woman

Informed consent is anti-woman?

The Arizona Department of Health Services launched a new website last week called “A Woman’s Right to Know.” The website has information on pregnancy, abortion, and various resources available to women. It’s not required for women to read it prior to obtaining an abortion. But that doesn’t keep the pro-abortion radicals at Jezebel from having a temper tantrum over it. Because, you know, making information freely available is anti-woman and shames them, or something.

Arizona’s Department of Health Services built a new website last week called “A Woman’s Right to Know.” Fascinating! What do you think women have the right to know about? A full range of contraceptive options? How the new Affordable Care Act works? The best happy hour spots in the state? No, silly! Women have the “right” to know about the emotional and physical dangers of abortion, because women who choose to get the extremely safe medical procedure are probably too dumb to understand how abortion works and therefore should be pressured into changing their minds.

… Make no mistake: the website is biased, and if Humble doesn’t think so, he’s either lying or stupid. The title itself — “A Women’s Right to Know” — is incredibly patronizing. The first paragraph on the home page doesn’t define abortion or even explain why a woman might choose to terminate a pregnancy; instead, it states that ” an abortion shall not be performed or induced without the voluntary and informed consent of the woman for whom the abortion is to be performed or induced. If your doctor performs an abortion on you without obtaining your voluntary consent or without allowing a private medical consultation they may be liable to you for claims in a civil action.” Because it’s that easy for women to get abortions, you guys! Those wily doctors will give you an abortion even if you don’t want one! Lock your windows!

This oh-so-offensive website lists – gasp!! – what women can expect to happen before and during an abortion. It also lists the risks of having an abortion, the different kinds of abortion, information on fetal development, and resources in existence should a woman choose to keep her baby. It even lists risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Worst of all, it encourages women to…ask questions before the abortion! The horror!

The nerve of those evil Arizona pro-lifers, making information available on the internet! How dare they?!

In all seriousness, what’s laughable is that these pro-aborts are so outraged simply because this information is being made available. It’s not mandatory or required in any way for women to view this website before having an abortion. And while the abortion fanatics wouldn’t like women to know this, there are doctors who have given women abortions without their consent (ahem, Dr. Neuhaus). And it’s a fact that abortionists aren’t exactly, well, truthful about pregnancy and fetal development. Giving women an avenue to get the facts about pregnancy, abortion, fetal development, and what to expect during an abortion and pregnancy is in no way anti-woman, and it doesn’t shame women for having an abortion. It’s called information. Call me crazy, but since when did making medical information easily accessible become a bad thing?

Yet for some reason, pro-aborts always seem to have this strange aversion to making information about abortion freely available. Why is that, exactly? And what does it tell us about them that they’re so scared to have information out there and readily accessible?

Why, it almost seems like they’d rather keep women uninformed and in the dark. I wonder why that might be.

  • Steve Farrell

    “You will certify in writing before the abortion that you have been given the opportunity to view the active ultrasound image and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible and that you opted to view or not view the active ultrasound image and hear or not hear the heartbeat of the unborn child.”

    According to pro-lifers, guilt and intimidation are part of education.

    • MM237

      No,that was never said or meant.

    • Julia

      I didn’t see that in the article? Where is it quoted from?
      Anyway, if the woman doesn’t already feel she is doing anything wrong, why would it make her feel guilt?
      Telling the patient about details of the surgery or procedure she is about to undergo, along with possible complications, likely and unlikely, is standard in legitmate medical practice. Why should abortion be any different?

      • Basset_Hound

        When we had my daughter’s wisdom teeth removed last spring, we had to see the x-rays. We also had to discuss every possible complication that could result, including nerve damage to my daughter’s face and even death from the anesthesia. The oral surgeon had to discuss pros and cons of our various options, and the details of the surgery he would perform. Yet when I posted a similar question, I couldn’t get an answer either.

    • Lauren Brown

      Okie doke. Here’s a surgical example. I went to see my eye doctor. He said that I could have eye surgery, so that I wouldn’t have to wear glasses. He explained what the surgery’s side effects would be, and I decided that I didn’t want to do it. What would have been wrong (and unethical) is if he didn’t bother to tell me about the after-effects. Waking up unable to move your eyes from side to side wouldn’t be too thrilling.

