Floating abortion clinic proposed in Gulf to bypass bans | AP News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A California doctor is proposing a floating abortion clinic in the Gulf of Mexico as a way to maintain access for people in southern states where abortion bans have been enacted.
The idea is to provide a clinic aboard a ship in federal waters, and out of reach of state laws, that would offer first trimester surgical abortions, contraception and other care, said Dr. Meg Autry, an obstetrician and gynecologist and a professor at the University of California San Francisco.
"There's been an assault on reproductive rights in our country and I'm a lifelong advocate for reproductive health and choice. We have to create options and be thoughtful and creative to help people in restrictive states get the health care they deserve," she told The Associated Press.
Autry said the idea is only in the fundraising stage through the non-profit, "PRROWESS" — short for "Protecting Reproductive Rights Of Women Endangered by State Statutes."
The proposal comes as abortion access in the southern United States has been swiftly curtailed after the U.S. Supreme Court turned the issue of abortion back to the states.
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas have had abortion bans take effect. A Florida law, which is in effect after a legal back-and-forth, prohibits abortions after 15 weeks, with exceptions if the procedure is necessary to save a life, prevent serious injury or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality.
Autry said their legal team believes there is a swath of federal water where licensed providers could safely and legally provide abortions out of reach of state laws. For women in southern states with abortion bans, going to the coast and boarding a boat may be closer and easier than trying to travel to a state where abortion remains legal, she said.
"This is closer and faster access for some people, particularly for working people that live in the southernmost part of these states," she said.
Autry said they are still trying to work out many of the details such as where the boat will launch and how women would get to the ship.
All contents © copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
Those backward hick states are bound to pass laws making it a felony to board a boat that goes to the health-care ship.
That would be similar to the laws some of them are proposing to make it illegal for their state residents to travel to a free state to have an abortion.
If the Supreme Court were to uphold any of those oppressive laws the freedom we enjoy in this country would be over.
Prescient Buzz!
Many of the legislators who ban abortions are doing so based on personal beliefs. They seek to control their constituents and force them to behave per their beliefs.
IMO of course.
I have lived in those states nearly all of my life.
In my experience, you have that backwards.
The legislators seek to get re-elected. That's all. As a result, they will pretend to adopt whatever personal beliefs they think will align most closely with the highest number of likely voters.
It is also pertinent that significant numbers of women are strongly opposed to abortion. They are not behaving per the beliefs of elected officials. Quite the reverse.
No where near a majority.
I will rephrase to incorporate the tie between legislators and the voters who elect them.
Those who seek to ban abortions are doing so based on personal beliefs. They seek to control the people writ large and force them to behave per their beliefs.
Bottom line: this is about beliefs (e.g. the level of personhood / soul-bearing post conception). Personhood is clearly not even remotely close to a legal consideration in the first trimester. What remains is the religious belief of a human being (a soul) which must be protected even at the zygote stage.
Medically, we would typically be concerned with viability and the feeling of pain (late second trimester for viability; likely a few weeks earlier for pain) as the point where abortion is significant, so that offers no support for banning first (and to a lesser degree second) trimester abortions.
Probably not, but that isn't going to keep candidates from getting primaried.
They are all based on "personal beliefs", since there is no scientific basis for outlawing abortions.
hose who seek to ban abortions are doing so based on personal beliefs.
Yes, and the grass is green. The number one reason politicians vote for anything is to get reelected. Finishing a distant second is they vote their personal beliefs on each and every topic.
If you think there is a "scientific reason" to permit abortions, you don't understand what the word means.
Which is my point. The banning of abortions in the first trimester (and even the first part of the second trimester) does not seem to be based on objective factors. I do not consider religious beliefs or emotional beliefs to be objective.
One can make a biological case for banning abortions in the late second trimester and certainly in the third trimester. And that case would have the strength of yielding plenty of time for a woman to detect that she is pregnant and optionally end the pregnancy well before this biological line is crossed.
