THE SAD FACTS:
1 out of every 67 deaths in the WORLD is an American abortion.
1 out every 4 deaths in America is an American abortion.
Half of the deaths in the world are from abortions.
Abortion is the leading cause of death in the world. It kills as many people as ALL of the other causes of death combined.
We have lost more Americans through abortions than we did in all our wars (12 wars) combined.
64 Times More!
The world kills more people through abortion than all of the deaths combined.
22 times as many!
The D-Day Invasion of France (WWII) was the bloodiest in history. There were 53,714 allied soldiers killed in the "Battle of Normandy."
Yet, our world kills more people than that in just 9 hours of abortions.
That's right, just 9 hours!
America has lost 589 soldiers in its first year of fighting the Iraqi war.
The world, however, kills more people than that in just 6 minutes through abortion.
That's right, just 6 minutes!
Now, do you still think abortion is just a small problem that can be ignored?
Who exactly says it is a "problem" ??? Religious hyporacrites and activists who have nothing better to do than butt their noses into peoples lifes and choices where they don't belong?
I thought so.
.... can you cite ANY source that is credible?
I mean, hey, I'm against murder, and I'm against abortions in a lot of instances...
... but you just demand that these are all facts without citing a source.
"Is Abortion - Murder?"
yes,of course it is.
What was the source of your statistics? From the Vatican? They arent't remotely credible. Aborted zygotes or fetuses don't count as deaths in common English usage or under the law, as you well know. You are stirring up divisiveness and hatred and helping to wind up nuctases like the one who murdered the Topeka, Kansas abortion doctor in church. I think he was executed for his trouble.
We have hashed and rehashed this topic several times already. Why do you keep bringing it up? Seems to me this topic belongs on the Religion forum.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Good people disagree about the morality of abortion because we disagree about what defines human nature. First trimester abortions may have absolutely no moral implications whatsoever--perhaps a first trimester embryo is no more conscious than a kidney or spleen. Or they may have more serious moral implications. Our culture hasn't come to a consensus on that yet.
But we know a little bit about murder, and the differences between murder and other forms of killing. And murder, in the way that we define it in all other instances, involves the intentional death of another human person. Even if we were to assume that every embryo or fetus were just as sentient and just as much of a person as any other human being, an argument that is not supportable on the basis of scientific evidence, then the lack of knowledge and intent would still be enough to classify abortion as something other than murder.
Suppose two men go deer hunting. One mistakes his friend for a deer, shoots him, and accidentally kills him. As long as we all agreed on the facts of the case, it's hard to imagine that any reasonable person would describe this as murder--even though we would all know for certain that a real, sentient human person was killed. Why? Because the shooter thought he was killing a deer--something other than a real, sentient human person.
Now let us consider abortion. If a woman and her doctor think they're killing a non-sentient organism, then--even if the embryo or fetus were, a sentient human person, they would not be committing murder. At most, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. But even involuntary manslaughter involves criminal negligence, and it would be very hard to judge someone criminally negligent for not personally believing that a pre-viable embryo or fetus is a sentient human person.
From the point of view of someone who believes that every fertilized egg is a sentient human person, abortion would be horrific. Tragic. Lethal. But it would be no more murderous than any other kind of accidental death.
I would also have to assume that every time I scramble an egg, I am murdering a chicken, right?
Not a palatable truth but bottom line: it is the taking of life whether, for one's selfish convenience because of indulging in activities without regard for possible consequences, or for exceptional medical circumstances where a mother's life might be endangered.
In the case of rape cases, that's a difficult one for pregnant victims but I believe a child's life should not be taken however painful an ordeal it is for the mother to bear. Life is precious and sometimes good things can come from bad things in our lives. But legally speaking, the mother does has a right to abort, but morally it's wrong - that's my personal opinion.
Legally....probably not murder.
I've heard all the "what if the health of the mother...baby deformities...rape victims etc." arguments but it is still wrong. I found info somewhere that these only account for less than 5% of cases. What of the other 95%???? I call it a matter of convenience. But that's my opinion.
Abortion has come close to home, and affected someone very close to me, but in my mind it was unjustified. Most of the time, I recon it's unjustified.
Abortion is an extremely emotive subject that tends to polarize the views of people.I am a middle of the road type on this and feel that it is a conscience decision for the woman involved. Having said that I disagree with abortion being used as a form of contraception which it is in many cases. I found the site underneath quite useful for information on this:-
I have read that abortion was introduced in order to prune back the lower orders in society while helping manicure the economically viable family for the upper classes
I think you are just s@@t stirring with this bloody nonsense. I am slowly losing respect for you, only because of the way you continually push this issue again and again even though it has been fully explored and the answers given.
