describes it.
Not true. Posting a sign is a little like judging a book by its cover. I believe in letting the "consumer" determine their own opinions about what's in the box. Just as a person seeking gender counseling is be free to walk away from those services urging psychiatric counseling first, there are others who are free to walk away from those that offer pharmaceutical relief first. I encourage all to hear both sides of the treatment plans and making a decision from there. I lived in a small rural town as a teenager. I" pretty sure pro and anti abortion clinics will differentiate themselves...don't they already? You say a counseling center is "posing" because you seek an abortion and feel you've wasted time. I feel like you wasted your time making a baby and now can't spare an extra hour to investigate options.
The gender clinic analogy is a little off, I think. A lot of people trust medical and mental health professionals, God only knows why. When they walk in to a gender clinic and are confirmed that they were born in the wrong body and need to have treatment, they believe it and act accordingly. In other words, they go for the advice, and then the treatment. But if you walk into a Planned Parenthood seeking abortion, it is understood that you have decided that you want an abortion; you aren't there for medical advice. It is like going to McDonald's and asking for a Big Mac; no one expects to be talked into a seven layer burrito.
As a person who has a degree and biology and medicine, I can say unequivocally, no person is born in the wrong body. Health care professionals that "confirm" this are part of the problem, not the solution. People who believe it and act accordingly are victims, many of whom later regret their decisions. I do believe there is an exceedingly small percentage of the population that is truly transgender and needs this kind of help, but not to level we are seeing today, especially where children are concerned. I am a doctor myself and think it is shameful that people in my profession are making a lot of money off of this scam, destroying people's bodies and lives. Sorry, a little off the actual topic, but I feel strongly on the subject. And the abortion clinic thing is well covered from all sides.
Here’s the thing though. There are numerous women who go to an abortion clinic believing it’s the only option they have. Obviously most who do end up getting abortions, however there are some who when presented with other choices end up choosing life. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with helping a woman find those options.
There is more agreement here than disagreement. What I would like is if the reporter thought a clinic was posing to show us why. That is not done here, and instead I think makes it seems like all Crisis Pregnancy Centers operate that way.
And wait...If Jane's Revenge can figure out what services the clinics provide, then so can any women too.
I can agree with that. I understood from the article that only Crisis Pregnancy Centers being criticized are the ones that intentionally present an ambiguous appearance.
For your second statement, I dunno if expecting women to emulate the behavior of a literal terrorist organization in order to get care is the best plan.
I'm glad we have some agreement. I don't want anyone to follow after a terrorist group. LOL. It was more about saying that women in this position can research too.
Stand your ground. There is nothing verrrrrry dishonest about what you said. And no, it’s not “best” for clinics to say no abortion here. Planned Parenthood does not connect you with continuum of care services for “crisis” pregnancies. There is value in seeing what each clinic offers. Don’t like the clinic you walked into? Look for another. I once walked into a bakery looking for a cupcake, but they only sold cookies. Should I insist they post a sign?
I think yours is a typical story. When I was in residency, I received a frantic phone call from my younger cousin about the "rabbit dying." It took a full two minutes to get him settled down; we haven't done rabbit tests for pregnancy in fifty years, so I had no idea what he was talking about.
The bottom line was that his girlfriend was pregnant. I told him I would help them; what did they need? They lived in a very traditional mountain community; they were absolutely horrified at the prospect of an unwed pregnancy. "I don't know who will murder us first: her parents or mine." Boy, shows you how long ago THAT was....
Anyway, I made all the arrangements and even accompanied them to their abortion procedure. She was absolutely near panic, and her boyfriend not much better. After the procedure was over, she had one thing to say: "I'll never do that again. I can't believe that there were women in there on their second and third abortions."
Fast forward. That was in 1982 - what is that, forty years? They married, are still married, have two adult children, and have never expressed a scintilla of regret.
On the other hand, I also spoke to a high school classmate - my first crush - yesterday. She was pregnant about two years out of high school, had a daughter out of wedlock, eventually marrying a friend of mine when the girl was two. They were married 44 years until his death, and she has never expressed any regrets, either.
Although a supporter of available abortion, I have a very jaundiced eye toward Planned Parenthood. This group is the legacy of Margaret Sanger, famed racist and eugenicist, ("We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population...") and they are doing their jobs well. There are now far more black babies aborted than carried to term. Not good.
Historically, Planned Parenthood was founded to abort babies, not to offer pregnant woman a choice. Explicitly, Margaret Sanger’s goal was to reduce the fertility of African American women.
I think Margaret Sanger was a despicable human being, but to be fair, she doesn’t seem to have advocated for abortion. She just didn’t want those “human weeds” to be conceived in the first place.
Fair. I disagree with what she advocated, but it’s worth noting that she was a product of her time. Were she a child of the 1960s or later, the odds are she would think very differently.
‘A product of her time’ absolutely not-my grandmother who was born in 1928 and worked as a nicu nurse for 30+ never uttered the n-word or any other racist sentiment. She also told me about how abortion clinics were put in poor black neighborhoods to prevent the black population and other poor people from reproducing.
Andy, I have no doubt that your grandmother was an extraordinary person. Nevertheless, it is unfair to judge people in the past based on attitudes of the present. I know plenty of people who, while harboring no antipathy to any particular group, used words to describe them that are now considered inappropriate. Similarly, it’s easy to accept a belief - be it eugenics or utilitarianism or a particular religion or whatever - when it’s commonly held by the people around you. I am confident that 100 years from now, people will be horrified by some beliefs and practices you and I both think are entirely banal. I’m also confident that we’re both not bad people, no matter what those people will think.
Her much-republished “My Way to Peace” (1932) presents Sanger’s essential eugenics platform. It argues that to preserve racial hygiene, the government should enact three coercive measures. First, it should sterilize those with mental and physical disabilities, including “morons, mental defectives, epileptics.” Second, it should segregate on state-run concentration farms a much broader public of impoverished and criminal citizens, including paupers, prostitutes, drug addicts, illiterates and the unemployed. If the second group reformed its behavior and accepted sterilization, it could return to mainstream society. By Sanger’s own estimate, 15 million to 20 million citizens would live under this regime of segregation and sterilization. The third initiative would be obligatory birth-control training for mothers with serious diseases, such as heart disease, in an effort to persuade them to renounce any future childbearing. This program was not about “choice.”