In result, unplanned pregnancies as well as those from rape/incest and the detection of malformed embryos/fetuses can be handled. There is of course a point where a pregnancy is too advanced. Right now we all agree that a pregnancy that goes full term and yields birth is without question too late. Pushing that back to the late second trimester can be supported with a biological argument. Pushing the line further back loses objectivity and becomes purely religious/emotional. IMO.
And of course in the rare cases where an advanced pregnancy has gone wrong and the mother's life is in danger there should be no laws preventing a legal abortion to save the life of the mother.
Ectopic pregnancy.
Next?
Personal beliefs as opposed to objective reasoning based on sound facts.
Since you evidently need me to spell this out for you.
As if that had something to do with anything.
Lol Keep kidding yourself all your beliefs are based on "objective reasoning." Its subjective choice you rationalize to yourself as objective.
You are trolling, Sean. I will explain why. I did not claim that all my beliefs are based on objective reasoning. You are making this personal while introducing a strawman.
Further, do you actually hold that objective reasoning based on sound facts does not exist?
If so, there is no point trying to reason with you. If not, you contradict your complaint.
“…that isn't going to keep candidates from getting primaried.”
The litmus test…a test obfuscated at best by the last three SCOTUS nominees (despite their testimony) and now front and center for every candidate for every office.
Fifty plus years after the original and continually approved decision by the overwhelming majority.
Let those hoping to gain office explain their position and let the voters decide. And let those elected give thanks to the gerrymandering that also grants them a pass.
Why do you believe this to be true? From what I've seen of the abortion issue, personhood is at the center of the legal consideration, regardless of what point the pregnancy is at. If it were not, there really wouldn't be this battle going on. That is why I'm asking for a clarification of your statement.
As long you agree your position on abortion is ultimately based on your personal beliefs just like everyone else's, than we agree.
Are you seriously trying to argue that ectopic pregnancies do NOT qualify as a "scientific reason" to permit abortions?
Ectopic Pregnancy and Abortion Laws: What to Know (healthline.com)
Legal consideration vs. religious/emotional consideration.
Those against abortion even in the first trimester claim that this is a human being (not just human life) at conception. (Of course people vary but you get the drift.) They would like personhood to be legally defined at conception. But legal personhood is currently nowhere close to conception. Legally, personhood is upon birth with strong arguments that this be pushed back to viability.
But this,as I noted, is nowhere close to the first trimester.
Hopefully that clears things up.
nce there is no scientific basis for outlawing abortions.
To hopefully short circuit what could be an wearying attempt at explaining simple concepts, I've attached a guide prepared by the University of California Berkley to help teachers explain basic terms to grammar schoolers. Here's an excerpt on what science is:
To cite "science" as as providing an answer to this issue is simply ignorant.. To make it as simple as possible, science just tells us what an abortion is. That's it. It doesn't claim that its good, bad or indifferent.
I distinguished personal beliefs from objective reasoning. That is akin, given the context of my comment, to distinguishing subjective reasoning from objective reasoning. The two are different and both exist.
Do you hold that all reasoning is subjective or do you recognize the existence of objective reasoning (especially when explicitly emphasized as being based on sound facts) and that it is quite different from subjective reasoning?
My further comments are pending your answer.
That's a moral question. All science does is tell you what an ectopic pregnancy is.
And since surgery to remove ectopic pregnancies have always been and remain perfectly legal, it's not even a moral reason to permit legalized abortions.
Lay out your reasoning on abortion and it will include subjective and objective reasoning, just like those who think differently than you.
Apparently you do not understand subjective vs. objective reasoning. Objective reasoning is not reasoning conducted by a mind that is devoid of subjectivity. It is a reasoning process that uses techniques to mitigate subjectivity (bias, emotion, 'feelings', etc.) and maximize critical thinking.
Look it up Sean. I need not explain this to you; the meaning of these terms is rather well-established.
@1.2.8
That's not true. It depends on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions do, in fact, specifically define an unborn child as a human being at any stage of development.
Cite the law that defines an unborn child in the first trimester as a legal person.
If anything I expect you to deliver a rare exception vs. the norm because if a first trimester embryo/fetus is a legal person then all abortions are legally murder.
The banning of abortions in the first trimester (and even the first part of the second trimester) does not seem to be based on objective factors.
