#defend abortion | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 10 months

Text

Revs. Jan Barnes and Krista Taves have logged hundreds of hours standing outside abortion clinics across Missouri and Illinois, going back to the mid-1980s. But unlike other clergy members around the country, they never pleaded with patients to turn back.

The sight of the two women in clerical collars holding up messages of love and support for people terminating a pregnancy “so infuriated the anti-abortion protesters that they would heap abuse on us and it drew the abuse away from the women,” recalled Taves, a minister at Eliot Unitarian Chapel in Kirkwood, Missouri, as she sat on a couch at Barnes’ stately church in this quiet suburb of St. Louis.

“I thought: ‘Whoa, these people really are not messing around.’ But then I thought, ‘Well, I’m not messing around either.’”

So when Missouri’s abortion ban took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, Barnes and Taves decided to fight back. Along with rabbis and ministers across several denominations, they joined a first-of-its-kind lawsuit arguing Missouri blurred the line between church and state, imposed a particular Christian idea of when life begins over the beliefs of other denominations, and threatened their ability to practice their religions.

As the nation nears the one year anniversary of the fall of Roe, the Missouri case is one of nearly a dozen challenges to abortion restrictions filed by clergy members and practitioners of everything from Judaism to Satanism that are now making their way through state and federal courts — a strategy that aims to restore access to the procedure and chip away at the assumption that all religious people oppose abortion.

In fact, many of the lawsuits are wielding religious protection laws enacted by anti-abortion state officials to target those officials’ own restrictions on the procedure.

In Indiana, a group of Jewish, Muslim and other religious plaintiffs sued over the state’s near-total abortion ban. Their argument: that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law in 2015 by then-Gov. Mike Pence. A lower court judge sided with them in December and blocked the state’s ban from taking effect — the most significant win the religious challengers have notched so far.

Then, earlier this month, the Indiana judge granted the challengers class action status, meaning a win for them could apply to anyone in the state whose religion supports abortion access in cases prohibited by state law.

“Even if the Religious Freedom law was intended by Mike Pence to discriminate against people, we thought: ‘Let’s use this for good instead,’” said Amalia Shifriss, a leader of Hoosier Jews for Choice, one of the Indiana plaintiffs. “It brings me joy to think how much this must upset him.”

A Pence spokesperson characterized the lawsuit as a “pursuit to legalize abortion up to and even after birth.” They added: “It will probably strike Americans as pretty tasteless to call the latest iteration of their abortion crusade as a cause ‘for good’ and a source of ‘joy.’”

Conservatives with a history of mounting their own religious challenges to state laws dismiss the effort as doomed to fail, arguing that even if people can prove the abortion bans violate their beliefs, it won’t be enough to halt enforcement.

“As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in one Free Exercise case, the right to swing your arm ends just where the other man’s nose begins,” said Denise Harle, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has filed briefs defending state abortion restrictions, including from faith-based challenges in Wyoming and Florida. “Even if you have religious freedom, there is a line at which you are doing actual deadly harm and destroying human life, so it’s appropriate to limit what can be done in the name of religion.”

But with oral arguments and rulings in several of the cases expected this summer and fall, other legal experts say there’s a solid chance the challengers can persuade courts to grant religious exemptions to abortion bans if not strike them down altogether.

Shlomo C. Pill, a lecturer at the Emory University School of Law who specializes in religious rights, said the lawsuits have “a strong basis and should be successful,” particularly after a series of COVID-19-related cases paved the way for more religious exemptions. Pill pointed to multiple Supreme Court decisions during the pandemic that said whenever states create secular exemptions to laws — like indoor gathering restrictions or vaccine mandates — they have to justify not offering religious exemptions as well.

“So the fact that secularly-motivated exemptions to abortion bans exist — such as for rape and incest — means the legislature could also have to offer similar exemptions for people with religious objections,” he said.

‘REAL CHUTZPA’

Most of the cases, including those in Indiana, Kentucky, and Texas, are demanding exemptions from the bans for people whose religions support abortion rights. But a few, including the lawsuits in Florida, Missouri and Wyoming, are attempting to have the bans struck down entirely.

