1. That deep-held distaste for women’s health providers led Texas lawmakers last year to slash $73 million from all of its family planning services and shift the money to other areas of the budget. This blunt instrument hit all of the state’s women’s health providers, but was meant to target Planned Parenthood and deny it taxpayer dollars—even though the clinics that received state subsidies for care never performed abortions.

    This may be in line with their staunch opposition to what they see as a baby-killer, but that ideology comes with quite the price tag. News has surfaced that for the two-year period between 2014 and 2015, poor women are expected to deliver nearly 24,000 babies that they wouldn’t otherwise have had if they had access to state-subsidized birth control. Those extra births will cost taxpayers as much as $273 million, with between $103 million to $108 million of that hitting the state’s general revenue budget alone. Much of the cost comes from caring for those infants through Medicaid.

  2. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that conservatives think we’re like bizarro versions of them on some issues. They like low taxes, so they think we like high taxes. They like (or imagine they like) small government, they think we like big government. When, you know, we just think there’s some stuff the government needs to do and we need to figure out how to pay for it.


    Also, many conservatives seem to think progressives are pro-abortion instead of pro-choice. They just don’t seem to understand that ‘opposing’ doesn’t mean ‘opposite’.

  3. I didn’t realize that triggering court challenges is the point of extreme anti-choice legislation:

    Ohio Republicans this week gave up on their so-called “heartbeat” bill, which would have banned abortions so early that many women might not realize they were pregnant by the time they needed to make a decision. You might think Ohio Republicans pulled their bill because voters sent a strong enough signal this month that restrictive social policies do not make for a winning agenda.

    But that’s not why. The point of a bill like Ohio’s is to get sued over. Backers want supporters of abortion rights to challenge the law in court, and the higher the court, the better. With President Obama now in charge of picking Supreme Court nominees for the next four years, Ohio Senate President Tom Niehaus (R) decided he didn’t like his chances. From the AP:

    Ohio anti-abortion activists were fiercely divided over the bill, with some fearing a court challenge could undo other abortion restrictions already in place.

    "The risk became, do you send a bill to the U.S. Supreme Court that has the potential to undermine all of the good work that the right-to-life community has done over the previous decades?" Niehaus said. "Could it have undone Roe v. Wade? I don’t know the answer to that question. That appeared to me to be an extreme risk to take, and I was not willing to take that risk."

    The Obama reelection has set back the national anti-choice agenda for another 4 years at minimum and perhaps much longer if he ends up appointing another Supreme Court justice or two.

  4. rabbleprochoice:






    District Of Columbia


    Distrito Federal (Mexico City)













    North Dakota


    New Hampshire

    New Jersey

    New Mexico


    New York






    Rhode Island

    South Carolina

    South Dakota







    West Virginia


    My state is not on this list :( My state is horrible. For everyone whose state is NOT horrible, I hope this helps you.

    Bringing this back.

    Most people aren’t even aware that Abortion Funds even exist.



    (Source: bebinn)

  5. birdsy-purplefish:


    It wasn’t long before pro-life racists got ahold of the story.

    Fucking hell.

    This part was great, though:

    “Claims about Indians and sex-selective abortions are a cheap way to attack Savita’s Indian heritage, MY heritage, as one which is violently disproportionate in favour of men. However, if you consider that India (1966 & 1980), Sri Lanka (1960* the first female head of a modern post-colonial state), Pakistan (1988 and 1993), and Bangladesh - the “Battling Begums”  (1991, 2001, 1996, 2009) all have had female heads of state far earlier than any western country did (including the UK with Thatcher in 1979 and Mary Robinson in Ireland in 1990), you have to wonder – for countries which are portrayed as being so patriarchal and male dominated – we didn’t too badly did we bredrens?.”

    Good blog post. I am glad to see some pushback from Indians and anti-racists about the ways some feminists, anti-choice assholes, and bigots have been misappropriating Savita Halappanavar’s life and death.

  6. A reminder of how racism and xenophobia intersected with misogyny in the tragic and needless death of Savita Halappanavar:

    According to Savita’s widower Parveen, his wife’s requests for a termination were met with the response, “This is a Catholic country”. When I read that I went cold. I’ve heard things like that before.

    If someone starts telling you what country you’re in, or telling you screamingly obvious facts about that country, it’s time to look at them sideways. If your appearance, name or accent mark you out as foreign, you want to be wary of people who say that.


    I’ve heard that turn of phrase used in schools to shut down kids from immigrant backgrounds. I’ve heard workers use it to intimidate and undermine colleagues.

    People simply do not bring up the country they are in in a context like that unless they are being racist.

    The only reason I can see that an educated adult woman of Indian origin would be suddenly, randomly, informed of the dominant religious belief of the country in which she was begging for medical treatment is that her ethnicity and religion were an issue for the medical staff treating her. That her pleas for a termination were taken less seriously because they were perceived as the pleas of an unchurched foreigner who should have more respect for Irish Catholic beliefs…

    I’m not saying that racism killed Savita Halappanavar.

    I don’t think it was medical incompetence, or institutional misogyny, or even Catholic dogma.