Of course it is. Abortion terminates a human life. That's objectively true.
ne can make a biological case for banning abortions in the late second trimester and certainly in the third trimeste
The only objectively consistent standard is banning all abortions. Selectively choosing a stage of development where abortion is permitted, but at the next isn't, is inherently subjective. It's the same developing human life you are killing, whether it's 15 days post fertilization or 15 years.
Pushing the line further back loses objectivity and becomes purely religious/emotional. IMO.
Exactly, it's your moral opinion based on selectively chosen factors that you give more weight to than others.
Medical science (applied) tells us that an ectopic pregnancy is fatal for the woman. Need I explain this further?
Should people who dont agree with you be forced to agree with you?
Yes. I understand what you intended to convey better now. Thanks. One observation, however. The personhood of the unborn appears to be situational, legally. Regardless of the stage of development, someone who, in the commission of a crime, causes the termination of a pregnancy is charged with murder. That can only happen if the developing life in the womb is considered a person. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the rationality of this. If a woman is on her way to an abortion procedure but is accosted in such a manner that the pregnancy is terminated, the criminal will still be charged with murder, in spite of the pending abortion.
Religious/emotional considerations aside, this makes no logical sense. The mother can terminate because what is inside her is not considered a person, legally, but the criminal can be charged with murder because the child (or whatever term suits you) is considered a person, legally. It seems to me that none of it is due to objective fact but rather, desired outcomes by individuals. That is, what is growing in the mother is whatever it's needed to be for the desired outcome. I'm not sure this would be any better than religious/emotional considerations.
Here's two before I'm out of the As.
Alabama : an unborn child, child or person” as “[a] human being, specifically including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.”
Arizona: " an unborn child at every stage of development all rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents.."
Not at all. I'm just stating an objective fact. The moral weight you apply to that fact is, of course, subjective.
Medical science (applied) tells us that an ectopic pregnancy is fatal for the woman.
No shit. What point do you think you've made?
Most people give that fact significant subjective weight when figuring out the moral calculus involved which is why (since you apparently missed it) surgery to remove ectopic pregnancies have always been and remain perfectly legal. It really has nothing to do with a discussion about legalized abortion post Dobbs.
A human life form vs a human being. The morning after pill ends a human life form too. What is the objective factor that determines it should be against the law to flush out a zygote? A zygote is a human life form that is profoundly different from a human being. Both are technically human life forms but we typically use the phrase 'human life' to mean the 'life of a human being'. You are trying to apply 'life of a human being' to a zygote.
At the instant of fertilization we have a zygote. It is technically the most basic human life form. What, objectively, determines that it should be against the law to terminate the zygote? If you say human life again then you are simply reflecting moral / emotional factors while equating a zygote to a the human life
According to what, specifically? All I see is you making a declaration. And where does 'objectively consistent' come from? You introduced that as a criterion, not me. Further, using your example, one can immediately see another 'objectively consistent' standard as allowing all abortions. Another 'objectively consistent' standard is to allow each woman to decide for herself.
I stated my opinion that the situation becomes more complicated (gray) as we push the line back to more advanced pregnancies because we leave a realm of pure biology and enter into a gray emotional territory. That is not my 'moral' opinion, it is my observation that the closer a fetus gets to being fully formed the more emotions will play on the question of abortion.
So, we can only conclude that you oppose any abortion at any time for any reason. Not rape victims, not incest victims, not 10 year olds, not to save the life of the mother, not because of tremendous fetal deformities (such as missing 3/4 of the brain), can any abortion occur, because they always end "human life". Correct?
In Alabama and Arizona will a woman be tried for murder if she takes the morning-after pill?
You are implying that it is the norm in the USA that personhood is already granted to a zygote and beyond.
That would mean that all abortions (regardless of Roe v. Wade) would be murders.
Wow, what an oversight for all these years.
I quoted you to make the context clear. Did you read that?:
Science tells us not only what an ectopic pregnancy is but that it will kill the woman. That is the objective factor that would favor allowing this particular type of abortion.