Sanger’s eugenics program made relatively modest gains during her lifetime. But she and her associates succeeded in one area: compulsory sterilization. More than 30 states passed laws authorizing agencies to sterilize forcibly those considered “unfit” for childbearing.
So I guess we should take down those monuments and statues to Teddy Roosevelt, and the many other minds OF THAT ERA that believed in selective birth outcomes. It’s called PRESENTISM, and I’ll bet most who agree would scream and yell at those tearing down statues of past “heros” as “re-writing” history. Again, the irony!
You clearly have not watched all the statues being ripped down in the past few years. Or the school buildings being renamed. The university Jefferson founded has students wanting to remove his name.
I point out merely that leftist 'heros' are somehow being treated as immune.
Oh clearly I have. Point being, judging the past thru present day eyes (presentism) elicits fury by the right. But then those angry voices use the same judgement criteria (Sangers selective birthing philosophy was relatively acceptable AT THE TIME) to argue she was a monster. See the hypocrisy?
This phrase was why I came to the comment section. I volunteer at a womens clinic that offers free medical care to women and gives them ALL of the choices they have when pregnant. And if they choose to have the baby, they support the mother and child.
No one is making money at this clinic, who has the ulterior motive now?
How come the left fanatics of woke and the Dem Party in general who are so worried about and "compassionate" about woke feelings aren't tearing down Planned Parenthood offices? Does the word hypocrite mean anything to these Democrat jerks?
Thank you for this information. When I was in college at age 22, I walked into Planned Parenthood and was presented my choice. A choice I regretted and stayed quiet about for so many reasons. That choice destroyed my life. And thankfully, I found other women who had the same experience of serious regret and self-loathing. We often speak about how we wish we had pursued other choices. And the "relief" we were told we would experience never came. So I am very pro-choice...but of all choices.
What women are told is they will feel nothing but relief. This is callow, callus, and untrue for most but the hard hearted. The decision to end a developing life should be difficult, thoughtful, and deliberate, not something one should brag about how many times they’ve done.
My heart goes out to you. I hope you are feeling healed from the aftermath of your 22 year old self’s decision. There are healing programs out there (and maybe that’s what you are referring to) for women who have experienced the same struggle. And, thank you for speaking up. My late wife (God rest her soul) was a midwife who provided prenatal and general women’s gynecological care to women. She shared often that she had rarely met a woman with history of an abortion who didn’t have serious remorse and sometimes, like you, felt they had ruined their own lives. Your life is just as valuable as any other person on earth. We all have regrets of some type. And, even just sharing your experience with the rest of us here is doing good and reclaiming some value through your pain. Much love.
I hate to say this because one of the greatest treasures we have under the Constitution is equality under the law. It appears now under the pacific rein of our senile President that is no longer the case. There is now justice for me and not for thee if you don't agree with all of the principles of our new social justice republic. I am eagerly awaiting the coming Republican take over of both houses of Congress and the impeachment proceedings against Garland,Mayorkus and the grilling of do nothing pretty boy Chris Wray!
So there's senility, Norman . And then there's senility.
So if I grant you that, yes, poor Joe does look baffled out there - then I'll trade you that for the senility of Trump's comment that he can declassify highly classified documents just by thinking about it - only in his head! No documented protocol required. (I had no idea that was possible..!)
And then keep all of that very interesting stuff in the basement of a beach house as he entertains guests upstairs..
So what do you think? A trade of two equally senile minds?
I hope you’ll reconsider your approach. I’m hard-pressed to see how the anticipated crop of incoming Republicans would do anything different on the justice front. “Own the libs” - the operating approach of most Republicans - is not a reasonable policy position and it’s also quite likely to lead to more “justice for me and not for thee.” If our basic institutions fail, we’ve got a disaster. And they’re pretty close. I’m to the point where I try to see policy questions as the center against the extremes, rather than left versus right. And my primary litmus test is whether a candidate agrees the election was valid, even if they would have preferred a different candidate.
If your litmus is if “the election was valid” discredits 70% of Democrats which consider the 2016 election fraudulent. As well as the 2000 election “which was decided by the SCOTUS”.
That’s simply not true. In 2016, Democrats complained about voter suppression, and communicated general horror about Trump’s election. I don’t approve of that, but it’s not equivalent to what is happening now. Hillary Clinton conceded on election night, though she wasn’t happy about it! There were not multiple lawsuits followed by widespread claims of fraud by numerous elected and party officials. In the 2020 election, there is zero evidence of fraud significant enough to change the election results. To lie about that and rile up loyal Republicans with claims of a “stolen election” is dangerous, immoral, and profoundly un-American. I’m curious how you see this playing out?
Michelle we conservatives are sick and tired of playing the Dems game of being the reasonable alternative because it always backfires. The only thing they understand is when you hit back twice as hard!
Candidates who argued the election was invalid in 2016: Hilary Clinton, Rep. Thompson, Kamala Harris,.. I can keep going. If you consider that your only criteria look at 2016 too. You can go back further too. If that is your only criteria you need to look at ALL sides.
Agreed. I also think there’s a significant difference between objecting to election results and using the legal process (which I often don’t approve of but is a valid approach in our system) and simply making stuff up. The widespread (and unfactual) allegations about fraud in 2020 are unprecedented in recent memory and extraordinarily dangerous. Personally, I wish folks of all parties would be less prone to whining and more eager to simply concede and move on.
I’m not projecting. I didn’t support the crazier claims about Russia, and that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m talking about. Do you think there is actual evidence of widespread of election fraud? That would be terrible and very disturbing. There is no evidence and for elected officials (or candidates) to lie about that is not justifiable.
If you are referring to Trump.he was working within the legal framework. He was talking to lawyers about a novel strategy. That is the way law gets made.
Are you referring to Eastman's fake electors scheme? Or Trump's midnight phone call to Georgia's Sec of State looking for close to twelve thousand votes after the election there was called..
According to the NYT biased reporting (similar to your bias) the theory was to certify alternate slates of electors from seven states as had been done previously in the 1960 election in Hawaii. Alternative slates were adopted in the seven states which tells me that state actors had concerns about the election. If Pence relied on those he could have used them to certify the election or alternatively without relying on the alternative slates simply declared the election flawed under an 1887 Act and had he done so the state delegations of the House of Representatives would have decided the election. Any of these theories relied on law and precedents so to say it was an illegal coup is disingenuous at best. You all rely heavily on AG Barr saying there was no evidence of widespread fraud to support Trump's belief that there was. He did say that but there is more to that story. I saw an interview with Barr and he said the DoJ did not see that evidence but it was a state matter. In other words unless there was a nationwide fraud it was up to the states. This is because elections consist of federal candidates, state candidates, and local candidates and while there are federal.laws at play (campaign funds for national candidates for example) but all elections are administered at the state level. Everybody votes in their local elections jurisdiction. So evidence of fraud, if any, would need to be determined by state officials, usually the Secretary of State. And there were irregularities with that election. Many of them stemming from Covid. Greatly expanded early voting. Greatly expanded mail-in voting.
