Amanda Mellet, a 38-year-old Irishwoman, is filing a petition with the United Nations Human Rights Committee to challenge her country’s ban on abortion. In Ireland, a predominantly Catholic country, abortion only recently became legal if it is necessary to save the mother’s life. In November 2011, a pregnant Mellet was devastated to find out that her fetus had Edward’s system, a fatal abnormality that causes mutations to the heart and other organs.
She was told that her daughter may not survive the pregnancy, and that if she did, she’d die shortly after birth. If Mellet carried her to term, she wouldn’t know until delivery whether she was even still alive. She and her husband decided that terminating the pregnancy was the most humane thing to do for her child, who, if born alive, would spend her only few hours on earth in a hopeless struggle for survival.
Her doctors, however, were legally unable to perform the abortion. Keep reading »
I first wrote about my abortion in the spring of 2012. At that point, it had been seven years since my procedure, and something that never crossed my mind. Although the majority of the responses were overwhelmingly positive and other women took to the comments section to share their own abortion stories, those who were against my right to choose were, of course, cruel and heartless in what they had to say. For the next several days, I was attacked on Twitter and emailed threats by religious zealots, and was event old that my mother should have aborted me so I couldn’t abort my baby. (Someone explain that logic to me, please.)
A week later, despite all the hate being thrown my way, I wrote a follow-up piece declaring that I was happy that I wrote about my abortion, because I was. I was just as happy that I wrote about i as I was that I had the abortion in the first place. It was an election year with women’s reproductive rights at the forefront of many candidates’ platforms. It was this fact that made me write about my abortion; I wanted to put a name and face to the issue. I wasn’t ashamed. Looking back, whatever guilt I felt the day of my abortion was guilt that I didn’t feel guilty at all. I had gotten pregnant accidentally despite having been on the Pill, I was in no way emotionally or financially ready to have a child, and abortion, for me, was not just a solution, but a gift. My abortion, in many ways, saved my life. Keep reading »
Fund Texas Women, a nonprofit that helps support women who seek abortions, has warned that anti-choicers are encouraging members of Christian groups in Texas — where abortion rights have just been gutted — to join an email list of volunteers to take women to abortion appointments. But instead of actually taking women to their abortions, the group Abolish Human Abortion warns, “it’s a wonderful opportunity to minister to an abortion-minded woman for an hour while you DON’T take her to her clinic.”
Or, you know, like, kidnapping. Keep reading »
“I am pro-life. I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future. I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.”
Texas state senator Wendy Davis, who is running for governor of the Lone Star State, spoke at the University of Texas at Brownsville on Tuesday and pissed off anti-choice conservatives by reclaiming the term “pro-life.” I’ve always been bothered by the term “pro-life” being used by anti-abortionists because 1) it implies that those who support Roe V. Wade are “anti-life” or “pro-death,” 2) many so-called “pro-lifers” are against abortion even when pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, 3) repealing Roe V. Wade, as many “pro-lifers” want, would result in the deaths of women who will do what they must to terminate pregnancies they don’t want, and 4) many anti-choicers are against government programs that actually support families and allow children a decent quality of life. As far as I am concerned, Wendy Davis’ definition of being pro-life is more accurate than the one anti-choicers peddle because it recognizes the lives that exist outside the womb. [Valley Morning Star]
Wait one second, Fat-Shaming Trick-Or-Treat Lady! Before you claim the Worst House To Visit On Halloween Award, we have another contender! This past Halloween night, some trick-or-treaters in Albuquerque, New Mexico, discovered anti-abortion business card-sized literature amongst their bounty of Reese’s peanut butter cups, M&Ms and Starbursts. The cards are printed with pictures of fetuses alongside messages like “I am not a clump of cells, I am a human being,” “Am I not human?” and “53 million killed.” What a waste of paper! And not just because the anti-choice messaging is crap. I mean, clearly the pamphlets come as a complete disappointment to kids who expected candy and instead got finger cuts. Even a goddamn Mounds would be better! But I can’t imagine any parent who’s actually on the fence about abortion would be impressed by tactics like this. I mean, they went out for a nice evening trick-or-treating with their little Snow White or whatever and ended the night having to explain what abortion is to a six-year-old. I’m sure that really swayed them. [via Jezebel]
Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled that parts of a new anti-abortion law in Texas were unconstitutional and could not go into effect on Tuesday. That part of the HB2 law, which would have been enacted on Tuesday, would have required doctors providing abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic. The presiding judge granted an injunction, ruling it was “without a rational basis,” as patients are admitted to hospitals regardless of who their doctor is.
The Texas Attorney General (who also happens to be a Republican gubernatorial candidate) appealed almost immediately. Late yesterday, an appeals court blocked the injunction, thus ruling the provision can go into effect. According to The New York Times, the court cited a past abortion case when ruling that “the incidental effect of [a regulation on doctors] making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it.” Keep reading »