      I’m not saying eye surgery is ANYTHING like abortion. What I’m saying is that it was a medical procedure. The Arizona website is not dissing women. Abortion is a very serious operation, and NOT telling someone about the side effects is harmful. It’s like the saying goes, “Forewarned is forearmed.” How they choose to word their caution is up to them.

      • Steve Farrell

        This goes far beyond educating women about the risks of abortion. This is about guilting and intimidating women by not only requesting that they watch an ultrasound of the fetus they’re about to abort and listen to the fetal heartbeat, not only making them refuse to do so if they don’t want to, but making them fill out paperwork stating that they were asked to do so but refused.
        It’s a really slimy thing to do to women in crisis, that’s all. But it goes to show the inhumanity behind the baby-jesus façade of pro-life fanaticism.

        • Guest

          In the post above, you said that you did not claim to represent all men. That’s good. But aren’t you making a generalized conclusion of pro-lifers?

          As far as I am aware, I have not insulted you, or shown overzealous enthusiasm, which is part of the definition for fanaticism. And yet, you have been unkind in regards to the values here, regarding pro-life work as inhumane and slimy. You’re free to argue all you like, but unkind words do not boost your case.

          • Steve Farrell

            Fair enough. I won’t paint all pro-lifers with the same brush. But I submit that anyone who doesn’t find these tactics troublesome —having to listen to a fetal heartbeat?— is being disrespectful toward women facing a very daunting decision.

          • Lauren Brown

            As you mentioned, the woman has the option to say no. I agree that it is a very daunting decision, but it’s too big a one to just go in and out. It’s like that for any surgery. Because regardless of opinions, something very big will happen as a result of the operation.

            In regards to women who have been raped by a stranger, friend, or family member, counseling is foremost the important thing, after a rape test and submitting of evidence. Pushing a woman into another big event (abortion) does not make her situation better.

          • Steve Farrell

            Lauren, once again you’re making decisions for hypothetical strangers. If a woman is raped by a stranger and feels that an abortion would just be another trauma, I’d support her decision to have the baby. On the other hand, if she is horrified to even consider going through pregnancy and childbirth with a rapist’s child, you’d demand that she do it.

            So who’s actually being more compassionate here?

          • Lauren Brown

            I believe you are painting me as the bad guy. If I was the bad guy, I wouldn’t care about it. Mind your own business doesn’t work when there’s a life in danger. I’m not going to be a bystander. Nor am I going to shove it down her throat.

            Repeating your accusation does not lend strength to your side of the argument.

          • Steve Farrell

            Well, Lauren, you brought up the scenario. And you have more sympathy for a fetus conceived in a rape than you do for the adult female rape victim. The fetus is the more important consideration, according to you. So you might want to stop pretending to claim the moral high ground here.

          • Lauren Brown

            Uhhh…no. Just. No.

            If my name doesn’t give any hints, I AM a woman. And unless I’m mistaken, most women are opposed to rape and have sympathy for rape victims.

            A woman impregnated by rape will suffer twice as much from an abortion procedure. She has to deal with the fact that not only was she raped, but that she also hurt an innocent child. They’re not some alien parasite that will burst out of your chest. Google it.

            So, if I was really being sadistic, I just wouldn’t care. I’d wouldn’t bat an eye to all the pain and regret that woman would experience from both the rape and the abortion. I was shocked when a friend of mine casually mentioned during a conversation that she had been raped.

            Believe it or not, rape victims DO have their babies. They DO give them up for adoption or raise them. And those kids are horrified by the means of their conception, and grateful for their mothers choosing to give birth to them, anyway.

            Aborting that child will make nothing good for the woman, and nothing good for the baby. Only more pain.

            What I would question is that you are so willing to accuse me of essentially being misogynist, and yet calling a baby a fetus, like it’s some thing, some Frankenstein. The word fetus in and of itself means “offspring.” The word is used by people so that they wouldn’t feel guilty when they end someone’s life.

          • Steve Farrell

            “A woman impregnated by rape will suffer twice as much from an abortion procedure”

            I still think it’s best to let the rape victim herself make that call. It could be she thinks undergoing the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth would be unduly tramatic after her attack. Again, the choice is hers.

            “Believe it or not, rape victims DO have their babies”

            Good for them. But how much moral character could you attribute to them for doing so if they have no other choice? In your pro-life utopia, a rape victim wouldn’t be able to make that choice out of her sympathy for the defenseless unborn child, she’d be forced to have the baby under penalty of law.