In Missouri, the plaintiffs argue that because lawmakers put religious language in the text of the abortion ban itself and made explicit religious appeals when voting on it, they violated the Establishment Clause.

“It took real chutzpah for the legislators to voice their own religious motivations, to wantonly and shamelessly purport to know what God wants or doesn’t want and to enshrine that into law,” said Rabbi James Bennett of Congregation Shaare Emeth in St. Louis, another plaintiff in the Missouri lawsuit. “They’re entitled to their interpretation of when life begins, but they’re not entitled to have the exclusive one.”

Last week, the group faced off in a St. Louis courtroom with state officials who are pushing to have the case thrown out. A ruling could come as soon as this summer.

In Florida, clergy representing Reform Judaism, Buddhism, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Church sued in state court both to overturn the state’s 15-week abortion ban, and — if that fails — to secure religious exemptions. Their case makes free speech arguments as well — claiming that state bans on “aiding and abetting” abortions are muzzling clergy members who want to offer counseling to parishioners grappling with whether to terminate a pregnancy.

In Kentucky, three Jewish women are arguing that the state’s near-total abortion ban violates their belief that life only begins when a baby takes its first breath, saying it’s preventing them from pursuing pregnancy through in-vitro fertilization.

“To have someone else’s religious belief that an embryo is a human being imposed on me in a way that’s so personal, that prevents me from growing my family, is just rude and un-American,” Lisa Berlow, the lead plaintiff in that case, said in an interview. Berlow had one child through IVF and was planning to have another before Dobbs made her and her fellow plaintiffs fear prosecution. “Discarding non-viable embryos could now be criminalized, or I could miscarry and not know what type of medical care I would get or whether I would be investigated for causing the miscarriage,” she said.

The Satanic Temple is in federal court challenging abortion bans in Texas, Idaho and Indiana, arguing that the laws infringe upon their congregants’ belief in bodily autonomy and right to practice abortion as a religious ritual. A Texas District Court ruled against the Satanists last fall, saying they didn’t prove the need for a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the ban against its members. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is poised to rule on the challenge in the coming weeks.

These cases are unlikely to restore abortion rights at the federal level given the weaker religious rights protections in the U.S. Constitution compared to many state constitutions as well as the federal judiciary’s rightward tilt.

Elizabeth Reiner Platt, director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, stressed that the Supreme Court has a record of protecting the religious rights of some groups and not others, pointing to its back-to-back decisions in 2017 upholding the right of a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and allowing the right of the Trump administration to deny entry to travelers from majority-Muslim countries.

“While I don’t like to read the tea leaves, I don’t have any hope that the current Supreme Court would, after ruling that there was no due process right or privacy right to abortion, would find a right under the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause,” Platt said.

Still, she and other legal experts see the state-level religious challenges as one of the best chances abortion-rights advocates have to chip away at bans on the procedure.

“The arguments are quite powerful for creating religious exemptions in the reproductive context under First Amendment doctrine and under state laws for Free Exercise,” said Micah Schwartzman, director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy at the University of Virginia Law School. “What Judges do with them is another story.”

In order to succeed, these lawsuits must prove: that the right to an abortion is central to the religious practices of the people suing; that they are sincere in their beliefs and have a track record of observing them; and that state abortion bans make it impossible for them to live according to their faith.

The cases challenging abortion restrictions in their entirety face an additional hurdle: proving that state officials stepped over the line separating church and state in crafting the bans.

“We have a really strong Establishment Clause argument because it’s clear that these bills were passed for religious reasons,” said Marci Hamilton, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania who is part of the legal team representing clergy in Florida. “The 15-week bill was signed in a church and members of the state legislature repeatedly referred to God when arguing why this had to be done.”

Other experts are skeptical, however, of the strength of these arguments.

“There are a million-and-one other explanations a state could give for their abortion restrictions,” Pill said. “They could argue it’s a matter of secular conscience, for example. And once you have any kind of secular justification, an Establishment Clause argument becomes more difficult.”

For their part, the states defending their abortion laws and the conservative legal groups supporting them have to prove that they have a compelling interest — unrelated to religion — in protecting fetal life, that they’re using the least restrictive means to protect that interest, and that the challengers’ claims are speculative and premature because none of them have actually sought an abortion or been blocked from obtaining one since the laws took effect.