Curbside voting in.liea of in-person voting. In Harris County, Texas (the third largest county in the nation) carloads of people pulled up to vote in accordance with Texas curbside voting instituted in connection with covid. But to say you need to vote curbside to protect yourself from covid then arrive in a carful of people without social distancing is disingenuous no? And everybody in the car sitting tbere observing the vote of everybody else in tge car. So much for the sanctity and privacy of the vote
The protocols that allowed this in Harris County will no longer be allowed. Texas was not a swing state so did not impact the election but did it also happen in those states? Then there is the $402 million in Zuck bucks which paid for block walking and ballot harvesting. ($402 million dollars worth of ballot harvesting at the same time his social media site was actively suppressing a legitimate story regarding the Hunter Biden laptop according to Zuckerburg as a result of a warning from the FBI of a "Russian disinformation dump" in the days leading up to the election. You simply can't make this stuff up. The FBI was the source of Russian disinformation in the Steel dossier utilized in the 2026 election, the foundation of the Russia collusion myth, and was covering up a real story about Hunter Biden's laptop in the 2020 election. A story that has since been verified. But was not released before an election that is reported to have turned on 23,500 votes. ) The ballots harvested was the source of those boxes of ballots appearing and changing counts. Apparently it is legal in some jurisdictions but it was deeply unsettling at the time and still is. Additionally while my jurisdiction takes election integrity seriously - no voting machines hooked up to the internet and paper ballots - I do not know about other jurisdictions. I do think if voting machines are hooked up to the internet that is a security threat. And if there are no paper ballots, how would one know if the machines are compromised? I think under these circumstances it was reasonable to explore the validity of the election by lawful means. I still do. And although I accept the outcome by no means do I think it was a fair election. Nor will I ever. Apparently many millions of your fellow citizens agree with me. As a result of all this you got your President. And we have the highest inflation in 40+ years, an open border -open to people and lots of drugs, and according to your guy are close to Armaggedon. Thanks and congratulations.
A robust and interesting response. I respect it. And your doubts.
You say it is a state matter how elections are conducted. I concur. But in states in which election results were (and still are, apparently..) questioned (Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin), all were certified by state officials, many of whom were Republican. So no alternative electors could legally be entertained.
Many recounts occurred. Many lawsuits also occurred, and all refused perhaps except for one. Perhaps it was a lack of evidence (yes), or perhaps judges were Democratic (but by no means all..).
I agree that ballot harvesting is unsettling. I don't like that practice. But mail in balloting? The state with the most mail in and early balloting, and the best run, was Florida. And I do not have to tell you who won that state handily.
Please don't congratulate me - that implies I'm entirely happy with the result.
I also want to highlight in this discussion that I often see crisis pregnancy centers painted as having some nefarious agenda, and yet which centers provide their services completely free and which centers offer services for money??
I appreciate the reporting on this. Ummmm…this phrasing though…” crisis pregnancy centers, which often pose as clinics providing medical services but, in fact, exist in order to deter women from getting abortions.”
I disagree with them “posing” as clinics providing medical services. And I do think it’s okay that clinics are out there to provide true choice to women. And pregnancy does require medical care, so there is no “posing.” And I bet no one forced these women to walk in to this clinics…so huh.
Again, I appreciate the coverage of the topic but this phasing is such a tell on the bias. If you are pro-choice then you are also pro women seeking services to keep their baby. Those services don’t have to be demonized as bad or manipulative.
Exactly. I had the same reaction... almost turned me off the entire article, but I pushed ahead. Overall, great piece, but that phrase really stood out of character.
The same, and I’m glad to see this statement challenged. The misinformation around crisis pregnancy centers is appalling. All any journalist needs to do is look at their websites which list the services provided and go in person to confirm. Although I’m glad to see this reporting, I’m disappointed in the laziness of journalists today. If you don’t know for a fact how these organizations operate, then leave the topic out of your story. Or acknowledge that this is an assumption or guesswork on your part.
This is a great point-although they can be mistaken for abortion clinics to the untrained eye they still provide free ultra sounds to tons of women early in their pregnancies.
Thank you. The reporter marred her otherwise excellent reportage with her obvious and seemingly inescapable bias with this statement.
Abortion providers have been forced for years to provide all kinds of false information to women seeking to terminate their pregnancies (for example, making abortion seem more dangerous than it is--pregnancy is actually more of a risk to a woman than abortion), not to mention subjecting them to unnecessary medical procedures such as ultrasounds.
The pro-life pregnancy centers had no such requirements and often disguised themselves as places providing "options" when they offered only one option--forced birth. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, provides an actual choice--pregnancy care for women who choose to give birth and abortion for those who don't.
Now, there are laws like S. 1373 being proposed that will make it illegal to provide information on abortion at all, including on the internet.
I certainly agree that violence is not appropriate political action but find it odd that the very people who were violent against another group suddenly become shocked now that the same violence they inflicted on others is coming back to them. Yes, when abortion providers were murdered, bland statements like "thoughts and prayers" and "we are against violence" were made, but these were perfunctory at best.
If you are providing services for women who want to bring their pregnancies to term then you should advertise as such and not try to disguise yourself as an impartial counseling center.
> "the very people who were violent against another group suddenly become shocked now that the same violence they inflicted on others is coming back to them."
But it IS NOT the same people. The overwhelming majority of people on the "pro-life" side did not commit or sanction the violence committed by a handful of anti-abortion extremists. The violence now increasing against the "pro-life" is not targeting people who have committed violence. And in that direction too, the violence is committed by a tiny extreme fraction of the "pro-choice" folks.
The non-violent groups and people on both sides are NOT legitimate targets of the violent extremists on the other side.
So you say that merely condemning violence (by extremist nominally on one's side) is not enough, it's just bland statements. OK, first show us how widely the "pro-choice" side is doing even that much - what fraction of pro-choice leaders have been condemning violence against pro-life people and groups, even with bland statements?