            “What I would question is that you are so willing to accuse me of essentially being misogynist”

            Well, if you have more sympathy for a blastocyst than for a rape victim, yeah, that’s not very compassionate. That’s misogynist.

            “The word fetus in and of itself means “offspring.” The word is used by people so that they wouldn’t feel guilty when they end someone’s life.”

            No, the word is used to differentiate between a person who has already been born, and a potential human being developing inside mommy’s body. The fact that you don’t consider that distinction relevant tells me a lot about your view of women.

          • Lauren Brown

            Did you read all of my comment? I just TOLD you, I’m a WOMAN. Do I have to send you a photo of me? You think I have no feelings for my fellow women just because I’m pro life? You come across as accusing me of not caring about anyone.

            Murdering that baby would be more cold and heartless. And if “fetus” is used for a “potential” human being, then that uses it out of context. And frankly, calling it a thing (or blastocyst) is what people do when they’re about to harm someone. They emotionally detach themselves so that they don’t feel any guilt for what they are about to do. If pro-choice people didn’t feel guilty about it, then they wouldn’t be insistent on calling them scientific terms.

            You also said that fetus is used to determine a “potential” human being. In that line of thinking, shouldn’t that “potential” be given a chance? My brother is a teenager – should I do him in before he becomes twenty. You say that we shouldn’t intrude on a stranger’s choices. Should we intrude when an unborn life is being decided? It’s not fair for them.

            The pro-life thing is not a utopia – it’s fairness. It would indeed be hard, traumatic, and embarrassing to go through that pregnancy – no one is brushing that off. But as hard and terrible as it is, some things have to be done for the greater good.

            It’s no one’s fault for the rape (except for the freak that did it). But because it’s no one’s fault, there’s no reason to punish Mommy and Baby. The mom can give up the baby for ADOPTION. She’d never have to see the baby again, if she didn’t want to. But what’s wrong is saying that pregnancy doesn’t matter.

            Because it does.

            And it’s misogynist to assume that just offing the offspring makes everything okay. Take a look at baby development once and a while. Take the time to think about what it be like for a rape victim that chose abortion. She’ll have to live with the guilt of doing something that couldn’t really be reversed.

            Think about adoption once in a while.

            And don’t ever accuse a woman of misogyny. Because they can relate better to that woman than you can. Making that accusation in and of itself is rude and chauvinist. And I don’t use that as a buzzword.

          • Steve Farrell

            “You think I have no feelings for my fellow women just because I’m pro life?”

            Um, no, I think you demonize sexually-active women by accusing them of wanting to “murder” their babies. You think that anyone who refuses to use your melodramatic language is merely trying assuage their guilt over their blood lust. And you make it sound like you’re being compassionate and merciful by forcing a rape victim to obey your command to undergo a pregnancy and childbirth she didn’t consent to.

            I’ve told you before I think it’s comical that you think you deserve the moral high ground here. It’s still funny.

          • Lauren Brown

            And your language isn’t melodramatic? As well as laughing at the other person’s comments? You keep ignoring what I say, and attack me. You can’t have an intelligent argument by those means. Those things are what trolls do, and honestly, your whole argument depends on manipulating the other and insulting them.

            If I can, I am going to find the moderator and ask him/her to block you. If you’re going to argue, you have to have respect, and there is little to no evidence as such in your rhetoric. Come back when you’re willing to play nice.

          • Steve Farrell

            Oh, Lauren, no one’s “attacking” you. If my attitude upsets you so, why not just stop engaging with me? I actually think I’ve been very civil here. But perhaps you want a pro-life echo chamber where no dissenting opinions can ever bother you.

          • Lauren Brown

            Because that’s no way to treat people. If you want to have a nice, balanced discussion with people, be nice and balanced. Otherwise, you’re wasting your time and everyone else’s.

          • Steve Farrell

            Lauren, I repeat: I’ve been civil here. You sure you’re not just sore because I’m disagreeing with you?

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Laruen’s right. There’s nothing civil about calling people misogynists, and it’s just the latest in a long string of incivility from you. And you know full well that hearing “dissenting opinion” is not why people object to you.