Putting up red herrings liek the post above is just a poor attempt to keep this thread going - even though nobody is interested.
Has this topic been covered before? I seem to recall everyone coming to a 100% agreement last time, singing kumbaya around the camp fire and having some 'smores.
By setting your argument in the word "murder" you immediately repel those you might be trying to convince.
This is a perfect example of horrific rhetoric, mindless argumentative style and of lame "preaching to the choir" nothingness.
You knew before you hit "submit" that you weren't going to win anyone over. So, if you have no intention of trying to win people to your side, why even bother posting. What's the point, just to whip up people who already believe the same thing you do? That's not solving anything; that's called being a windbag.
THIS thread is exactly what is wrong with communication. People aren't trying to communicate anymore. They just take the most incendiary language and piss all over the crowd instead of making a case based in reason and respect first. Respect the reader and then, having earned the right through that respect, you can move into the pathos of the case and get an emotional connection from people who don't already share your views. Converting people emotionally doesn't happen because YOU are indignant, but because the case you have made is worthy of indignation. You fail horribly here at getting anything to happen that matters.
As it stands, you just look like a zealot. Another screaming face wide-mouthing rage in the tired, endless drone of whipped up activists. Yawn.
It comes to this, those who have had an abortion do NOT think of it as murder, those who have not- do. And those who have never been in the situation of having to decide really has no valid opinion or fact until they are faced with it. You NEVER know how you would decide anything until you personally are there!
But overall, it really depends on when you think this 'fetus' has become a living being. It depends on the scientific proof of life. And It depends on your views of life and death. oh and of course we will throw in religious beliefs because it will come up eventually.
However, you know that abortion is a heated discussion and never will have a conclusion of agreement, so why continue to preach to us of your beliefs? Let it alone...
ProChoice - thumbs up!
I was preaching about horrendous argumentation and the disrespectful rhetoric that poisons any chance of agreement or peaceful resolution.
My stance in what you quoted is not declared. Why participate in a "debate" that is just screaming and chest beating? Might as well just throw sh#t at each other and leap about the cage.
I wasn't referring to your post Shades, sorry I should've made that clear. It was directed at the original.
Thanks for giving a great example of what not to submit.
The Question asks: Is Abortion Murder? that question leaves contributors with the opportunity to say what ever they wish - I have not stated any position.......so dont shoot the messanger just because you dont like the message....which is open honest debate
No, the question does not ask "Is abortion murder?"
It states "the sad facts" in the opening and then makes declarative statements as if they are facts and totally assumes "murder" from the outset.
If the point of the "debate" is for one side to make the case that abortion is in fact murder, in a KNOWN polemical issue, a RESPECTFUL argument would start something like:
I believe abortion is murder and here are my pieces of evidence to support that....
NOT "HERE'S THE FACTS, THIS MURDER THAT MURDER ALL THESE MURDERS ARE ABORTION."
That is a logical fallacy called "begging the question" which I swear I spend half my time in the forums combating.
Which is fine, it's a forum, people are supposed to be mindless and ape whatever their political masters tell them too. It's fine. I just keep wishing there could be more, and so I try to appeal for respectful actual debate not this farcical garbage you posted up top with ostensible purpose of furthering an "open honest debate."
Irish, I think that some people here dont feel able to offer a good argument and so it is easier to attack your thread, I think that is sad, I think abortion is a matter of free choice, however, I also think you are entitled to raise the question and good for you.
Is Abortion - Murder?
(a) Do you feel it is murder? If so, then when in the position to have one, don't have one.
(b) Do you feel you have the right to infringe on other people's rights? If so, then get over yourself and grow up.
(c) Abortion is a situational topic, which is best left up the choice of the individual and should NOT be subject to other people's view.
(d) The Right to Life and Right to Choice is always left up to the mother and anyone who disagrees, needs to mind their own life.
(e) Abortion in and of itself is a medical procedure offered to society as an option- thus giving women a choice which isn't available otherwise and no individual has the right to infringe upon business' right to do business or a doctor's right to offer his/her patients an alternative option.
End of story.
The op says: “Abortion is the leading cause of death in the world. It kills as many people as ALL of the other causes of death combined.”
Well…Mr op…calling a fertilized egg a person is like uhhhh…counting your chickens before they hatch.