“I think these are much more like political stunts than they are viable court cases,” said Lori Windham, a vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund, the legal firm behind the Hobby Lobby case that secured a Supreme Court ruling allowing many employers to opt out of covering certain forms of birth control for their workers due to a religious objection. “You can have a sincere political belief or policy preference, and it can be passionate and deeply held, but that doesn’t make it a religious practice.”

CITING SCRIPTURE

Judges have historically avoided questioning the sincerity of someone’s religious beliefs, but Becket and other groups have filed amicus briefs that do so.

To combat these accusations, the challengers point to scripture that lays out a case for abortion rights as well as support from religious leaders for their claims.

The Jewish challengers in Kentucky cite religious texts including the Mishnah that say life begins when a baby takes its first breath, not when it is conceived, and if medical issues arise during pregnancy, the pregnant person’s life “comes before the life of [the child].” They also submitted to the court letters from rabbis arguing that current state exemptions for life-threatening medical emergencies aren’t enough, saying Jewish law permits, and in some cases requires, an abortion when there is “a risk of poverty, abuse, addiction, or mental illness.”

The case challenging Missouri’s ban cites the United Church of Christ’s vote in 1971 to acknowledge the right to abortion and members’ “autonomy to determine what happens to their own bodies,” as well as the Episcopal Church’s “long-standing opposition” to any government attempt to infringe on reproductive choices.

“There’s a tendency to see these cases as kind of a clever, legal switcheroo. Like, here’s a way to take these laws that are often thought of as very conservative and use them to protect abortion rights,” Platt said. “But the idea of reproductive rights as a religious liberty issue is absolutely not something that came from lawyers. It’s how faith communities themselves have been talking about their approach to reproductive rights for literally decades.”

100 notes · View notes

silvermoon424 · 7 months

Text

youtube

Cynical Reviews just dropped a video on an anti-choice propaganda film called "Unplanned" and I cannot believe the balls they had to blatantly lie like this. Actually, I can, because pro-lifers will eat up any anti-abortion propaganda you put in front of them.

I love how this movie deifies the protestors who stand outside of Planned Parenthood and scream "WHORE!!! MURDERER!!!" at teenage girls who are just there for a pap smear or whatever. All while making PP staff look like heartless monsters who laugh about dead babies and force abortions on unwilling girls. I honestly have nothing but disgust for propaganda like this.

#I know some dumbass conservatives are gonna reply and be like 'IT'S NOT PROPAGANDA IT'S THE TRUTH'#pro-life people are really easy to manipulate because they're entirely driven by faith and emotion #and normally I'll defend the merits of faith and emotion but their problem is that they think their beliefs should be forced on everyone #it is a really hard topic to discuss because they literally WILL NOT budge from 'this bean-sized fetus is just as valuable as a newborn'#I know because I used to be like this and it was only when I became more and more of a leftist did I question my beliefs #I also went to Catholic school so the anti-abortion propaganda was INTENSE and I'm not surprised most of my peers probably still believe it #abortion #pro choice #reproductive rights #reproductive justice #Youtube

70 notes · View notes

radicalgraff · 2 years

Text

"Abort the Supreme Court / God Bless Abortions"

Seen in Asheville, North Carolina

#graffiti #graff #anarchism #protect abortion #defend abortion #abortion is a human right #feminism #pro choice graffiti #pro choice is pro life #pro choice

6K notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 1 day

Text

Susan Rinkunas at Jezebel:

Today the Supreme Court held a brutal two hours of arguments in a case about whether women and pregnant people deserve life-saving medical care if that care happens to be abortion. (Yes, this is the second abortion case this term.) Several justices, and the lawyer for the plaintiff, trotted out wild hypotheticals and invoked the dangerous concept of fetal personhood in a disturbing preview of the future that awaits every state if Donald Trump wins the presidency. It could mean that people face horrible medical mistreatment simply because they’re pregnant and, at the most extreme end, could lead to a federal abortion ban.