            You’ve been given a generously long leash during your time here, because, in the interest of vigorous, candid debate, I tend to lean toward letting pro-aborts’ hate speech stand as a window into their souls and letting commenters draw their own observations from it. But wherever you comment, you insist on pushing the lie that pro-lifers ignore and dehumanize women. Multiple commenters have refuted you (with far more patience and benefit of the doubt than such smears deserved), and still you choose to defame those you disagree with. It’s not “debate.” It’s not “disagreement.” It’s intentionally smearing people you disagree with. And it’s not worth our time.

            If you want to continue commenting on Live Action, drop the “misogyny” smears and treat the intentions of those you disagree with with some basic human fairness. If you’re not willing to do that, then you will be blocked.

          • Sorites Paradox

            This is hysterical coming from you. Calvin, there is nothing wrong with calling out misogyny when one sees it. Your columns routinely accuse pro-choice people of being murders, misogynists, liars, of doing nothing on the issue of rape, etc, etc. You are in no position to complain about hyperbolic smears: in this SAME post you characterize comments that challenge yours as “hate speech.” This kind of plea to civility is not credible coming from you.

            “you insist on pushing the lie that pro-lifers ignore and dehumanize women.”

            This is not a lie. It is a characterization, and one that many, many people believe is true. The first time I commented here I did so because you were talking about forcing rape victims to gestate, and I told you that the pro-life argument as you portrayed it (and may others in the movement do) ignores what you’re asking of women when you force them to go through pregnancies to which they do not consent. I told you that the way your comments, your phrasing, your arguments made me feel was dismissed and dehumanized. You dismissed it.

            I’ll say it to Lauren: If I had gotten pregnant after my rape, I can think of about one million ways it would have made my life worse to bear a child. It is offensive and misogynistic for you to claim that you know better than me about my life and what steps would or would not have improved it after a rape.

            To remove womens’ agency over their own lives with respect to something as intimate and life-altering as reproduction by claiming that you know better, or by dismissing women’s legitimate complaints about bearing rape babies, is dehumanizing and misogynistic.

            There, I’m a woman, and you’re being misogynistic. Women can be, and often are quite sexist.

            Calvin, your incessant claim that you are being “defamed” and “slandered” is ridiculous. These are the elements of defamation (for a private person rather than a public figure; you are not a public figure under the law):

            “intentional publication to one other than the person defamed;

            a false statement of fact;

            that is understood as

            a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and

            b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.”

            Opinions (ie, that your positions are misogynistic, or that “pro-aborts” are misogynistic), are not defamation/slander. Only false statements of facts are slander, and a fact is something that is objectively verifiable/ falsifiable.

            These accusations of “smearing” and “slander” are even more ridiculous coming from someone who writes for an organization specifically created to tarnish the reputation of one particular organization.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “there is nothing wrong with calling out misogyny when one sees it.”

            There most certainly is when (a) the misogyny isn’t actually there, and (b) the person leveling the accusation knows it. Both of which are the case with the vast majority of pro-abortion hysteria, yours included.

            “Your columns routinely accuse pro-choice people of being murders,
            misogynists, liars, of doing nothing on the issue of rape, etc, etc.”

            I rely on this thing called “evidence” when I make claims. More to the point: as much as I despise abortion advocacy, in personal interaction I usually give the intentions of individual pro-choicers the benefit of the doubt and debate them respectfully until they set a tone of disrespect or demonstrate they’re acting in bad faith….like when, say, somebody calls me the equivalent of a rapist.

            “This kind of plea to civility is not credible coming from you.”

            Is the author of the “you’re just like my rapist!” filth lecturing me on civility? Really? That carries about as much weight as a Donald Trump humility seminar. The civility I believe in isn’t a superficial decorum where fanatics like you screech jump and pro-lifers meekly answer “how high?” It’s where respect is earned, decent people treat one another decently, and indecency is dealt with candidly.

            “It is a characterization, and one that many, many people believe is true.”

            Not people who are fair-minded and well-informed.

            “I told you that the pro-life argument as you portrayed it (and may
            others in the movement do) ignores what you’re asking of women when you force them to go through pregnancies to which they do not consent. I told you that the way your comments, your phrasing, your arguments made me feel was dismissed and dehumanized. You dismissed it.”

            I like how you can only claim the civility high ground by drastically sanitizing your actual attack on me, thereby also misrepresenting how I responded.

