“Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount … I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re not going to give her any more money. But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer.”
Republican Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky is making it his personal mission to shame moms on welfare for continuing to get pregnant. Sen. Paul, who has a decent shot at the 2016 Republican nomination, wants to put a cap on the government benefits for which low-income mothers are eligible. His aim is to dis-incentivize mothers by economically punishing them for having a number of children that is over his ambiguous personal threshold of what he considers to be “too many.” Basically, he’s fairly certain that the way to save the United States’ future is for women to keep their legs closed. (Oh, you didn’t think he supported reproductive rights, did you? HAHAHAHA. Rand opposes abortion unilaterally, even in the cases of incest or rape.) Keep reading »
A shameful, sad and gruesome chapter in Texas’ history is finally over: a judge ordered a Fort Worth hospital to remove Marlise Munoz from life support.
Munoz, who was pregnant with her second child, has been brain dead since November, when she apparently suffered a pulmonary embolism. Despite the 32-year-old’s own wish (supported by her husband) not to be kept on a ventilator, John Peter Smith Hospital refused to remove her because of the fetus inside her. The hospital feared running afoul of a 1999 Texas law which states “life-sustaining treatment” cannot be removed from a pregnant woman, despite the woman’s own wishes. Keep reading »
Yesterday, the family of Marlise Munoz filed an emergency motion against the Texas hospital asking them to take her off life support so they can bury her body. Thirty-three-year-old Marlise, who apparently suffered a pulmonary embolism in November, did not want to be kept alive on machines. Her wishes, and those of her husband and parents, are not being respected, though. The Forth Worth hospital where she is being kept believes it is following a state law by keeping her body functioning in order to keep her now 22-week-old fetus alive. Keep reading »
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is set to begin hearing arguments on the subject of abortion. But it’s not reproductive rights, per se, that the Court will be hearing about: this time it’s a matter of clinic safety.
McCullen vs. Coakley is a lawsuit against a 2007 Massachusetts law that forbids anti-abortion protesters from entering a buffer zone of 35 feet in front of the entrances and exits of clinics. Under the law, anti-abortion protesters — known for their intimidating and harassing behavior — must do all their prosthelytizing and praying from outside of a yellow line painted on the side walk, allowing clinic patients and their escorts to pass freely into and out of the facility. Protesters say this is a violation of the First Amendment.
Find out more about what the Supreme Court will be determining in McCullen vs. Coakley, after the jump: Keep reading »