Somebody just pissed on the stairs, should we wipe, or just let it dry by itself and step over?
It is a murder .Because no couple can assure the child formation.
Neither abortion nor murder are anything new... they have been happening ever since Cain killed Abel, and ever since women have been having babies, yet the human race survives.
I don't believe abortion and murder are the same thing. But I do believe they are both a vehicle towards the common destiny we all share... death, which is nothing more than part of the lifecycle.
believe what ya want to. I have my own rules. Abortion is not murder in my mind, it is a necessary action, or it wouldn't be around. Murder is the anti-abortionist who bombs clinics.
I would like to know the source of the "sad facts" cited.
And I would like to point out that the leading cause of death -- by a 100% margin -- is birth!
Everyone knows that it is murder, they just choose not to admit it. Abortion is the ending of a life, yes it is a very young not yet developed life, but it is still a life.
Not everyone will ever agree on this because there are those who don't care if it is a life. They have been brainwashed to believe that life doesn't start till when? 24 weeks is it?
Yet the next step is partial birth abortions which does happen in some parts of the world. Is this abortion okay. This is at 40 weeks and the baby is perfectly capable of surviving outside the womb. Is it still okay to abort.
If it is not then why is it okay at all?
I am part of 'everyone' and I know it is not so.
And the brainwashing you have experienced doesn't interfere with your view of life and death much ?
How is it that you are qualified to speak for what "everyone" knows? Do you have a crystal ball or something? Because, that's an amazing skill. You are incorrect when it comes to what I know, but then that is because I am a simpleton and have been brainwashed. My whole life is a big fat lie as I waddle through, insipid and stupid and gullible, just brainwashed away from any reason. It must be wonderful to be as wise and keen of intellect as you are so that you can discern facts from fiction and know so much about truth, while dumb bastards like me just get worked over by anyone with an agenda for evil and stuff. I'm so jealous. Anyway, great post. I am going to go lick my master's boots now and maybe writhe about at his feet in hopes he will hand feed me some morsel of idiocy.
Yes, exactly. Except I think the next step isn't partial birth abortions. I think the next step is actually poisoning the water supply of the whole town. That's what they want, those evil bastards. They want to kill as many as possible. If we let them do the morning after pill, the obvious next step is genocide.
This is a crude example - but I would like to use it - In 1998 a bomb exploded in Northern Ireland (the north) and 29 men, women and children were murdered - it had been planted by 'dissident' republicans (IRA not engaged in the peace process) - Yet - every media outlet across the world declared that - 31 people had been murdered - Including Unborn twins (one young woman who had been murdered was pregnant with twins) - is it then the case that unborn children can only be murdered by a terrorist act and at all other times they are simply 'non-persons' - serious posts please.......
We all have our own opinion about this issue and while I can appreciate your point, the fact is, abortion is legel in America, so, nobody here in America receiving an "American abortion" as you like to point out, is murdering anyone, under the law anyway. Obviously not everyone agrees with this, but that's what makes this country so great, for now at least, we still have the freedom to disagree.
One more thing, my husband thinks like you do... abortion is murder. Of course, he is not the one with the financial means to pay all the child support he owes for the children he made and who's mothers he left. So, I am paying for several of the non-abortions that my husband talked his ex's out of having. The other side of the coin is always who will take financial responsibility and support all these unwanted children that are far too preious to "murder" in the womb, but somehow become so much less important once they actually enter this world? If you're going to make a baby, you better be able to raise it.
What we need is better sex education, better birth control methods, and teaching our young people some morals and values, making abortion unnecessary. But for now, whether anyone likes it or not, this necessary evil is legel in America and until it is no longer, as I said before, no one is breaking any laws or technically killing anyone.
In most states in the United States murder would only apply in the case of a murdered woman pregnant with a viable fetus.
To answer your question about abortion being legal in every state...
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. Noting that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother's current trimester of pregnancy:
In the first trimester, the state's two interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest, and so the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion in any way.
In the second trimester, there is an increase in the risks that an abortion poses to maternal health, and so the state may regulate the abortion procedure only "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health" (defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton).
In the third trimester, there is an increase in viability rates and a corresponding greater state interest in prenatal life, and so the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").
Yes. However, some states have imposed limitations on late term abortions. Most of these limitations have been nullified by the Supreme Court.
Plenty will scream and say, "OF COURSE!!"
But, a fetus doesn't have a heartbeat until 6 weeks gestation (fact), doesn't move until the second trimester (fact) and doesn't breathe until the third trimester (fact). So, you know....
ummm what do they breathe exactly? just wondering.
