|Elanor at 9w6d.|
Also known as an "enemy combatant" according to these loonies.
Did politicians across the United States declare a war against women's reproductive health choices in 2011 continuing today?Terrible grammar aside, the answer is no.
These are the facts:Forget the alleged war on women - war has been declared on truth and honesty, if the following is what passes for "facts" nowadays.
They passed HR 358 that would let hospitals refuse to provide emergency abortion care to a woman, even though she would die without it.False. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act already requires hospital workers to do whatever is necessary to stabilize the condition of both the mother and her “unborn child” (the wording in the law) in an emergency room.
They passed HR 3 that could force rape survivors who choose abortion to prove to an Internal Revenue Service agent that they were assaulted.False. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), one of the bill's authors, stated, "The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so."
"They introduced legislation that would force women to have ultrasounds before receiving an abortion."False. An ultrasound to determine gestational age of an embryo or fetus is standard medical care prior to abortion. The legislation in question merely requires that women be given a choice to view the ultrasound as part of informed consent.
In the five years prior to 2011, there was an average of 1.2 anti-choice bills targeting women in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2011, there were eight.Ignoring the biased rhetoric (please see my article The Myth that is Anti-Choice), that may be because America is more pro-life than it has ever been before.
Over the past two years, the House of Representatives twice voted to slash federal family planning funds for low-income women [isn't that what Planned Parenthood is for? They're still getting government funds] and moved to prevent women from buying insurance plans that cover abortion.False. The legislation in question stated that "women would not be able to buy plans that cover abortion using money from President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." As long as their own money is used, there's no restriction.
Twenty-six states enacted one or more anti-choice measures in 2011—twice as many as in 2010. One of the five new anti-choice laws in Kansas almost forced the state’s three abortion providers to close.They neglect to mention that the legislation in question "ban[s] sex-selection abortion, uphold[s] the civil rights of the unborn throughout gestation to match their protection in criminal law, and protect[s] the rights of parents to accurate medical information about childbirth."How dare you, Kansas!
South Dakota became the first state to enact a law that forces a woman to undergo an in-person lecture from an anti-choice “crisis pregnancy center” before accessing abortion care. A judge blocked the law; however, the state’s governor is requesting $750,000 in taxpayer funds to defend this law in court.Nice scare quotes around CPC. How dare women be given accurate information about their options from people actually equipped to help them! Why would you be opposed to women being informed of all their options before making a "choice"?
South Dakota also considered a bill justifying homicide in the case of imminent harm to a fetus. Would this bill legitimize the murder of individuals who provide abortions?No, it would not, as reading the actual legislation would tell you:
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows: 22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being.As the author of the bill stated: "'This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide. [...] If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion.'"
Arizona’s law that allows churches to refuse to include contraceptive coverage in insurance policies for workers was expanded to provide a similar right to any “religious affiliated employer." That is defined as any company whose articles of incorporation say it is a religiously motivated organization whose beliefs are central to its operating principles. And while the goal is to cover things like Catholic hospitals, others worry it opens the door to any firm making a similar declaration.The free exercise of religion is a bad thing? Have these people even read the Constitution?
In addition, HB 2036 passed both houses of the legislature and was signed into law by the governor. It outlaws all abortions after 20 weeks because of pain supposedly experienced by fetuses after that time."Supposedly" experienced? Why are pro-abortion activists anti-science? Did they not read the testimony of the medical professionals who testified in support of the legislation? And really, all of the pro-abortion activists who testified against the bill stated that "we can't know for sure" if a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution when it comes to torturing the unborn prior to killing them?
Of all the anti-choice legislation enacted by state legislatures, the bill that passed in Virginia created the loudest, most vehement response. This bill required any woman seeking an abortion to undergo a vaginally inserted sonogram probe prior to receiving the abortion. The national outcry caused the bill to be changed.The bill was changed so that an abdominal ultrasound can be performed instead. Apparently pro-abortion activists are opposed to giving women comprehensive and reliable medical care prior to an abortion. A transvaginal ultrasound is simply the gold standard of care prior to an abortion, because it accurately determines the number, location and age of the unborn child -- factors which, if unknown, can cause potential complications during or after an abortion procedure.
The new Affordable Care Act requires contraception and other preventative women’s health care to be offered free to all U.S. women. The opposition claimed that first amendment rights to religious freedom were at stake.Indeed, they are.
As a compromise, churches and religious institutions were exempted; however, insurance providers to Catholic hospitals and similar organizations were required to cover the cost of contraception.It's not a compromise at all, and the definition of "religious institutions" is so narrow as to be farcical. Under their definition, the Eternal World Television Network (an organization whose stated mission is "to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ world wide not just through television but also through short wave radio, AM/FM radio, and the Internet") is NOT a religions institution. Nor is Priests for Life. Nor are private Catholic colleges such as Belmont Abbey. None of these organizations, incidentally, receive government funding.
Since the introduction of the birth control pill in the early 1060s and the legalization of abortion in 1973, women in America give birth to fewer children. Women tend to marry and have children later, increase their educational achievements, and participate more fully in the work force. The economy benefits by their positive health outcomes, lifetime earnings and political participation.Regarding the falling birthrate, even the New York Times admits this is not a good thing, and it's not benefiting our economy. Further, abortion and contraception are not necessary for a woman to increase educational achievements, etc. Practicing chastity and personal responsibility can enable women to do the same.
Do the legislative enactments noted above result in moving the clock back to a much earlier time when women’s choices were curtailed and involuntary motherhood frequently resulted?Apparently, these pro-abortion activists are not aware that feminists such as Susan B. Anthony considered abortion to be abhorrent and an affront to women everywhere.
Moreover, "involuntary motherhood"? Seriously? If you don't want to be a mother, don't have sex. Simple as that. Or, in the case of women who become pregnant due to rape or incest, adoption is an option that does not subject one to "involuntary motherhood". Involuntary pregnancy, perhaps, but that's an issue of justice, in that it's not fair to punish a child for the crimes of its biological father (not to mention that all abortion legislation currently enacted does contain exemptions in the cases of rape and incest, so it's really a red herring).
I am not surprised that pro-abortion activists must turn to lies to garner sympathy, as the facts are not on their side.
This is awesome. Great post!!ReplyDelete
I think this post is great, but I do think the last paragraph leaves your argument wide open to pro-abortion folks: involuntary motherhood can indeed be a consequence of rape. I've seen it happen often that a pro-lifer will make the same argument (and in most situations it's entirely accurate), but then a pro-abortionist will respond that we must lack compassion for rape victims (and then that gets translated to all women.) Obviously that's not true, but it lets them frame the debate their way.ReplyDelete
A fair point; I'll amend my last paragraph accordingly.Delete
Hey, don't confuse them with the facts! It gets in the way of their mission.ReplyDelete
You Go Girl!ReplyDelete
Way to spread the truth. Great job, JoAnna.ReplyDelete
I had to quit Twitter because of all of the "war on women" tweets that have been going around recently. My blood pressure was taking a serious hit...ReplyDelete
"South Dakota became the first state to enact a law that forces a woman to undergo an in-person lecture from an anti-choice “crisis pregnancy center” before accessing abortion care."ReplyDelete
Did the author's mean to say 'in-prison' because your mentioning it doesn't make sense to me otherwise.
I'm not aware of the laws over there, which is why I'm asking all confused like.
The answer is, I misread "in person" as "in prison." Oops. Thanks for pointing it out. It's fixed.Delete