            “Opinions (ie, that your positions are misogynistic, or that ‘pro-aborts’
            are misogynistic), are not defamation/slander. Only false statements
            of facts are slander, and a fact is something that is objectively
            verifiable/ falsifiable.”

            Remember when I pointed out how often your posts suggest your perspective is clouded by living in a legal bubble? This is another shining example. Many words have perfectly legitimate meanings in everyday use that are simpler than their legal analogues. Slander, etc. is commonly understood as intentional dishonesty meant to harm. That’s how I use the term, that’s how readers understand it, and that’s what you and your ilk are trying to do when you practice it.

            “an organization specifically created to tarnish the reputation of one particular organization.”

            You shill for Planned Parenthood, yet you still hold yourself up as some infallible arbiter of rape victims’ interests? Riiiiiiight……

          • Sorites Paradox

            Not going to address the rest of your babbling about civility and refusal to own the fact that you possess ideologies in common with rapists (ie, women don’t get to decide who uses their bodies; other people decide that for them) because we both know there’s no point. Just going to address this one bit about your love of using legal terms in non-legal contexts:

            If you are right, and slander is not just a legal term, but rather just generally means intentional dishonestly meant to harm, then you are ALSO slandering me and every other pro-choice person here when you call us liars, misogynists, hate-speakers, baby-killers, etc. Don’t you see that? (Excuse me, you and your “ilk”- can’t let the chance for a cheap shot go to waste).

            Opinions and characterizations of arguments in debate aren’t dishonest or honest. Facts are. Slander/defamation is about falsehoods of fact. If you wish to argue that anytime I negatively characterize my opponent’s position I am “slandering” him, then you must admit that you are guilty of the same.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            A lawyer who can’t see the difference between being raped and being prohibited from killing her unborn son or daughter. Rarely does one find a more succinct indictment of the American systems of law and higher education.

            “then you are ALSO slandering me and every other pro-choice person here
            when you call us liars, misogynists, hate-speakers, baby-killers, etc.”

            Not at all. When I say such things, I am accurately referencing actual actions and positions of the pro-choicers I’m referring to.

            “Opinions and characterizations of arguments in debate aren’t dishonest or honest.”

            Wow. Just….wow. You complained before about my saying you fit the worst anti-lawyer stereotypes, and here you embrace one wholeheartedly.

        • Rachel

          It’s slimy and inhumane to try and show women the HUMANITY of their unborn child? The reality of abortion is the death of an innocent human being. THAT is why abortion is wrong. It’s not a POTENTIAL human, it IS human!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Kindred/1053890146 Tim Kindred

    I tell ya, Cassy, that the depths to which the left will plumb in order to reach their goals is beyond belief. Lying, cheating, thuggery, violence and all forms of intimidation are well within their belief system as long as it helps them win.

    Truth? meh… they don’t want the truth. It’s funny how what all those “Pro-Choice” folks mean is that THEY should be the ones making the CHOICES for you.

    • Steve Farrell

      “It’s funny how what all those “Pro-Choice” folks mean is that THEY should be the ones making the CHOICES for you.”
      Except we don’t. I think it’s wrong to force someone into a decision they’re not comfortable with. If you want a baby, have a baby. Make your own family planning choices.

      • Lauren Brown

        A lot of men don’t care about that. They’re more than happy to shove the woman into Planned Parenthood in order to get rid of their illegitimate child. And if I may recall, Planned Parenthood / pro choice is not the friendliest neighbor on the block, either.

        • Steve Farrell

          “A lot of men don’t care about that.”
          I never claimed to represent all men. Only the ones who are truly pre-choice in that they feel that a woman should be trusted to make the best choice for herself and her family, not be bullied into either having an abortion or giving birth against her will.

          • Lauren Brown

            Well, let’s think about that. Sperm is needed in order to fertilize the egg, yes? In doing so, the said sperm donor (whether involved or not) helped make that child. Choices for things like abortion need to be a family thing.

            Think about all the men who wanted to have the baby, but their girlfriends and wives went ahead and aborted anyway.

            Think about the guys who let their ladies, as you said, make the best choice. Whatever the woman chooses, there’s no going back. Which would be better?

            A. To abort the child. The man may realize after the abortion that it was wrong. He can’t bring the child back to life, and he also agreed to letting the woman have an invasive, painful procedure. The only thing both would have is the imagination of what could have been.