    It wasn’t one of these things. It was, I believe, all of them: a fatal intersectionality, if you like, of oppression.

  7. …[I]in 2010, Sister Margaret McBride, an administrator in a Catholic Hospital in Phoenix, was fired and excommunicated after she approved a first-trimester abortion for a woman with life-threatening pulmonary hypertension. What happens in Catholic hospitals when there’s no Sister Margaret willing to risk the bishops’ wrath? With conscience clauses expanding to cover not just individual doctors but whole hospitals, a pregnant woman may find her care is being dictated not by standard health protocols but by a religion she doesn’t even follow…

  8. Why we should remain vigilant

    The repudiation of openly misogynistic candidates by voters in the 2012 election doesn’t mean we can relax. Religious zealots and conservative misogynists in our country are still trying to roll back reproductive rights at the cost of women’s lives, health, and freedom:

    • In 2011, Ohio Republicans supported a measure to make abortions illegal after the fetus has a heartbeat. The measure did not make exceptions for rape, incest, or the life or health of the mother. The Ohio Senate is actually planning on reconsidering the bill during its lameduck session.
    • Conservatives have been fighting at the state level to defund Planned Parenthood. An Ohio House Committee just cleared a bill that would strip $1.7 million from Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. This, despite the fact that “exit polls from Election Day showed that 56 percent of Ohioans support legal abortion all or most of the time, while just 39 percent thought it should be illegal”. Anti-abortion legislative attempts do not reflect the will of the people, but the will of a fanatical minority trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
    • In 2011, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.R. 358, which would override legal protections for the life and health of pregnant women. H.R. 358 would give health providers the right to “exercise their conscience” during medical emergencies, by, for example, refusing to perform abortions.
    • The Ninth Circuit Court will review a case that tests the constitutionality of an Arizona law that was signed by Governor Jan Brewer in April. The law bans all abortion procedures beyond 20 weeks from a woman’s last menstrual period.
    • According to the NYT, in October 2012, “a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a 2004 Ohio law that limits a woman’s right to choose to have a first-trimester abortion with the drug mifepristone, rather than undergoing surgery…By mandating a protocol that is no longer medically supportable, Ohio’s law leaves women who might safely opt for a medication abortion between 49 and 63 days of pregnancy with only a surgical option. Women who choose a medication abortion earlier in the first trimester are forced to consume three times more medication than needed, increasing the risk of side effects. “
    • Religious groups are legally challenging portions of health care reform which requires employers to cover contraception. In July and October, respectively, judges in Colorado and Michigan ruled in favor of Catholic employers who refused to cover contraception for employees. These two cases are just the tip of the iceberg: “Individuals, businesses, hospitals, schools and universities have filed more than three dozen lawsuits challenging the requirement for employers and health plans to cover contraceptives.”
  9. Some background on the Irish legal/political anti-choice clusterfuck that resulted in the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar:

    …Chief amongst the social crises of 1992 was the X-case. A fourteen year-old girl, pregnant as the result of rape by a neighbor, sought to leave the country to have an abortion in England, as thousands of Irish women did and still do. Her parents asked the police whether it would be possible to collect any DNA evidence during this process, which brought the matter to the Attorney General’s attention. He sought, and was granted, a court injunction preventing her from traveling for the abortion under Article 40.3.3 of the Irish constitution, which had been passed in 1983 as the “Pro-Life amendment” and which prohibited abortion in Ireland. The resulting constitutional crisis saw the Supreme Court issue a hasty ruling permitting the girl to travel, but under a strained interpretation of the law. So in November of 1992 the Government introduced three new amendments meant to clarify things. The result was that things reverted much to the status quo ante, which essentially allowed Ireland to export its abortion problem to the United Kingdom while leaving it unclear what doctors facing a medical emergency during pregnancy were in a position to do.

    So the X Case ruling established that a woman in Ireland is legally entitled to an abortion when it’s necessary to save her life. But Ireland failed to implement the court ruling into actual legislation, which means doctors are reluctant to make the medically and ethically correct decision in the case of an emergency for fear of breaking the 1983 anti-abortion law.

    One of the most horrible things about a horrible case is that anti-choice Catholics have forced their religious beliefs on people who aren’t even Catholic, like Savita. When informed by hospital staff that they wouldn’t terminate the pregnancy because “[Ireland] is a Catholic country”, Savita reportedly responded, “I am neither Irish nor Catholic.”

    It’s nearly 2013—Ireland has to decide: is it a modern democracy that protects the life and rights of all of its people? Or is it a theocracy run by bishops and religious zealots?

  10. image: Download



Tonight, right now, over two thousand infuriated Irishmen and Women have gathered outside the Dáil in protest over the death of Savita Halappanavar, who died of septicaemia in Galway University Hospital after she had a miscarriage. They protest over our governements failure to legislate for the X Case.
This was a protest organised over a matter of hours. The response has been overwhelming.
Ireland needs a change. All these people are there to voice this chance.