The case, Moyle v. United States, is about whether state abortion bans like Idaho’s can override a longstanding federal law that requires emergency rooms to stabilize patients, including by offering abortion if necessary. That law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) says hospitals that accept Medicare funding have to stabilize patients in medical crises and deliver babies when women are in labor. But given that some states passed abortion bans that only have exceptions to prevent death, not to treat threats to health, the Biden administration reiterated hospitals’ obligations after the Dobbs decision, and later sued the state of Idaho. Idaho strongly disagrees that its hospitals should have to provide abortions for threats to health—like when a woman’s water breaks in the second trimester, far too early for a baby to survive but, when left untreated, could result in a life-threatening infection called sepsis or extensive blood loss known as hemorrhaging. The state worked with the right-wing Christian legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom to craft its legal arguments and one such argument raised in briefs and in the courtroom is the claim that a fetus is a patient under federal law.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Josh Turner, the lawyer representing Idaho, how the state ban functions when doctors believe a woman’s pregnancy complication might cause her to lose her uterus, and thereby her ability to have children in the future, but not cause her to die. Turner’s response was chilling: “Congress under EMTALA recognizes that there are two patients to consider in those circumstances. And the two-patient scenario is tough when you have these competing interests.” This logic is terrifying, mostly because a fetus is only a patient under EMTALA when there aren’t health threats to the pregnant person. The woman is the patient first and foremost. Idaho is trying to claim that because the words “unborn child” are used in the law, it means that the interests of the woman and the fetus have equal weight, when they do not. This is fetal personhood and it’s scary not least because the people being denied ER treatment in Idaho and other states are often in their first and second trimester and there’s no way the embryo or fetus will survive. The fetus is a lost cause at that stage, yet states like Idaho say that women themselves need to be facing death before they can have an abortion. (People coming to ERs later in pregnancy with complications would typically have labor induced and then doctors would try to keep the fetus alive.)

[...] If by some miracle the court rules against Idaho, that doesn’t mean abortion access is safe by any means. Barrett and Gorsuch both asked if a future Congress could ban hospitals from performing any abortions or gender-affirming surgeries as a condition of accepting Medicare funds. Prelogar said yes, Congress does have the power to pass laws like that. And of course, there is the lurking threat of the 19th-century Comstock Act which a Republican president could enforce to ban abortion nationwide, even at clinics in states with abortion protections.

SCOTUS heard oral arguments on a pair of cases pertaining to EMTALA on Wednesday, and the radical right-wing black robed theocrat-majority are likely to rule in favor of Idaho's cruel anti-abortion law to weaken EMTALA.

See Also:

HuffPost: Conservative SCOTUS Almost Entirely Ignores Pregnant Patients In Emergency Abortion Arguments

Vox: The Supreme Court’s likely to make it more dangerous to be pregnant in a red state

#EMTALA #Abortion #Abortion Bans #Moyle v. United States #Idaho v. United States #Fetal Personhood #Idaho #Idaho SB1309 #Alliance Defending Freedom #Elizabeth Prelogar #SCOTUS

16 notes · View notes

kitchenalia · 2 years

Text

“abortion bans violate jewish religious freedoms!” how about they violate women’s basic freedoms and we shouldn’t be basing abortion laws on jewish laws, either

#i realize that the post isn't explicitly saying to base abortion laws on the talmud #and they're probably trying to make a point about abortion bans being defended as 'religious freedom'#but i just get frustrated. you know?#(also there are plenty of jewish people who only support therapeutic/life-saving abortion)#(some only permit abortion on the basis of the fetus pursuing the mother with the intent to kill)#there's plenty of healthy orthodox sentiment that 'authorities' (men) can judge whether a woman needs an abortion :)

609 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 2 months

Text

At least 125 House Republicans want to ban abortion from the time of conception.

H.R.431 — 118th Congress, dated 20 January 2023, is called "Life at Conception Act”.

Of course this bill would prohibit ALL abortions. And according to The New Republic, it would also outlaw in vitro fertilization.