Aggressive attorneys in conservative jurisdictions. I contrast those exceptions with the fact that abortions were routinely legal in the USA for about half a century and in all this time the personhood of zygotes, embryos and fetuses never caused women and doctors to be indicted for murder. Either law enforcement is entirely incompetent or the law, defacto, does not consider the unborn to be human beings.
Nothing is ever 100% pure, there are always exceptions. The legal norm has been that ending the life of an unborn is not murder. If it were murder then Roe v. Wade legalized murder and any state that allows even the morning-after pill is legalizing murder.
Life is not simplistic and free of inconsistencies. Yes that is inconsistent. So focus on the norm.
I described a way of looking at this objectively @1.2.8. In short (and focusing on the 1st trimester) biology objectively tells us that the zygote / embryo / fetus has no nervous system, no brain, no functioning vital organs. There is, in short, no way that this entity could survive outside of the uterus as an individual (I am not talking about surviving in a test tube). This is not based on emotion, religion, etc.
Compare the zygote to a third trimester fetus. Objectively, what is the difference to you? Yes both are forms of human life but in terms of personhood, what causes you to NOT consider a zygote to be a human being with legal rights as a person?
That's a moral question.
Nope.
All science does is tell you what an ectopic pregnancy is.
Yet legislatures are ignoring science, this is what Ohio is proposing:
House Bill 413 | The Ohio Legislature
There is NO surgical procedure to 'reimplant an ectopic pregnancy'. They're trying to mandate fabricated bullshit.
Who here thinks that Ohio will be the ONLY state to push for this crazy shit?
If that is true, then please explain this poll:
TEXAS ABORTION RESTRICTIONS
78% of Texas voters think abortion should be allowed in some form, UT poll shows
Lol. The uninformed conclusive declaration without any support.
Lol. How dishonest. Ohio isn't pushing or proposing anything. That's an old bill from 2019 proposed by a legislator that went absolutely nowhere. It wasn't even voted on.
You understand any legislator in America can file a bill saying anything, right?
Ohio actually passed an abortion bill in 2022 that allows surgery to remove ectopic pregnancies.
gee, seems like it's rule by the minority now...
No. Abortion terminates a POTENTIAL human life. You give more rights to a POTENTIAL human life than an ACTUAL human life.
... because thumpers consider a woman seeking an abortion already valueless to them.
They seem to consider any woman who is not subservient to them to be valueless to them.
I'm not sure why you think it disagrees with my assertion. A 54% majority of respondents opposed the idea that "a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice". Fewer than 40% of respondents supported that view.
21% of respondents who identified themselves as "extremely liberal" agreed with some level of abortion restriction, including 8% who said it should never be permitted under any circumstances.
That said, I'm skeptical about the poll.
It's the Texas Tribune. That's like Texas' version of Daily Kos.
It's a University of Texas poll. That's Texas' version of Cal Berkeley.
Predictably, there is a wonderfully convenient lack of information about how the poll was conducted. No mention of who was polled, what questions were asked, or how many people actually identified themselves into what categories.
There is no indication as to why we should think all of these respondents are actually "voters". It seems spectacularly unlikely.
The perfect reply to your uninformed unsupported declaration.
A third of the GOP Representatives in Ohio co-sponsored that bill.
Actually, the bill was passed in 2019 and even though it cites 'serious risks' including among other things pre-eclampsia, it does NOT mention ectopic pregnancies.
third of the GOP Representatives in Ohio co-sponsored that bill.
I'm glad you admit that you misrepresented what happened and that bill went nowhere, was never voted on and is not being pushed by Ohio like you falsely claimed
. it cites 'serious risks' in
You understand that ectopic pregnancies are a serious risk to the mother, right? Does that need to be explained too?
Nope. The Ohio GOP WAS pushing it, proof of that is that 1/3 of the Ohio GOP House co-sponsored it.
Yes.
No.
AGAIN, even though the 2019 bill cites 'serious risks' including among other things pre-eclampsia, it does NOT mention ectopic pregnancies. YOU stated that the bill:
YOU misrepresented what the bill 'allows'.