Tell us what actions beyond bland statements you expected from the pro-life side, going beyond the perfunctory. And then show us how the pro-choice side is now taking those actions you would expect from the pro-life side when extremists on their side are committing and threatening violence.
I don't expect that violent extremists on either side will listen to the large majority of non-violent people on the same side, but I do think the pro-choice leaders need to speak up. Silence can be seen as implicitly supporting the violence.
"False information" being a left-wing way of saying "facts".
Also, as far as abortion being safer than pregnancy, that "fact" can easily be disputed. Statistics for abortion related injury and death are notoriously underreported. Think Kermit Gosnell. He got away with killing and injuring women for years because of his own deceit, the collusion of NARAL and other abortion rights org and the PA Department of Health.
As far as I know, PP does not provide pregnancy services for those who want to keep their babies. They provide pregnancy tests and some PP's provide postpartum exams, but going to PP is not like going to an OB. Pre-natal and peri-natal care are two different things. All you have to do is go to PP's homepage and you can see what they offer, though it can be confusing because they do list that they provide pregnancy services, but that is not the same thing as the care required throughout pregnancy, up to an including delivery.
Go to PP's website and see what they focus on. It's very telling. Also, PP doesn't provide services free of charge, except a few, like STI testing. Pregnancy related services are generally not free.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org
The problem with your comment and the tone of this article is stating that if some people attacked abortion clinics, then people who work, or volunteer, at pregnancy centers deserve to be attacked, or at least not be surprised when they are attacked for doing something that is helping someone who needs asstance.
"Pro-Choice" was never anything other than Orwellian nonsense. One might as well use the phrase to refer to the "choice" to own guns, drink alcohol, or own slaves! But of course we don't - we say "pro-gun" or "pro-slavery" to refer to people who want it to be legal to do those things, not to people who want to REQUIRE EVERYONE to do those things.
Ironically, one of the radicals implicated in some pro-abortion violence describes himself as "pro-abortion" while saying that he, unlike others in his camp, is truly "pro" abortion because he wants to make abortion mandatory for all pregnancies, rather than a mere "choice".
I'm not sure I see that. To me, "pro-choice" is actually a better descriptor than "pro-abortion" for anybody reasonably sane. I can't see anyone wanting universal abortion - that would end mankind in one generation. The idea was to have the ability to "choose." And of course it goes without saying that choice must come with limitations, too.
Again, nobody who was "pro-slavery" wanted to mandate that everyone own slaves. Nobody who is "pro-gun" wants to mandate that everyone own guns.
The abortionists want a unique monopoly on the concept of "choice" because honesty doesn't serve their interests.
I apologize - I know I'm really dense, but clearly I am missing the point. What does 'unique monopoly on the concept of "choice"' mean? In simpler terms.
Are you saying that pro-choice people are really universal abortionists and want everybody to have abortions? Can you clarify? I'm not giving you a hard time; I really want to understand your point.
THIS. I appreciate that this story is being told but the writer’s bias really shines through in this statement.
It would be interesting to hear exactly what sort of medical care they provide. If "medical" is in their name and they provide only anti-abortion counseling, it could be credibly argued that they are "posing."
As for bias, nobody is free of bias, but as articles go, I think this one is remarkably balanced. This writer is pretty good.
More balanced than most, yes, but the posing comment comes straight from democratic talking points. I'm on the board of a local center, and they provide completely free of charge: Ultrasounds, STD testing, prenatal vitamins, medical referrals, training, material goods for the whole family, AND counseling.
Common Sense should do a follow up detailing the depth and breadth of the life affirming care being given at clinics all over the US because of the goodness of people who love life. Then tell us who really is the poser in terms of caring for women.
Appreciate the information.
This abortion thing can be solved. The absolutists on both sides drive me crazy. I'm a 15-week rule guy; I think that is a reasonable compromise that makes everybody at least a little unhappy, but most can live with. Then we can hopefully move on.
Agreed. Given that there is a 50% expectation of viability if born at 21 weeks gestation or later, abortions after 20 weeks end the life of a potentially viable human being. To pretend otherwise is cruelty.
15 weeks means a week shy of four months. What, for you, is magical about 15 weeks? This is graphic, but those who are ok with this shouldn't find it difficult.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-15-weeks-look-like-gestation/
I had to use DuckDuckGo to find this article --- no help from Google!
Nothing is magical about 15 weeks gestational age, of course. I assume that is a rhetorical question.
Pregnancy is an analog process - a continuum - not a digital event with defined individual checkpoints, so there is no identifiable "magic point." Unfortunately, when making digital decisions about analog processes, it's like Mason said to Dixon: you have to draw the line somewhere.
Of course a 15-week gestation has human features; that's the purpose of pregnancy, you know - making a human. But one has to decide whether or not he wants to solve the problem, and if so, that means making decisions - and compromises. To my eye, appeals to emotion are not helpful. Rigid, uncompromising positions will, of course, ensure that the problem is never solved.
If there's nothing consequential about 15 weeks, then why not 6 or 20 or 35? You get the point.
Analog process? I don't know what that means. As someone who gave birth twice, I never heard my doctor suggest I was in the analog process. I was in the "development of a human being process" and knew that in weeks 9-12, fingers, hands, toes and feet were fully formed. That's not emotional, it's simply a fact. However, there's no doubt there are lots of emotions. Our bodies change, our hormones are wacky, and we understand the responsibility of developing the human growing inside of us. (That's why women aren't supposed to consume alcohol during pregnancy after understanding its effect.)
Where do you draw the line for slave ownership? No doubt you oppose it. That was never an emotional issue until humanity realized that one person should never own another person. For too many it was a sound business decision, that is until, thankfully, Lincoln committed to ending that scourge.
This is no different in that facts can lead us to emotional responses. Where it seems different in the 21st century, is that one group (the pregnant woman) thinks she is superior to the unborn child and therefore righteous is excising that human (and in some states) at any point along the 9/10 months gestation.
So while facts can beget emotion, facts are never wrong. The challenge is we don't all accept the same facts because the emotional choice is made (IMHO) by too many to put self above the dependent.
I've never seen more emotion exhibited than I have this last summer. From the words on pregnant belly that said, "this is not human yet" to the (un)attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice! Truly audacious.
"If there's nothing consequential about 15 weeks, then why not 6 or 20 or 35? You get the point."