Like the Alabama ruling, the Life at Conception Act would have severely restricted—if not effectively banned—IVF treatments as well, because it grants “equal protection” to “preborn” humans, including embryos. Since it’s common for fertilized eggs not to survive the IVF process, the act would put doctors at risk of being charged for wrongful death of embryos. That risk would be enough to scupper the IVF industry. And that is exactly what is happening in Alabama. The state Supreme Court ruled 7–2 last week that embryos created through IVF can be considered children and are thus protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

Effectively, Republicans want to make America Alabama.

HR 431 was sponsored by Rep. Alexander X. Mooney (R-WV-02) who sits on the House Judiciary Committee. The bill has 124 co-sponsors. That's too long to list in a post but you can view the names here. Of course, the list includes fundamentalist Speaker "MAGA Mike" Johnson (R-LA-04).

Democrats have released a list of nine GOP co-sponsors of HR431 in swing districts and two 2024 GOP House candidates in similar districts who have voiced support for HR 431.

Vulnerable House Republicans Put IVF and Feriilty Treatments At Risk

Republicans are intent on regulating reproduction at every level in the US. They had worked for 49 years to repeal Roe v. Wade until they were finally successful in 2022 – thanks to Trump and Bush Supreme Court justices.

The ONLY sure way to protect reproductive freedom in the United States is to make sure the White House and both chambers of Congress are run by Democrats.

11 notes · View notes

they-are-a-prolife-autist · 2 years

Text

“Abortion protects my right to consent”

Okay, let’s just get one thing clear before I dive into this. Consent to sex is important. Nay - fundamental. No one wants you to be raped or forced to get pregnant, and no one is denying that you are the owner of your body. Period. End of story. No ifs ands or buts.

On the topic of “continual consent” in regards to a pregnancy, allow me to use an analogy.

If you grab a rope and hold it for somebody while they rappel down a cliff, you can't just let it go and let them fall before they get to the bottom. Despite the fact that you are choosing to using your body and your strength for their benefit- if you withdraw then you have committed an act of murder. You have killed them. If you made a decision or performed an action that caused someone’s life to become dependent on yours, it’s not only unthinkably selfish to “withdraw consent” while this person depends on you; in the case of abortion, it is murder. (Yes I used the word murder. Killing your child is murder regardless of the fact that it’s legal. Don’t be pedantic, it’s childish.) By taking part in a reproductive activity you have to acknowledge that reproduction might occur. This process is not a disease, and it’s not something gone wrong. It’s the correct function of sex and the reproductive system. At that point someone else’s life attached to yours because of circumstances outside of their control, but completely within your own. You’re holding the rope. No one wants to force you to pick up a rope, but once you’re holding it, you’re holding it. We should be willing to support you holding it, to help, to make it easier, and to defend you from discrimination or attack from people who want you to stop holding the rope. But letting go after you’ve chosen to pick it up is wrong.

Which brings us to “abortion is healthcare.”

The first error in this statement is treating pregnancy as if it is a health concern or abnormality. It is not. Pregnancy is a perfectly normal and correct biological function of women, to produce offspring.

Because a woman’s body is affected (sometimes negatively) by being pregnant, preventing or limiting those effects would be healthcare. Healthcare during pregnancy would be ultrasounds to make sure mama and baby are okay, and preventative measures to make sure nothing goes wrong for either of them. In extreme situations, healthcare might mean emergency surgery to attempt to save one or both lives. Health care is never abortion. (If one more person brings up ectopic pregnancies istg… not a single prolifer is arguing that those should be allowed to kill the mother.)

Calling abortion healthcare is funtementally twisted. It’s not healthcare the same was murdering a person who causes you mental or emotion problems isn’t mental health care. The true purpose of a healthcare provider is to protect the life and health of ALL of their patients, to do no harm, and not to play God in taking life. (Detailed here * and here *) Caring for your health should never involve actively, intentionally, maliciously destroying the existence of a smaller weaker human being. That is the height of exploitation and oppression.

Furthermore,

Over a thousand OB-GYNs and maternal healthcare experts joined together to affirm this reality in the Dublin Declaration, which states: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child -- is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

This is how the so-called “healthcare” procedure takes place. The living human will slowly bleed to death as it is torn limb from limb. It can, however, survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. . . The process is not quick, and it is not painless according to a new study published a month ago by people on both sides of the abortion debate that shows evidence of the unborn feeling pain from at least 12 weeks gestation.