            B. To raise the child. It would be hard work, but could be done.

            C. To put up the child for adoption. It’s free, for the most part. When it comes to abortion and adoption, women lose their baby in each. However, unlike abortion, the child is still alive, and the woman can choose an open adoption, and stay in contact with her kiddo. It’s not a failure of motherhood to do so.

          • Steve Farrell

            “Whatever the woman chooses, there’s no going back. Which would be better?”

            Um, that’s my point, Lauren: let the woman choose. How many times can I say this? I don’t make family planning choices for hypothetical strangers.

          • Lauren Brown

            No, Steve, it’s the principle of it all. If you saw someone looting a store, or hurting somebody, would it be right to just stand by and not call the police? We all have plenty of choices in life – that doesn’t, however, make them equally valid.

            I have depression. I have struggled with….the very nasty parts of it. If I told you that I (heaven forbid) was going to end it all, wouldn’t you or somebody else at least call a hotline? If the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge put up suicide barriers to prevent jumping, would it make any sense for potential jumpers to complain?

            That’s the same with the situation we’re talking about. A baby’s heart beats within 3-4 weeks of conception. The average woman finds out she is pregnant around that same time. Not doing anything about it because it’s not your baby, or the baby of someone you know, qualifies as the bystander effect. And I don’t think you would be the kind of man to follow that.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

    I see this website the same way I saw those voter fraud billboards in Ohio. It’s meant to give the impression — to anyone who happens to view it — that an activity that is legally yours to pursue is nonetheless essentially fraught with risk. The erector of the billboard, and of this website, want to discourage you from pursuing that activity. That’s their right. But it’s also the public’s right to ignore it. That’s what happened in Ohio; that’s what will happen in Arizona.

  • Fire and Mirth

    Yay! Thanks for posting this bit of good news re Arizona. Every little bit helps. Even if people aren’t required to view the site, some will, and the truth will change real lives.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.doey.73700 John Doey

    Pro-choice radicals? You mean people who support a woman’s right to make choices concerning her own body and health rather than a group of religious fundamentalists in and out of government? How do pro-lifers argue that people in the pro-choice movement are forcing people to have abortions? We’re not forcing anyone to do anything. We’re leaving it up to the most qualified party in that situation and the only whose wants and needs matter: the mother.

    The only “radicals” reside in the pro-life movement(as they are also the one attempting to make choices for other people) and they are more radical now than they ever were as they believe in no exemptions for rape or incest which up until now were always seen as practical and necessary exemptions. Instead anti-choice radicals now want to take an already traumatized and humiliated woman and degrade her further by forcing to carry and give birth to the child of a sociopathic, violent criminal who attacked her.

    • Lauren Brown

      Excuse me? Rape victims do have babies for their own reasons. Raping is not a gene – it’s an act. The baby is as much a victim as the mom, and children conceived by rape are horrified that someone did that to their mom.

      Saying that someone doesn’t have a right to exist because of their conception is rude in that you don’t even bother to ask their opinion about it. They’re already guilty about their conception, and they’re so grateful to their moms for choosing to give birth to them, anyway.

  • peach

    Sorry, could you point out where exactly Jezebel says access to information is a bad thing? Their problem with the website is that it presents biased information.

    • Lauren Brown

      Pot to kettle, dearie.

      • peach

        If you’re saying that Jezebel is biased, well, they don’t have to not be biased. This website presenting information about women’s health and wellbeing? Probably shouldn’t be biased.

        • Lauren Brown

          If the women have the option of not looking at ultrasounds, etc., then that’s a fair deal. Planned Parenthood isn’t necessarily objective, either.

  • http://twitter.com/Aqua_Buddah Jason Rowe

    Keep your freedom-robbing, big-government propaganda off public websites. We’re tired of RWNJ’s & their dogmatic bull. Hire a billboard, set up a clinic, ask for donations, whatever, but stay the HELL out of the business of “informing” women. The times a woman goes into an abortion uninformed, most likely a coat hanger’s involved, so spare me the feigned indignation.

  • Pingback: Blog for Life Day: what do they mean by “choice”?

  • Pingback: Democrats conspire to control speech of crisis pregnancy centers

  • Pingback: Democrats conspire to control speech of crisis pregnancy centers | Foundation Life