What I get is that YOU do not get the point - or want to. Read it again - this time for content. THERE IS NO DEFINABLE CUTOFF POINT IN A CONTINUUM, (an analog process), so if you want to solve the problem - and that is the real question, isn't it? - you have to use the best available data and then make a decision, understanding that it is to some degree arbitrary. As Justice Brandeis said, sometimes it is more important that a thing be solved than it be solved right. I believe this issue will NEVER be solved to everyone's satisfaction, and we should quit trying to do that, but it will be solved.
I won't do your homework for you, but suffice it to say that an analog process exhibits continuous change; a digital one assumes discrete, individual states that can be easily defined. This stuff is all over the Internet - usually to describe electronic signals. Look it up; the analogy is a good one.
Your "slave ownership cutoff" example tells me all I need to know: it's black or white, yes or no, abortion allowed or never so. News flash: abortion is not going away, and all that posting gruesome pictures will do is inflame those with whom one needs to compromise.
This problem WILL be solved, and absolutists - "abortion with no limits" AND "abortion outlawed completely" - will not have a seat at the table.
Cheers.
After mansplaining to me, it's hard to appreciate the "cheers" sign off. It's rather prideful of you to underestimate my ability to think and reason and research and comprehend.
I absolutely wholeheartedly believe that ending life either in the womb or before natural death is wrong. I'm happy to go to my grave attempting to change minds but I won't shout at others to make my points. (All CAPS is a shout down, ya know).
News flash: Abortion did go away as the law of the land. Thank God! And I don't normally like to pit women against men on this issue, but will take this opportunity to remind you that you have no idea what it's like to carry a baby for 10 months much less see both go to the NICU for different reasons after their births. And because of that, you can't possibly understand something I understand very well, which informs and solidifies a reasoned and moral belief.
I will respond in a general way: "mansplaining" is an appropriate response to "woman-stupiding." Or stupiding of any kind by either sex. If you are, as you say, capable of research, then I suggest you do exactly that. You will find that, in not only science but in life itself, the closer you examine a topic, the less black-and-white it becomes.
I appreciate your personal experience with children - I have children myself, but while experience is of course, useful, all experience without education does is to teach you how to do it wrong. Over and over.
No charge for the "mansplaining." That's what men do: solve problems.
A+ for mansplaining. You ratcheted it up nicely with the "That's what men do: solve problems." The creativity in my own 25 year career of problem solving (master's degree in hand) and at least once a day at home is commendable. At least that what my performance reviews suggested. Just today I solved a problem, but I'll spare you the details.
Your choice to defend your points with terms like "woman-stupiding" only illustrates how obtuse this conversation has become. Research on black and white issues that in this case are life and death issues is hardly a baseline requirement to arriving at a personal viewpoint. Life and death captures it all.
You've made it quite clear that you disagree with me but your degradation into mansplaining and name calling only makes you look the fool. I don't think it's necessary to get any more degrading. Time to agree to disagree.
The “health of the mother” argument is fake. A doctor could perform a very safe and fast C Section and save the mother and baby. The point is, not to save the baby and say that was necessary to save the mother.
Correct!
Did you mean "until delivery" or "through delivery"? Until delivery sounds like once the baby is delivered, you can't kill it. But through delivery sounds sounds like you may kill a newborn. The rest of your comment looks like you are allowed to kill a newborn in NYC. Which?
That distinction is meaningless. Is killing the baby in the uterus right before birth any different than delivering the baby letting it die? Babies born as early as 32 weeks survive easily with proper care. They are almost fully developed at that point and can feel pain. So aborting a baby who could survive outside the womb is not just murder, it is cruel.
I agree. I think overall the article is fair. I think also if you use the wording "posing" its ok to back up why you think they are posing.
Veerrrrry dishonest take. "No one forced these women to walk into these clinics" Yeah they walked in because some of these clinics make it seem like they offer abortion and then once you're in you get a pro life lecture. The ones that say upfront "no abortions offered here" are fine.
Really? You think that most women are so feeble-minded that if they mistakenly enter a pro-life pregnancy center wanting an abortion they are somehow tricked into keeping their babies? Or that they are so egotistical that they experience harm when faced with someone with a different opinion? Speak for yourself, but most women I know can make their own decision even when faced with an alternative option. Furthermore, most people call first when looking for medical services, in my experience. I've gone into many businesses in my life looking for something I couldn't find, but it never resulted in life-altering choices, and I never considered it a form of injustice. Women who are that simple minded really should hide out in a cave, or find a caretaker, but don't paint us all with the imbecile brush.
Actually, yes. I have seen it happen twice. Young, vulnerable teens, alone. First one “kept” the baby after being told she was a “murderer” is she aborted the fetus. She then lost custody - she just was overwhelmed and unprepared and had a breakdown. Child now somewhere in limbo. Second one just as sad. Drifting in and out of homeless shelters... now scoffed at by these very same self-righteous church ladies as a “welfare queen”. Oh, the irony!
Thank you. This is exactly how I feel about this. Am I somehow not to be trusted to make medical appointments responsibly because I am a pregnant woman? Am I too stupid? Too hormonal to think straight? So meek and mild that I just accept whatever the doctor tells me even if it is completely counter to my own wishes - even to the point of giving birth to a child? I wouldn't seek care from a new doctor of any kind without doing some basic research on their practice and determining if they offer the services in which I am interested. If I went to a doctor and they couldn't meet my needs in regards to a particular procedure I would find another practitioner. I sincerely do not know a single woman who wouldn't do the same.
Do you have the same problem with Planned Parenthood not offering alternatives to abortion, like adoption?
Why doesn't Planned Parenthood change its name to "Abortion Clinic -We Murder the Unborn"?
To be fair, there are a host of facilities around the country that purport to offer education, but once you walk in you get left-wing indoctrination instead.
Ha! Best comment in days.
This take seems intellectually dishonest. A pregnancy crisis center that doesn’t offer abortions should not have any further duty to advertise “no abortions offered here” as Planned Parenthood would have to say upfront “no talk of God will be found here”.
Exactly!!!
Ridiculous because nobody walks into a Planned Parenthood primarily desiring a conversation about god.
Planned Parenthood is a black eugenics project conceived of, funded by, created and supported by racist Democrats to “pull the weeds.”
Really? They should post a sign so we aren't confused. If you'll just do a simple Google search of "planned parenthood and God" you'll find on their website an entire section, in there it says "...We are all created in God's image, and as clergy it is our responsibility to encourage people to be good stewards of their bodies..." But, you are correct, they don't talk about it there. Who's the real POSER?