It is ridiculous solutions this bizarre are seriously being considered for American women to get the healthcare they desperately need due to stupid laws instituted by ignorant superstitious politicians...
Oh goody....this will allow those late term abortions, which the pro abortion crowd doesn't appear to have a problem with
Per the article:
Leaping to the extreme negative instead of recognizing the positive; this is vastly superior to backroom abortions. If women cannot get proper medical care for unwanted pregnancies they will, as history shows, resort to medically inferior means.
Outlawing abortion is akin to outlawing alcoholic beverages (prohibition). People will still behave as people and the law just forces them to go underground.
Contraception is legal, cheap, and likely to remain so, in spite of the paranoid fears of some. I am not against first trimester abortion. Again I ask, why is abortion the standard go to solution for an unwanted pregnancy, instead of greater emphasis on birth control?
1) You haven't been paying attention, and;
2) They are not 100% effective.
You just changed the topic from late-term abortion to contraception.
Of course people should be using contraception. But people are not always responsible. Clearly. I truly doubt a woman would choose to get pregnant and have an abortion (and I am not talking about morning-after pill but an actual surgical abortion) rather than use contraception. Obviously contraception is much easier for her.
One can wonder why people are sometimes irresponsible with raging hormones, emotions, etc. but the musing is pointless. They do behave irresponsibly and women wind up with unwanted pregnancies.
Further, women can get pregnant even with contraception. And then we have rape/incest.
Outlawing first-trimester abortion is irrational and dangerous.
When was the last time you heard anyone PROMOTING or even bragging about getting an abortion? Enough with the trigger words.
there is no such thing as "the pro-abortion crowd". There are only women who believe that they should be in charge of their own internal organs and men who support their choice.
However, there is a rather sizable anti-fascist crowd. The USA has even fought in a couple of world wars to put a stop to fascism, yet it is raising its evil head again right here in America's heartland.
Sounds like a California doctor is attempting to crowd fund a megayacht. There does seem to be several megayachts on the market, at present, so maybe this California doctor can pick one up at a bargain price.
The doctor part is vitally important. Abortions performed by anyone other than a doctor have been and remain illegal. Roe v. Wade only established a right (?) for only doctors to choose to perform abortions as a commercial activity. No one else has that right (?). And forcing doctors to perform abortions would take away that right to choose.
Democrats' portrayal of Roe v. Wade as 'a woman's right to choose' totally depends upon doctors choosing to perform abortions as a commercial activity. So, the reality is that Roe v. Wade established a doctor's right to choose and not a woman's right choose. Without doctors, abortions are illegal.
Democrats' abortion politics is consistent with the party's shift toward free market, trickle down ideas that began to take hold in the 1960s and became firmly entrenched in the 1990s. Free market, trickle down ideas are really about expanding rights for selected elite groups and not about expanding rights for ordinary people. Central planning depends upon coercing and controlling selected elite groups in society so that a benefit can trickle down to ordinary people. Democrats have adopted a top-down approach that requires preventing Atlas Shrugging. Democrats have abandoned a bottom-up approach to governing.
Democrats' idea of a 'woman's right to choose' totally and completely depends upon doctors performing abortions. So, it's consistent with Democrats' third way politics to hail expanding rights for doctors as a necessary benefit for ordinary people.
That's bat-shit crazy.
Really? Only doctors are allowed to legally perform abortions. No one else is allowed to legally perform abortions. And that's the only thing that Democrats want to codify in law.
A 'woman's right to choose' totally and completely depends upon doctors choosing to perform abortions. Roe v. Wade really did establish a doctor's choice to perform abortions as a right(?). The politics of abortion hasn't really been about about the rights of women; it's been about the rights of doctors.
Yes, really.
Why has anti-abortion efforts focused attention on closing clinics and prohibiting doctors performing abortions? Legal abortion depends entirely upon doctors having a right to choose to perform abortions. Really.
Women can choose to seek abortion by alternate means. But only abortions performed by doctors are legal. Establishing a right for doctors to choose to perform abortions really was an expedient way to limit women's choices by prohibiting those alternate means.