"How is it that you are qualified to speak for what "everyone" knows? Do you have a crystal ball or something? Because, that's an amazing skill. You are incorrect when it comes to what I know, but then that is because I am a simpleton and have been brainwashed. My whole life is a big fat lie as I waddle through, insipid and stupid and gullible, just brainwashed away from any reason. It must be wonderful to be as wise and keen of intellect as you are so that you can discern facts from fiction and know so much about truth, while dumb bastards like me just get worked over by anyone with an agenda for evil and stuff. I'm so jealous. Anyway, great post. I am going to go lick my master's boots now and maybe writhe about at his feet in hopes he will hand feed me some morsel of idiocy."
Takes a big man to admit that, I'm proud of you.
my Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma lives too, and I can't get rid of it as easy, not at all matter of fact.
It's definently a murder, beause I read some papers and I saw an image of the fetus before the abortion. And when ''doctor'' tried to kill the fetus, fetus was moving away from him. Of course it's not ''move'' like move, it was just a few milimeters movew but fetus tried to ''escape'' from him.
OK. I am gald you clarified that. Thanks. But they have not tasted of the 'breath of life' yet.
The POPE says that the thought of women becoming priests is equal to child rape.......is this about moral authority are we pro-abortion because it is anti-Church and religion
Most people will stand against my opinion but still I need to write what I feel.I if you think you cannot give a sound and secure future to your baby better not to bring it to this world. some people does this through abortion. I don't think it is a murder.
If we all followed that principle - there would not be many babies in the world
Why would you put a post like this up in the first place, talking about abortion being murder? unless it is your pregnancey you are talking about, then other womans choices have nothing to do with you. I see so many cases where woman have had babies in abusive marriages or where they are mentaly unable to cope, and the child ends up being bought up beaten and abused, in worse cases even dying from their abusive injuries and neglect, which is worse do you think? Admiting you cant cope with a baby and having a abortion while it is still a feotus? or having a baby and admiting you couldnt cope after something tragic has already happened to the child? I will leave that question with you, after all you already have all the answers and statistics.
Murder is Murder is Murder...but is abortion Murder?
Yes, abortion is murder. Murder is intentionally killing another human being. A fetus is human. In the United States it is legal to intentionally kill a fetus.
Did you bother to read the rest of the posts in the forum thread, before you left such a comment?
Yes was good enough. Just like I said- I was curious. My point was made for those who needed to understand it, even if you don't yourself.
Since your question- to what post would I like to point? There isn't one, but I'm sure it wouldn't matter either, even if I did point one out.
So once again we have an abortion thread to create arguments
Do me a favor, agree you know nothing of the topic until you have had 4 or 5 and realize it's a personal choice
btw big talkers, let me know which big changes you are making for this cause of murder.
Hypocrites and fools talk this crap as they fear it and are uneducated,
I know not too worry everyone doesn't get me. But I get me!
curious what you've done today towards such a painful sad cause. Nothing? Well sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh sht it, so annoying.
abortion is murder if you ask me. seriously, if people didn't want freaking kids, then they need to practice safe sex or abstinence. Period. Besides, why should a child be denied the right to live just because daddy forgot to use a damn condom or his/her parents were too gullible and stupid not to take precautions. Therefore, guys if you can't practice safe sex, then you need to save it for marriage period. I don't care how badly you say you need it, as sex isn't everything. Think with your big head not the little one.
For those who say, "wait a sec, you can't live your life without sex." Yes, you can. Sex isn't everything in life, and any moron that says otherwise is selling something. Sure, sex can be fun, but there's other great things in life to enjoy anyway. It's all on how you look at it. Besides, if sex was everything, are you going to tell me that on every date your out with a girl, your just thinking on what it will take to sleep with her? is that how you view dating? that's kind of sexist don't you think? personally, when im out on a date with a girl, i'm more focused on getting to know her, as sex is the farthest thing from my mind on a first date.
Anyways, I apologize for getting off topic here. To get back to abortion, i will say this. Sure, we can legalize abortions if we want to, but is it fair for the child? Seriously? Are these children just a damn number to us? Is that all they are to us?
