Esquire Theme by Matthew Buchanan
Social icons by Tim van Damme

30

Sep

'We Have No Choice': One Woman's Ordeal with Texas' New Sonogram Law

Reminder: Dan Patrick authored the law that requires women in Texas to receive a sonogram and listen to a description of the fetus before having an abortion.

17

Jul

The absolute best response to, "Why do you take birth control?" My body is mine. It is not public property. IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The absolute best response to, "Why do you take birth control?" My body is mine. It is not public property. IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

01

Jul

On Monday, the Supreme Court in their controversial Hobby Lobby ruling equated contraception to abortion. The problem with their decision is this: There’s absolutely zero science to back it up.

30

Jun

ppaction:

This is about our health and our lives. This is about our fundamental right to have control over our own bodies. This is about justice — and we’re fighting back. If you agree, join Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.

ppaction:

This is about our health and our lives. This is about our fundamental right to have control over our own bodies. This is about justice — and we’re fighting back. If you agree, join Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.

mommapolitico:

writingsarah:

washingtonpost:

The 49-page Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling mentioned women just 13 times.

Unacceptable.

And the majority opinion was by 5 men. Five. Men.

frauleinromanoff:

you know what

i wrote earlier about how i use birth control for health purposes and not necessarily to prevent pregnancy as an attempt to justify it. but then i realized that yeah, there are probably other people going through the same thing and it should be recognized but we shouldn’t have to explain why we use birth control pills. we shouldn’t have to justify it. if men can have vasectomies and viagra prescribed to them then i should be able to take a fucking pill no questions asked. 

26

Jun

I actually don’t have a problem with abortion protesters. We live in a country that allows you to be complete douchebag in public in the name of your beliefs and I respect that. I DO however have a problem when your ‘protest’ is harmful to others and threatens their safety and security. The people who stand outside abortion clinics with buckets of fake blood, holding signs calling women murderers, yelling at children and being general asshats ARE NOT protesters. They are bullies. This is not about free speech. It’s about safety. It’s about privacy. It’s about allowing people to make their own decisions about their bodies without harassment or ridicule. You don’t have to agree with their decision and there is a time and a place for you to voice that disagreement, but outside a medical building is not it. The First Amendment does not give you the right to stand between a person and their doctor. It does not give you the right to intimidate or to threaten. What happens outside of abortion clinics across the country on a daily basis is a gross misrepresentation of the First Amendment.

opinionessoftheworld:

If the U.S. Supreme Court can have a buffer zone of 252-by-98-feet, why can’t clinics have a buffer zone?

opinionessoftheworld:

If the U.S. Supreme Court can have a buffer zone of 252-by-98-feet, why can’t clinics have a buffer zone?

The Supreme Court ruled today that a Massachusetts law that created buffer zones around abortion clinics in an attempt to protect patients is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. 

The lead opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in McCullen v. Coakley went to considerable lengths to suggest ways that cities or states could pass new laws to protect patients’ access to abortion facilities.  But all of those approaches, it appeared, would be to thwart actual obstruction, physical intrusion, or actual intimidation of patients, not the kind of “counseling” that the Court found threatened by the Massachusetts law.
What the First Amendment does protect, the Roberts opinion made clear, is gentle persuasion, at least when that is carried out on the public sidewalks and roadways next to an abortion facility.  Citing data by abortion foes who insist they engage only in benign counseling, the Chief Justice said they have had “far less frequent and far less success” in getting even to talk to patients personally or hand them literature since the buffer zone was imposed.
“It is no answer,” the Chief Justice wrote, “to say that [abortion counselors] can be seen and heard by women within the buffer zones.  If all that the women can see and hear are vociferous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively stifled [the] message [of counseling].”
Concluding that sidewalk counselors working the sidewalks around abortion clinics are “not protestors,” the Court’s main opinion said that “they seek only to inform women of various alternatives and to provide help in pursing them.  [They] believe that they can accomplish this objective only through personal, caring, consensual conversations.”
— SCOTUSBlog

For real stories from clinics around the country see @clinicescort​ latest tweets or #notcounseling.

The Supreme Court ruled today that a Massachusetts law that created buffer zones around abortion clinics in an attempt to protect patients is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. 

The lead opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in McCullen v. Coakley went to considerable lengths to suggest ways that cities or states could pass new laws to protect patients’ access to abortion facilities.  But all of those approaches, it appeared, would be to thwart actual obstruction, physical intrusion, or actual intimidation of patients, not the kind of “counseling” that the Court found threatened by the Massachusetts law.

What the First Amendment does protect, the Roberts opinion made clear, is gentle persuasion, at least when that is carried out on the public sidewalks and roadways next to an abortion facility.  Citing data by abortion foes who insist they engage only in benign counseling, the Chief Justice said they have had “far less frequent and far less success” in getting even to talk to patients personally or hand them literature since the buffer zone was imposed.

“It is no answer,” the Chief Justice wrote, “to say that [abortion counselors] can be seen and heard by women within the buffer zones.  If all that the women can see and hear are vociferous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively stifled [the] message [of counseling].”

Concluding that sidewalk counselors working the sidewalks around abortion clinics are “not protestors,” the Court’s main opinion said that “they seek only to inform women of various alternatives and to provide help in pursing them.  [They] believe that they can accomplish this objective only through personal, caring, consensual conversations.”

SCOTUSBlog

For real stories from clinics around the country see @clinicescort​ latest tweets or #notcounseling.