A woman's right to choose depends entirely upon doctors having a right to choose. That's the undeniable reality. The anti-abortion effort really has been attempting to take away the doctor's choice.
Doctors are prohibited from engaging in a variety of commercial (and medical related) activities. So, there really is precedent for limiting doctors' right to choose.
Another stupid conspiracy theory.
Most states have laws allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions based on their beliefs. You have this backwards.
Women should have the right to legally obtain an abortion from a surgeon willing to perform the procedure rather than be forced into less safe alternate means.
Backwards how? The cited state laws are protecting the doctor's 'right to choose' that was established by Roe v. Wade. Forcing doctors to perform abortions would take away their 'right to choose', wouldn't it?
Legally obtaining an abortion depends entirely upon doctors choosing to perform abortions. Anyone other than a doctor performing abortions has been and remains illegal. Those 'alternate means' were illegal before and after Roe v. Wade. The idea was that expanding the rights of doctors was an expedient means to avoid those 'alternate means'.
I doubt anyone cares about your ridiculous argument that abortion politics is about the doctors and not women.
I certainly do not and you simply repeating your argument does not accomplish anything.
How does anyone obtain a legal abortion without a doctor preforming the procedure? Everything about abortion politics hinges on doctors choosing to perform abortions. Denying that reality won't make it go away.
Abortions performed by someone other than a doctor is an 'alternate means' that is being used to evoke fear. Democrats' political fearmongering about 'alternate means' protects the doctor's 'right to choose'. If doctors do not have a 'right to choose' then legal abortion would not be available.
Have to admit , i think this is one of the more creative ways i have heard to address the issue , though i dont quite see how it would be financially possible with what it would need to have happen .
meaning , it would cost a crap ton of money that most wont be able to afford .
I think that there are groups who are willing to pick up the tab for this.
Oh i dont doubt it perrie , but how much does a boat big enough to do this cost? daily operating costs to keep that boat afloat and operational ?
the needed staffing with not only the staff to run the boat , but the medical staff needed ?
And those are things just off the top of my head .
But , like i said it is creative .
The practical logistics of this idea were my first thoughts as well.
Since there really isn't that much of a demand for abortions in the USA, I suggest a converted oil rig as a full-scale hospital for oil workers and the fishing and shipping industries that also provides women's health services. A hospital in the middle of the Gulf might even show a profit.
was just thinking,( i know , dangerous, especially since i am unsupervised )
Could always make something like this part of a cruise line package ... they already got the boats , AND MOST of the staff.... ever been on a drilling platform ? not exactly a destination type place if i was asked .
I have a T-shirt that says "DON'T BLAME ME! I WAS UNSUPERVISED"!
One thing is very clear, if there is a demand in this country, a marketplace will be created and buyers and sellers will find a way whether it is for goods or services. We couldn't stop alcohol with Prohibition, gambling by restricting it to Vegas, our war on drugs was a failure and there are plenty of illegal firearms. Abortion won't be any different, patients will drive across state lines or take a little cruise or order mifepristone and misoprostol off of the internet fore home delivery.
Very true, Prohibition did not work, caused more resentment and disrespect for the government and groups that profited by selling prohibited alcohol gained power and are still strong.
Prohibition was a total failure just like banning abortion will be. People are free to not drink alcohol, but not tell other free people they can't.
Now Texas law makers are threating criminal prosecution to companies that pay for or reimburse employees for travel out of state for an abortion.
This also has to apply to anyone assisting travel to a floating hospital ship.
That won't stand up
There's a House lawmaker from Texas introducing a bill in Congress to mirror the Texas abortion bill. It may not stand up now, but the only way to truly defeat these power tripping populists is to defeat them during elections before they actually do harm the country.
‘…before they actually do harm the country.”
It could and should be argued that that has been accomplished.
Somehow in today’s lexicon, being labeled as ‘progressive’ has become a pejorative…totally ignoring what it means to be regressive.
Do we choose to move forward…fully knowing the hard work that that entails and being willing to adapt as required? Or do we choose to cling to the past…fully accepting the disenfranchisement and dysfunction that effects the least amongst us?