We Are All Savita Halappanavar: Catholic Hospital in Ireland Denies Woman Life-Saving Abortion



    Tonight, right now, over two thousand infuriated Irishmen and Women have gathered outside the Dáil in protest over the death of Savita Halappanavar, who died of septicaemia in Galway University Hospital after she had a miscarriage. They protest over our governements failure to legislate for the X Case.

    This was a protest organised over a matter of hours. The response has been overwhelming.

    Ireland needs a change. All these people are there to voice this chance.

    We Are All Savita Halappanavar: Catholic Hospital in Ireland Denies Woman Life-Saving Abortion

  11. jessicavalenti:

    Key findings: Women who are denied abortions “are more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line” and “were more likely to stay in a relationship w/an abusive partner than women who got abortions.”

    The study also seems to debunk the oft-repeated conservative claim that abortions are somehow more traumatic to women than being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term:

    We have found that there are no mental health consequences of abortion compared to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. There are other interesting findings: even later abortion is safer than childbirth and women who carried an unwanted pregnancy to term are three times more likely than women who receive an abortion to be below the poverty level two years later.

  12. keepyourbsoutofmyuterus:

    From my friend Jennifer:

    pro-choice & abortion access friends: your financial help is needed! Georgia Reproductive Justice Access Network, one of the only abortion funds in the southeast, is down to $89. they need an infusion of money FAST so they can keep their fund up and helping those who are pregnant afford abortion care. please give as much as you can!

    I say this often about abortion funds but they help people who desperately need to get an abortion but cannot afford it. These are people in the most dire of circumstances.

    When you donate to an abortion fund you 1) know your money will go directly toward helping someone and 2) you will make someone’s life better. 

    If you can, please donate to this abortion fund.


  13. 13:37 7th Nov 2012

    Notes: 335

    Reblogged from shortformblog

    Tags: WATrush limbaughabortion

    Let’s start our own abortion industry.
    — Rush Limbaugh • Trying to figure out how Republicans can win back some female supporters following Mitt Romney’s loss in the Presidential Election last night. (Just heard this on the radio. — SC)
  14. (Source: Mother Jones)

  15. Anti-woman attitudes aren’t isolated to a few fringe radicals in the Republican Party; they’re the heart and soul of the GOP’s policies at home and abroad. The GOP is fighting hard to codify misogyny into U.S. law:

    Some Republicans, like Mitt Romney, have tried to distance themselves from their party’s rhetorical obsession with sexual violation. What they’re hoping we won’t notice is the fact that their party is politically committed to sexual violation.

    Opposition to abortion in all cases – rape, incest, even to save the pregnant woman’s life or health – is written into the Republican party platform. Realizing they can’t make abortion illegal overnight, conservatives instead rally around smaller initiatives like mandatory waiting periods, transvaginal ultrasounds and mandated lectures about “life” to make abortion as expensive, difficult and humiliating as possible

    …[T]he GOP now routinely opposes any effort to make birth control or sexual education available and accessible. They propose laws that would require women to tell their employers what they’re using birth control for, so that employers could determine which women don’t deserve coverage (the slutty ones who use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy) and which women do (the OK ones who use it for other medical reasons).

    Mainstream GOP leaders, including Mitt Romney, campaign with conservative activists who lament the fact that women today no longer fully submit to the authority of their husbands and fathers, mourn a better time when you could legally beat your wife, and celebrate the laws of places like Saudi Arabia where men are properly in charge. Senate Republicans, including Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan and “legitimate rape” Todd Akin, blocked the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. And Ryan and Akin joined forces again to propose “personhood" legislation in Washington, DC that would define a fertilized egg as a person from the moment sperm meets egg, outlawing abortion in all cases and many forms of contraception, and raising some serious questions about how, exactly, such a law would be enforced.

    Underlying the Republican rape comments and actual Republican political goals are a few fundamental convictions: first, women are vessels for childbearing and care-taking; second, women cannot be trusted; and third, women are the property of men.

    Mourdock’s statement that conceiving from rape is a gift positions women as receptacles, not as autonomous human beings. This view of women as vessels – vessels for sex with their husbands, vessels for carrying a pregnancy, vessels for God’s plan – is a necessary component of the kind of extreme anti-abortion legislation most Republican politicians support.

    So is the idea that women are both fundamentally unintelligent and dishonest. Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment and Rivard’s contention that “some girls rape easy” rely on the idea that women routinely lie about rape and shouldn’t be believed; blocking VAWA relied partly on similar logic put forward by men’s rights activists, that women lie about being abused in order to secure citizenship and other benefits. Hostility to abortion rights similarly positions rightwing lawmakers as the best people to determine whether or not any particular woman should be legally compelled to carry a pregnancy to term.


    The Republican position is that women are not entitled to make fundamental decisions about our own bodies and our own sexual and reproductive health. When that position is written into the GOP platform and is a legislative priority, can we really be surprised when it’s further reflected in Republican legislators’ comments on rape?

    My emphasis. By the way: I don’t excuse anyone who supports the GOP because of their economic policies. That just means you think balancing the budget or cutting taxes is more important than preserving the autonomy and rights of your fellow human beings. Go to hell.