Esquire Theme by Matthew Buchanan
Social icons by Tim van Damme

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.

25

Jun

fuckyeahtx:

wendydavistexas:

"A Texas Story" – Wendy Davis for Governor

Exactly one year ago today, Wendy Davis began her historic filibuster of Texas Senate Bill 5, the most draconian anti-choice law in the country. And in the 12 months since, all of Wendy’s most dire warnings have come true.

Nearly half of Texas’ 44 abortion providers have been shut down. Abortion clinics in rural areas have been eliminated completely. And at least 14 more clinics are slated for shutdown by September unless they can somehow meet the irrational and arbitrary requirements of the bill.

But that’s not the worst part. The scariest thing is that Texas-style clinic shutdown bills are now spreading like wildfire. Louisiana just passed a bill that will shut down every clinic within five hours of New Orleans. Oklahoma passed a similar bill in May. And copycat bills are moving forward in other states across the country.

Huge sections of the country are on the verge of becoming a zero-access zone—exactly as Wendy Davis warned. Can you make a donation to help stop the spread of Texas-style clinic shutdown laws and to protect choice wherever it’s under attack?

Yes, I’ll make a donation to help defend the right to choose, including stopping the spread of Texas-style clinic shutdown laws.

The way these clinic shutdown laws work is that they require abortion providers to follow bizarre and often contradictory regulations that often are literally impossible to follow.

Take Louisiana’s clinic shutdown law. The bill requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital—even though there’s no medical justification for that whatsoever. But here’s the kicker: None of the hospitals in New Orleans will give admitting privileges to abortion providers! It’s the perfect catch-22.

Because of federal courts packed with right-wing judges, we can’t rely on the courts to protect our rights. Too many of these laws are going into effect, so it’s up to us to beat them back one state at a time.

A year ago today, Wendy Davis stood up and fought for women. Now it’s our turn.

Yes, I’ll make a donation to help defend the right to choose, including stopping the spread of Texas-style clinic shutdown laws.

Thank you for helping to make choice real for all women,

Ilyse G. Hogue
President, NARAL Pro-Choice America

15

May

House Bill 1307 will get the same comprehensive review given to all bills that reach my desk. However, it is clear that by failing to include an exception for rape and incest, this extreme proposal would separate Missouri from all but one other state in the nation. I have profound concerns about its impact on women and especially the victims of these heinous crimes.
Statement from Missouri Governor Jay Nixon on House Bill 1307 which would require a 72 hour waiting period between the initial visit with a physician and the abortion procedure being performed.