We can hope to be better with the former…we are destined to continue to spiral with the latter.
battered around the edges maybe, but the system has held.
Progressives are pushing their own populist movement. Neither party can govern a country of 300+ million people from the fringes.
Clearly this is about them controlling women.
There is no logic that works here other than controlling women's sexuality.
Some will argue that this is about protecting the unborn but it still is a draconian measure.
Those that make that argument almost always oppose the ideas and legislation that have proven to lower abortion. Instead of lifting up women and empowering them to make good decisions they'd rather punish them for having sex (or being raped). Speaking of draconian some state lawmakers want to make abortion punishable by the death penalty.
That is interfering with interstate commerce and will not hold up
Not so sure; we are dealing in a time where the SCotUS actually struck down Roe v Wade ... who knows where this will all go.
ooooh, I can hardly wait to drive up to my first thumper pro-life check point...
It appears the story about the alleged rape of a 10 year old girl might not be true.
If this story turns out not to be true it’s only more proof that our media is a bunch of bumbling idiots who just run with a headline instead of doing their actual job of verifying the facts! Truth in the media, has sadly become a relic of the past.
With the lunatic leftist liberal protesters that have no problem burning and blowing up abortion clinics, does anyone really thing they would have any problem attacking, damaging, or sinking a boat out on the open ocean?
That is an interestingly dishonest take on abortion clinic bombings...
So, you think pro-choice liberals are who has been blowing them up?
It must be pro-choice liberals who were murdering abortion doctors, too. Just insane.
dontcha know, those commie libs will do anything to make trump look bad. /s
feathers will fly, and grow in a oh that is well, i guess. i would have a problem believing there are ones who would be attacking, damaging, and or sinking these Row vs, wading into these troubled waters over concern for our mothers, sisters, and daughters, set on sale, cause out on bail, 3 sheets to the wind em up toy that tears tears right out of i sockets., t
You are an artist !!!!!! Awesome
When did this happen ? I hope you're not claiming false flags a la alex jones.
he probably means those fake medical clinics that thumpers operate to offer 1 option or a guilt trip to the most vulnerable of patients. sorry, I can't remember when the last one "blew up", which makes me sad.
Google the far left extremist group named "Jane's Revenge". It is happening.
That is what he means. He thinks crisis pregnancy centers are abortion clinics.
Yep. He's talking about those fake medical clinics, i.e., crisis pregnancy centers that give fake information and cause delay after delay in help until a woman is past the time period for getting an abortion and trapped into giving birth (forced birthers), and not actual abortion clinics.
Jane's Revenge is an American militant,[1][2][3] extremist,[4][5][6] pro-abortion rights group that has claimed responsibility for several acts of firebombing, vandalism, and arson, targeting crisis pregnancy centers and a Congressional office.[6] It was formed in May 2022 after a leak of the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, which would overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion rights.[7]
And looking a bit deeper:
Your comment was incorrect, Ed. They're not attacking abortion clinics at all. They're attacking centers that attempt to prevent women from getting abortion, lie to women about the risks of abortion (which are far lower than pregnancy and childbirth), and put women's lives at risk by lying to them about condoms preventing STIs.
It's right-wing activists bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors.
Okay, I made a mistake and was wrong on this one and I hereby fully admit to doing so. Did not do my homework like I should have. I will have to try to be more careful in the future. My sincere apologies to all and to any I may have offended.
Good for Ed ... a stand-up guy!
LOL
Why Should US Border Officer ask a question like that?
This goes with the assumption that said incident even occurred. How do we know it wasn't just a invented fiction?
Please see post #10.3.6.
This is QAnon-level conspiracy theory, Ed.
LOL
rachel maddow had a very informative segment on this idea last night.
Satire?
no, but you got the first letter of the correct answer right...
Elon Musk, are you listening?
(How about an abortion clinic in space?)
“(How about an abortion clinic in space?)”
The courts will deem re-entry an issue to be determined by the states.
I'm sure it will work out.
Musk's flight crew is known for providing happy endings.
But then again, Bezos' ship does bear a passing resemblance to a phallic symbol!
So do his cardboard boxes.
with Peyronie's disease...............