Some of you will say, "what about over population of the planet?" What about over population? there are other more practical ways of solving that if you ask me. One of which would be the legalization of euphanasia, as i would openly condone and support that. after all, the only reason why anyone here would want to keep a loved one alive when they're suffering in unspeakable pain, is out of sheer selfishness of wanting to keep them alive. However, what if the person was in so much agonizing pain during their later years, they begged and pleaded for death. Waiting for it openly. Maybe we shouldn't deny them as that's their choice. I know i wouldn't want to be an old man in a lot of unbearable pain, when i'm old. hell, i might even want to die. besides, we put animals to sleep when they're suffering, don't we? therefore, why not grant people the same. plus, it's the person's choice to die, whereas abortions, what choice does the baby have? none.
Plus another way to eliminate over population would be reorganize how we handle our legal system regarding repeat offenders. Don't get me wrong, i understand our prisons are very over populated, and some of the men/women in there are put in there for crimes they haven't committed. However, it seems to me that if a criminal goes to jail for a THIRD time, then the judge should grant and only issue out the death penalty if that said alleged criminal is guilty again for a third offense. I believe this would bring down our crime rate, as it would send a wake up call to criminals saying if you go back to jail so many times, we won't lock you up. no, no, no, that didn't work the past two times, so we're just going to kill you. After all, if the person didn't learn their lesson the first two times, then the third time they should just be put to death, as it's obvious they're not going to change.
Plus, it would reduce the over crowded prisons AND it would help out the economy as the governments spends a lot of money to house a lot of these repeat offenders.
Interesting article on abortion in CHINA
Maybe instead of pointing fingers on Americans all the time those who are so concerned about the incidence of abortions look at the issue globally. Make sure to note the actual numbers and the downward trend in number of abortions in places where abortion is SAFE and LEGAL.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) along with the World Health Organization (WHO) provides data on induced abortion worldwide.
Worldwide Incidence and Trends
* The number of induced abortions declined worldwide between 1995 and 2003, from nearly 46 million to approximately 42 million. About one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion.
* For every 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44) worldwide, 29 were estimated to have had an induced abortion in 2003, compared with 35 in 1995.
* The decline in abortion incidence was greater in developed countries, where nearly all abortions are safe and legal (from 39 to 26 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44), than in developing countries, where more than half are unsafe and illegal (from 34 to 29).
* Most abortions occur in developing countries—35 million annually, compared with seven million in developed countries— a disparity that largely reflects the relative population distribution.
* On the other hand, a woman’s likelihood of having an abortion is similar whether she lives in a developed or developing region; in 2003, there were 26 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in developed countries compared with 29 per 1,000 in developing countries.
* More than one-third of the approximately 205 million pregnancies that occur worldwide annually are unintended, and about 20% of all pregnancies end in induced abortion.
* Of the 23 million pregnancies that occur in developed countries, more than 40% are unintended, and 28% end in induced abortion.
* Of the 182 million pregnancies that occur in developing countries, more than one-third are unintended, and 19% end in induced abortion (8% are safe procedures and 11% are unsafe).
* Worldwide, medication abortion has gained broad acceptance. At least 39 countries have registered mifepristone, 35 in the last 10 years.
Regional Incidence and Trends
* The most dramatic decline in abortion incidence occurred in Eastern Europe, a region where abortion is, for the most part, legal and safe: the rate fell from 90 to 44. The decrease coincided with substantial increases in contraceptive use in the region.
* Although abortion rates and ratios (the number of abortions for every 100 births) in Eastern Europe have fallen significantly in recent years, they remain higher than in any other region. In 2003, there were more abortions than births in that region (105 abortions for every 100 births).
* The estimated number of induced abortions in Africa has increased since 1995; however, the region’s abortion rate has declined because of an increase in the number of reproductive-age women.
* Induced abortion rates and numbers in Asia and Latin America show modest declines since 1995.
* The lowest abortion rate in the world is in Western Europe (12 per 1,000 women aged 15–44). The rate is 17 in Northern Europe and 21 in Northern America (Canada and the United States of America).
* Because the world’s population is concentrated in Asia, most abortions occur there (26 million yearly); nine million of these take place in China.
* Between 1998 and 2007, the grounds on which abortion may be legally performed were broadened in 16 countries: Benin, Bhutan, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guinea, Iran, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Swaziland, Switzerland, Thailand and Togo.
Two territories and one state in Australia and six states in Mexico also liberalized their laws. In contrast, El Salvador and Nicaragua changed their already restrictive laws to prohibit abortion entirely.