“Overall, the evidence, and a balanced reading of that evidence, points towards an immediate and unreflective pain experience mediated by the developing function of the nervous system from as early as 12 weeks.”

At the end of the abortion, after the larger pieces of the child have been torn off with forceps and the remaining pieces sucked out with a vacuum, the abortionist is left with a tray containing a dismembered human corpse.

Some people advocate for using it as population control. Again, the height of exploitation and oppression.

The concept of intentionally exterminating the weak, sick, poor, needy, and/or underdeveloped for the supposed greater good is similarly unthinkable and undeniably holocaustic. It’s dehumanizing to the human fetus, and to every underprivileged person on the planet. Killing a human, ANY human, based on their quality of life, is not an acceptable form of population control and takes focus away from actually solving the issues that cause suffering on our planet. I say this as a poor, disabled, sexual and physical abuse survivor. My life is still worth living, stop using me and mine to justify grotesque acts of violence against the youngest and weakest members of society.

Additionally, what people may not realize is that sex trafficking victims are often coerced into abortions by the trafficker so that he or she can continue to make a profit off of them. A ground-breaking study by the Beazley Institute found 66 human-trafficking survivors had a total of 114 abortions — 114 abortions among 66 women. One sex-trafficking survivor described her experience:

“Over the years I had pimps and customers who hit me, punched me, kicked me, beat me, slashed me with a razor. I had forced unprotected sex and got pregnant three times and had two abortions at [a clinic]. Afterward, I was back out on the street again.”

The prevalence of forced abortions is an especially disturbing trend in sex trafficking."- Laura J. Lederer, the Senior Adviser on Trafficking for the US State Department

Abortion is profoundly anti-woman as it enables men to use our bodies as sex objects without any reverence for their reproductive capabilities or responsibility to any new life their actions create. Men aren’t required to take responsibility for their children, and this reduces women from life-givers, to sex dolls. The previously quoted survivor of six abortions incurred severe infections from the scar tissue, necessitating a hysterectomy. She could no longer bear children if she wanted. Abortion is, at its best, 100% not safe for at least one unwilling participant. At its worst, these are the possible complications for the most common form of abortion.

* Incomplete abortion which may necessitate a surgical abortion

* Infection of the uterus

* Excessive bleeding

* Torn cervix

* Infection of Fallopian tubes

* Punctured uterus

* Blood clots in the uterus

* Reaction to anesthesia

* Infertility

The figure above shows the age-adjusted relative risk of death in the year following a birth, miscarriage, or abortion compared to the rate of death among women not pregnant. The results are from a multi-year study of all women in Finland, linking death certificates to central registries for pregnancy outcomes. It clearly shows abortion is associated with an elevated risk of death, while carrying to term is associated with a lowered risk of death.

Many people claim that the fetus, though inarguably a human, cannot be considered a person due to its lack of cognitive or physical ability. This begs the question, at what point in does a born human cease to be a considered person based on physical or mental disabilities. Will we kill the born disabled much as we will the preborn disabled? Does someones physical or mental powers really impact their worth as a member of the human species? Is it not enough to be a living and also to be human?

Newborn with spina bifida born alive after failed abortion attempt dies in his mothers arms. Medics refused to help the baby after he was born alive despite a lethal abortion injection having been administered. <- this is the heartlessness of abortion culture.

And here's a state government website that describes all the different abortion procedures if you can stomach them. Abortion is not pretty. It’s not healthcare. It’s not “a woman’s right” it is ugly because it is the death of a human being.

Now for the "clump of cells" argument. In some cases at least, I think perhaps it comes from people seeing miscarried tissue and confusing the whole thing for the baby when it's actually the gestational sac and some surrounding tissue and the baby isn't identifiable in some cases.

On “self defense.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/children-conceived-in-rape-take-a-beating-from-bush-and-christie-at-gop-deb

https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/abortion-is-the-dismembering-of-a-living-child-supreme-court-justice-says.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary%3f_amp=true

#womens rights #politics #pro every life #i am the prolife generation #pro life #prolife #prolife feminist #feminist #feminism #defend life #end abortion #abortion is not healthcare

536 notes · View notes