Damn, thats bars
Verrry dishonest take Senator Warrens.
OK. But no one forced them. And "lecture"? They are still free to walk away. I do think it is best for clinics to say "no abortion here." But the phrasing this reporter used is biased and makes it seem like they are doing this bad thing. And what is "veerrrrrry dishonest" about what I said?
Clients locate Planned Parenthood or a Pregnancy Support Center by searching the internet, making a phone call, or through the grapevine which allows them to understand the services offered before even arriving at the clinic. Also most clinics' receptionists would answer a client honestly when asked does this clinic provide.....
In any other situation, if a practitioner misrepresented the services they offered, you’d agree it was wrong. But because it’s a cause you believe in, it’s fine. I bet if there was a “gender counseling clinic” that, sike!, only did transitions, you’d take my meaning. Let the pro and anti abortion clinics clearly differentiate themselves.
I think you are wrong; I worked as an escort for clinic years ago and 'misrepresentation' was NOT the big issue. What was a big issue was that there was NO clinic to get counseling on EVERY option available to these women at such a difficult time.
There is no One solution for everyone. You can’t ever get EVERY option on any topic from one place. This is a difficult time and yet here we are, advising abortion is the only answer to future success or having a child is the only path to salvation. Neither of these statements are true. And there are some clinics that try. Read through these comments. SuzyQ works in one and describes it.
Not true. Posting a sign is a little like judging a book by its cover. I believe in letting the "consumer" determine their own opinions about what's in the box. Just as a person seeking gender counseling is be free to walk away from those services urging psychiatric counseling first, there are others who are free to walk away from those that offer pharmaceutical relief first. I encourage all to hear both sides of the treatment plans and making a decision from there. I lived in a small rural town as a teenager. I" pretty sure pro and anti abortion clinics will differentiate themselves...don't they already? You say a counseling center is "posing" because you seek an abortion and feel you've wasted time. I feel like you wasted your time making a baby and now can't spare an extra hour to investigate options.
The gender clinic analogy is a little off, I think. A lot of people trust medical and mental health professionals, God only knows why. When they walk in to a gender clinic and are confirmed that they were born in the wrong body and need to have treatment, they believe it and act accordingly. In other words, they go for the advice, and then the treatment. But if you walk into a Planned Parenthood seeking abortion, it is understood that you have decided that you want an abortion; you aren't there for medical advice. It is like going to McDonald's and asking for a Big Mac; no one expects to be talked into a seven layer burrito.
As a person who has a degree and biology and medicine, I can say unequivocally, no person is born in the wrong body. Health care professionals that "confirm" this are part of the problem, not the solution. People who believe it and act accordingly are victims, many of whom later regret their decisions. I do believe there is an exceedingly small percentage of the population that is truly transgender and needs this kind of help, but not to level we are seeing today, especially where children are concerned. I am a doctor myself and think it is shameful that people in my profession are making a lot of money off of this scam, destroying people's bodies and lives. Sorry, a little off the actual topic, but I feel strongly on the subject. And the abortion clinic thing is well covered from all sides.
Here’s the thing though. There are numerous women who go to an abortion clinic believing it’s the only option they have. Obviously most who do end up getting abortions, however there are some who when presented with other choices end up choosing life. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with helping a woman find those options.
There is more agreement here than disagreement. What I would like is if the reporter thought a clinic was posing to show us why. That is not done here, and instead I think makes it seems like all Crisis Pregnancy Centers operate that way.
And wait...If Jane's Revenge can figure out what services the clinics provide, then so can any women too.
I can agree with that. I understood from the article that only Crisis Pregnancy Centers being criticized are the ones that intentionally present an ambiguous appearance.
For your second statement, I dunno if expecting women to emulate the behavior of a literal terrorist organization in order to get care is the best plan.
I'm glad we have some agreement. I don't want anyone to follow after a terrorist group. LOL. It was more about saying that women in this position can research too.
Stand your ground. There is nothing verrrrrry dishonest about what you said. And no, it’s not “best” for clinics to say no abortion here. Planned Parenthood does not connect you with continuum of care services for “crisis” pregnancies. There is value in seeing what each clinic offers. Don’t like the clinic you walked into? Look for another. I once walked into a bakery looking for a cupcake, but they only sold cookies. Should I insist they post a sign?
I think yours is a typical story. When I was in residency, I received a frantic phone call from my younger cousin about the "rabbit dying." It took a full two minutes to get him settled down; we haven't done rabbit tests for pregnancy in fifty years, so I had no idea what he was talking about.
The bottom line was that his girlfriend was pregnant. I told him I would help them; what did they need? They lived in a very traditional mountain community; they were absolutely horrified at the prospect of an unwed pregnancy. "I don't know who will murder us first: her parents or mine." Boy, shows you how long ago THAT was....
Anyway, I made all the arrangements and even accompanied them to their abortion procedure. She was absolutely near panic, and her boyfriend not much better. After the procedure was over, she had one thing to say: "I'll never do that again. I can't believe that there were women in there on their second and third abortions."
Fast forward. That was in 1982 - what is that, forty years? They married, are still married, have two adult children, and have never expressed a scintilla of regret.
On the other hand, I also spoke to a high school classmate - my first crush - yesterday. She was pregnant about two years out of high school, had a daughter out of wedlock, eventually marrying a friend of mine when the girl was two. They were married 44 years until his death, and she has never expressed any regrets, either.
Although a supporter of available abortion, I have a very jaundiced eye toward Planned Parenthood. This group is the legacy of Margaret Sanger, famed racist and eugenicist, ("We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population...") and they are doing their jobs well. There are now far more black babies aborted than carried to term. Not good.
Historically, Planned Parenthood was founded to abort babies, not to offer pregnant woman a choice. Explicitly, Margaret Sanger’s goal was to reduce the fertility of African American women.
Kellog was a religious extremist but I still eat cereal.
I think Margaret Sanger was a despicable human being, but to be fair, she doesn’t seem to have advocated for abortion. She just didn’t want those “human weeds” to be conceived in the first place.
By “weeds” you mean black babies?
Pretty much anyone who didn’t fit her eugenicist ideals was a “human weed.” I don’t think she specifically singled out black people as such.
Fair. I disagree with what she advocated, but it’s worth noting that she was a product of her time. Were she a child of the 1960s or later, the odds are she would think very differently.