Center for Reproductive Rights
Imagine waking up the day after an election to find that your First Amendment Rights were more vulnerable than the day before? Imagine if your ability to speak freely and worship as you choose changed from election to election? Unfortunately, reproductive rights are subject to such political shifts. Yesterday’s election was not a referendum on reproductive rights, but a reflection of voters’ deeply felt economic worries. But reproductive rights will be collateral damage. The Center for Reproductive Rights’ mission is to work for the day when this isn’t so—when reproductive rights are protected as fundamental human rights that all governments are legally obligated to respect and protect. While we advance that vision, we’re in the trenches today, suing the federal government, states and municipalities when they jeopardize women’s lives, health, dignity and equality.
Here are the results from yesterday through a reproductive rights lens and what they mean for our work going forward. As you know, the political landscape of the country shifted significantly overnight with anti-choice forces increasing their strength in the U.S. House of Representatives, Senate, governorships and statehouses. The House of Representatives likely gained forty-nine anti-choice members with several races still being decided. The Senate retained a slim but diminished pro-choice majority with two races still being counted. There are already members of Congress who would use any means to block access to abortion, and they now have new allies. We anticipate that the anti-choice leadership in the House will aggressively attempt to push through measures designed to stop all health insurance policies from covering abortion services, even for those who work in the private sector and pay for premiums out of their own paychecks. We look to pro-choice members of Congress to be a bulwark against such rights violations, and to the President for his leadership.
While considerable focus is on Washington today, the states are likely to move more expeditiously to endanger women’s health and rights. They were already the primary battleground before this election, although the extremity of our opponents largely flew under the public’s radar screen. In 2010, the Center tracked more than 600 anti-choice state bills. The sheer relentlessness of our opponents was on full display this year in Oklahoma, where the legislature enacted eight new anti-choice laws, four of which were vetoed by now-retiring Governor Brad Henry (the legislature then overrode three of them). In January, Governor Henry will be replaced by an anti-choice governor. Governors in Kansas and Florida also vetoed extreme bills this year. Unfortunately they too were not standing for re-election and will be succeeded by anti-choice replacements.
Not all the results are in from the governors races, but here’s what we know. Twelve states will switch from pro-choice to anti-choice governors. In addition to those mentioned above, they are Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Three states will change from anti-choice to pro-choice or mixed-choice governors: Colorado, Nevada, and Rhode Island. Clearly, the overall landscape has become more challenging.
Since the 2008 elections, we’ve added to our docket thirteen new cases in nine states—a number surpassing similar periods during the Bush presidency. In the wake of this election, we can expect to see an increase in egregious laws, such as the one Louisiana passed this year that gives the state health department the power to shut down abortion clinics without notice and an opportunity to be heard. The health department wasted no time in wielding its new powers: at 5 pm on the Friday before Labor Day, the state closed our client, Hope Medical Group for Women, the only abortion provider in a 200-mile radius. We secured a court injunction and got the clinic back providing services. The case is ongoing, and is a reminder of the critical role that courts play in protecting against abuse of government power.
We will continue to work for the day when reproductive rights, like First Amendment rights, are protected from the outcome of elections. Increasingly around the world, reproductive rights are being protected as fundamental rights. It was expressed eloquently and forcefully by the Constitutional Court of Colombia in its 2006 ruling that overturned the country’s longstanding ban on abortion. The court wrote:
"Sexual and reproductive rights emerge from the recognition that equality in general, gender equality in particular, and the emancipation of women and girls are essential to society. Protecting sexual and reproductive rights is a direct path to promoting the dignity of all human beings."
We look forward to working with you toward this vision in the weeks and months ahead.
Thanks, as always, for all you do,
by MissMelissaK 8 years ago
Since Roe vs. Wade, there have been more than 55 million abortions in America. Does anyone care?How do you personally feel about this number? They say 86% of abortions today are done out of CONVENIENCE. Isn't the number sobering when you think of all the lives lost? This year...
by Sharlee 40 hours ago
Overturning Roe v. Wade would be ‘damaging’ to the economy ... "Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday said eliminating women’s access to abortion would have “very damaging effects” on the US economy, keeping some women from completing their educations and reducing their lifetime earnings...
by Phocas Vincent 2 years ago
Do you believe in your opinion that in the topic of abortion, the US Government should regulate the procedure or should it be a left to the discretion of the individuals involved? (Please keep it civil and clean guys.)
by Jackie Lynnley 3 years ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by IslandBites 3 years ago
Some in the US say there should be a referendum. What do you think would be the result?
by brittvan22 9 years ago
There has been rowe v. wade, etc. Is abortion clear cut murder or do you think there are special cases and exceptions?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|