Why do you think she would be different since these attitudes are entrenched in politics for the last 150 years?
I see no reason she wouldn’t advocate for the same outcomes and be supported by the same political party for the same reason.
‘A product of her time’ absolutely not-my grandmother who was born in 1928 and worked as a nicu nurse for 30+ never uttered the n-word or any other racist sentiment. She also told me about how abortion clinics were put in poor black neighborhoods to prevent the black population and other poor people from reproducing.
Andy, I have no doubt that your grandmother was an extraordinary person. Nevertheless, it is unfair to judge people in the past based on attitudes of the present. I know plenty of people who, while harboring no antipathy to any particular group, used words to describe them that are now considered inappropriate. Similarly, it’s easy to accept a belief - be it eugenics or utilitarianism or a particular religion or whatever - when it’s commonly held by the people around you. I am confident that 100 years from now, people will be horrified by some beliefs and practices you and I both think are entirely banal. I’m also confident that we’re both not bad people, no matter what those people will think.
Her much-republished “My Way to Peace” (1932) presents Sanger’s essential eugenics platform. It argues that to preserve racial hygiene, the government should enact three coercive measures. First, it should sterilize those with mental and physical disabilities, including “morons, mental defectives, epileptics.” Second, it should segregate on state-run concentration farms a much broader public of impoverished and criminal citizens, including paupers, prostitutes, drug addicts, illiterates and the unemployed. If the second group reformed its behavior and accepted sterilization, it could return to mainstream society. By Sanger’s own estimate, 15 million to 20 million citizens would live under this regime of segregation and sterilization. The third initiative would be obligatory birth-control training for mothers with serious diseases, such as heart disease, in an effort to persuade them to renounce any future childbearing. This program was not about “choice.”
Sanger’s eugenics program made relatively modest gains during her lifetime. But she and her associates succeeded in one area: compulsory sterilization. More than 30 states passed laws authorizing agencies to sterilize forcibly those considered “unfit” for childbearing.
So I guess we should take down those monuments and statues to Teddy Roosevelt, and the many other minds OF THAT ERA that believed in selective birth outcomes. It’s called PRESENTISM, and I’ll bet most who agree would scream and yell at those tearing down statues of past “heros” as “re-writing” history. Again, the irony!
Margret Sanger was derided by huge swaths of of the public (read Republicans) nearly 100 years ago and exhorted by another swath (read Democrats).
The reason have changed for most praising her over the years but the original reasons remain the same IMO. Just cloaked in “it’s woman’s rights”.
The reasons for demonizing her have not changed.
You clearly have not watched all the statues being ripped down in the past few years. Or the school buildings being renamed. The university Jefferson founded has students wanting to remove his name.
I point out merely that leftist 'heros' are somehow being treated as immune.
Oh clearly I have. Point being, judging the past thru present day eyes (presentism) elicits fury by the right. But then those angry voices use the same judgement criteria (Sangers selective birthing philosophy was relatively acceptable AT THE TIME) to argue she was a monster. See the hypocrisy?
This phrase was why I came to the comment section. I volunteer at a womens clinic that offers free medical care to women and gives them ALL of the choices they have when pregnant. And if they choose to have the baby, they support the mother and child.
No one is making money at this clinic, who has the ulterior motive now?
And they help them long after the birth too!
This is typical of so many prolife pregnancy crisis centers. Characterizing all of them as "posers" is biased reporting.
Where are the woke fanatics? They tear down statues, change the names of schools, destroy lives (Paula Deen lost her TV show over something she said 20 or 30 years ago.) Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood was a racist, https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/23/racism-eugenics-margaret-sanger-deserves-no-honors-column/5480192002/
How come the left fanatics of woke and the Dem Party in general who are so worried about and "compassionate" about woke feelings aren't tearing down Planned Parenthood offices? Does the word hypocrite mean anything to these Democrat jerks?
Thank you for this information. When I was in college at age 22, I walked into Planned Parenthood and was presented my choice. A choice I regretted and stayed quiet about for so many reasons. That choice destroyed my life. And thankfully, I found other women who had the same experience of serious regret and self-loathing. We often speak about how we wish we had pursued other choices. And the "relief" we were told we would experience never came. So I am very pro-choice...but of all choices.
Thank you for the work you do.
What women are told is they will feel nothing but relief. This is callow, callus, and untrue for most but the hard hearted. The decision to end a developing life should be difficult, thoughtful, and deliberate, not something one should brag about how many times they’ve done.
Beautifully said.
My heart goes out to you. I hope you are feeling healed from the aftermath of your 22 year old self’s decision. There are healing programs out there (and maybe that’s what you are referring to) for women who have experienced the same struggle. And, thank you for speaking up. My late wife (God rest her soul) was a midwife who provided prenatal and general women’s gynecological care to women. She shared often that she had rarely met a woman with history of an abortion who didn’t have serious remorse and sometimes, like you, felt they had ruined their own lives. Your life is just as valuable as any other person on earth. We all have regrets of some type. And, even just sharing your experience with the rest of us here is doing good and reclaiming some value through your pain. Much love.
I hate to say this because one of the greatest treasures we have under the Constitution is equality under the law. It appears now under the pacific rein of our senile President that is no longer the case. There is now justice for me and not for thee if you don't agree with all of the principles of our new social justice republic. I am eagerly awaiting the coming Republican take over of both houses of Congress and the impeachment proceedings against Garland,Mayorkus and the grilling of do nothing pretty boy Chris Wray!
So there's senility, Norman . And then there's senility.
So if I grant you that, yes, poor Joe does look baffled out there - then I'll trade you that for the senility of Trump's comment that he can declassify highly classified documents just by thinking about it - only in his head! No documented protocol required. (I had no idea that was possible..!)
And then keep all of that very interesting stuff in the basement of a beach house as he entertains guests upstairs..
So what do you think? A trade of two equally senile minds?
What a great idea. Both Joe and Donald could share a room at the local old folks home for the senile.
Could you imagine their conversations?
That would be priceless.
How long do you think before a fight would break out?
Me too.
I hope you’ll reconsider your approach. I’m hard-pressed to see how the anticipated crop of incoming Republicans would do anything different on the justice front. “Own the libs” - the operating approach of most Republicans - is not a reasonable policy position and it’s also quite likely to lead to more “justice for me and not for thee.” If our basic institutions fail, we’ve got a disaster. And they’re pretty close. I’m to the point where I try to see policy questions as the center against the extremes, rather than left versus right. And my primary litmus test is whether a candidate agrees the election was valid, even if they would have preferred a different candidate.
If your litmus is if “the election was valid” discredits 70% of Democrats which consider the 2016 election fraudulent. As well as the 2000 election “which was decided by the SCOTUS”.
That’s simply not true. In 2016, Democrats complained about voter suppression, and communicated general horror about Trump’s election. I don’t approve of that, but it’s not equivalent to what is happening now. Hillary Clinton conceded on election night, though she wasn’t happy about it! There were not multiple lawsuits followed by widespread claims of fraud by numerous elected and party officials. In the 2020 election, there is zero evidence of fraud significant enough to change the election results. To lie about that and rile up loyal Republicans with claims of a “stolen election” is dangerous, immoral, and profoundly un-American. I’m curious how you see this playing out?
Republicans operated that way for years. All it got us was rolled. That is why we liked Trump. He hit back.
Michelle we conservatives are sick and tired of playing the Dems game of being the reasonable alternative because it always backfires. The only thing they understand is when you hit back twice as hard!
Candidates who argued the election was invalid in 2016: Hilary Clinton, Rep. Thompson, Kamala Harris,.. I can keep going. If you consider that your only criteria look at 2016 too. You can go back further too. If that is your only criteria you need to look at ALL sides.
Agreed. I also think there’s a significant difference between objecting to election results and using the legal process (which I often don’t approve of but is a valid approach in our system) and simply making stuff up. The widespread (and unfactual) allegations about fraud in 2020 are unprecedented in recent memory and extraordinarily dangerous. Personally, I wish folks of all parties would be less prone to whining and more eager to simply concede and move on.
Try these words. Russia. Trump. Collusion.
Stop projecting.
I’m not projecting. I didn’t support the crazier claims about Russia, and that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m talking about. Do you think there is actual evidence of widespread of election fraud? That would be terrible and very disturbing. There is no evidence and for elected officials (or candidates) to lie about that is not justifiable.
If you are referring to Trump.he was working within the legal framework. He was talking to lawyers about a novel strategy. That is the way law gets made.
A novel strategy, Lynne? Legal framework?
Are you referring to Eastman's fake electors scheme? Or Trump's midnight phone call to Georgia's Sec of State looking for close to twelve thousand votes after the election there was called..
What law is being made here?
According to the NYT biased reporting (similar to your bias) the theory was to certify alternate slates of electors from seven states as had been done previously in the 1960 election in Hawaii. Alternative slates were adopted in the seven states which tells me that state actors had concerns about the election. If Pence relied on those he could have used them to certify the election or alternatively without relying on the alternative slates simply declared the election flawed under an 1887 Act and had he done so the state delegations of the House of Representatives would have decided the election. Any of these theories relied on law and precedents so to say it was an illegal coup is disingenuous at best. You all rely heavily on AG Barr saying there was no evidence of widespread fraud to support Trump's belief that there was. He did say that but there is more to that story. I saw an interview with Barr and he said the DoJ did not see that evidence but it was a state matter. In other words unless there was a nationwide fraud it was up to the states. This is because elections consist of federal candidates, state candidates, and local candidates and while there are federal.laws at play (campaign funds for national candidates for example) but all elections are administered at the state level. Everybody votes in their local elections jurisdiction. So evidence of fraud, if any, would need to be determined by state officials, usually the Secretary of State. And there were irregularities with that election. Many of them stemming from Covid. Greatly expanded early voting. Greatly expanded mail-in voting.
Curbside voting in.liea of in-person voting. In Harris County, Texas (the third largest county in the nation) carloads of people pulled up to vote in accordance with Texas curbside voting instituted in connection with covid. But to say you need to vote curbside to protect yourself from covid then arrive in a carful of people without social distancing is disingenuous no? And everybody in the car sitting tbere observing the vote of everybody else in tge car. So much for the sanctity and privacy of the vote
The protocols that allowed this in Harris County will no longer be allowed. Texas was not a swing state so did not impact the election but did it also happen in those states? Then there is the $402 million in Zuck bucks which paid for block walking and ballot harvesting. ($402 million dollars worth of ballot harvesting at the same time his social media site was actively suppressing a legitimate story regarding the Hunter Biden laptop according to Zuckerburg as a result of a warning from the FBI of a "Russian disinformation dump" in the days leading up to the election. You simply can't make this stuff up. The FBI was the source of Russian disinformation in the Steel dossier utilized in the 2026 election, the foundation of the Russia collusion myth, and was covering up a real story about Hunter Biden's laptop in the 2020 election. A story that has since been verified. But was not released before an election that is reported to have turned on 23,500 votes. ) The ballots harvested was the source of those boxes of ballots appearing and changing counts. Apparently it is legal in some jurisdictions but it was deeply unsettling at the time and still is. Additionally while my jurisdiction takes election integrity seriously - no voting machines hooked up to the internet and paper ballots - I do not know about other jurisdictions. I do think if voting machines are hooked up to the internet that is a security threat. And if there are no paper ballots, how would one know if the machines are compromised? I think under these circumstances it was reasonable to explore the validity of the election by lawful means. I still do. And although I accept the outcome by no means do I think it was a fair election. Nor will I ever. Apparently many millions of your fellow citizens agree with me. As a result of all this you got your President. And we have the highest inflation in 40+ years, an open border -open to people and lots of drugs, and according to your guy are close to Armaggedon. Thanks and congratulations.
A robust and interesting response. I respect it. And your doubts.
You say it is a state matter how elections are conducted. I concur. But in states in which election results were (and still are, apparently..) questioned (Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin), all were certified by state officials, many of whom were Republican. So no alternative electors could legally be entertained.
Many recounts occurred. Many lawsuits also occurred, and all refused perhaps except for one. Perhaps it was a lack of evidence (yes), or perhaps judges were Democratic (but by no means all..).
I agree that ballot harvesting is unsettling. I don't like that practice. But mail in balloting? The state with the most mail in and early balloting, and the best run, was Florida. And I do not have to tell you who won that state handily.
Please don't congratulate me - that implies I'm entirely happy with the result.
I'm only commenting on the election of 2020.
Bless you, SP. I’m so sorry for your pain.
I also want to highlight in this discussion that I often see crisis pregnancy centers painted as having some nefarious agenda, and yet which centers provide their services completely free and which centers offer services for money??