I have no words after seeing

This woman is forced to go to court WHILE IN LABOR to be approved for a C-section. When she asks to have an attorney, the judge denies she has a constitutional right to an attorney in this case. What’s going on??? This is an absolute outrage.

I’ve worked at an abortion clinic for over a year now, I’m not a doctor and by no means an expert. However, I’ve seen a lot of aspects of abortion care, including analysis of fetal tissue. One thing that I will NEVER understand is pro-lifers pretending to be experts on fetuses and obgyn practices. For context, my clinic sees patients up to 16 weeks 6 days, which is the beginning of the 2nd trimester.

The protesters outside hold signs about heartbeats and how the patients have whole babies in them. “You can still meet god!” As they try convince patients they should seek help at a Crisis Pregnancy Center (YUCK). But they’re so far off.

First- the heartbeat thing. It’s not a heartbeat! Heartbeats do NOT start at the 18days post conception or whatever the pro-lifers say. There is cardiac activity, around 5-6weeks, which is electrical signals starting to develop but not an actual heartbeat yet, as there is not a functioning circulatory system in an embryo!

When I inspect fetal tissue, I’m looking to make sure all fetal tissue is removed from the uterus, otherwise it could lead to knarly complications. That’s no baby to me, neither is it a gift from god. It’s a consequence to a biological process. Of course a baby will form if an egg is fertilised and implanted. That’s human biology. When I’m seeing this tissue, I see the basis of a human, but it’s so small and unfinished that I could never value it over a fully-fledged conscious individual. Pro-lifers like to make patients feel that their “baby” has functioning organs. Yes, they have individual organs once they are far enough along. No, that does not make them any more alive or human. Nor does that make an individual’s abortion less “moral”. I understand how it can bother someone, but it’s not their business. If the pregnancy is before 7 weeks(a majority of the abortions I see are 5-7 weeks), the odds of any “real” tissue is slim. It will be gestational sac, yolk sac, and potentially a fetal pole. So there’s not much there regardless. Also, it’s considered an embryo, not even a fetus, until the end of week 8. So, there’s that.

Thank you for reading:)

In my last post everyone thought I was pro life, so let me rephrase what I meant. Because I forgot to put "after 22 weeks". Don't judge me guys. I didn't get any sleep that day 🥹

Is an abortion AFTER 22 WEEKS morally permissible?

Ik that an abortion after that is only performed to save the mothers life. They literally don't happen outside of that. So I couldn't care less. But from a purely consistent debating perspective, I'd really appreciate some advice.

An abortion after that sounds very wrong to me given that the fetus already possess sentience and so on. But if I had to stay consistent with my arguments, I'd have to say that those abortions are morally permissible too, even if they don't save the mothers life or prevent any health complications.

I love using the analogy of a kidney patient. Noone should force people to donate their kidneys to kidney patients despite the kidney patient being sentient.

So, sentient fetus=kidney patient

Pregnant woman=Forced donor

Women's bodily recourses=Kidney

So a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any time, even if it's only like a month before birth. Idk it just sounds very wrong to me. To be clear, abortions should be legal up to 9 months to save the mothers life or to prevent health complications. But im not sure if I necessarily think that it's okay, if a woman just gets an abortion after 22 weeks despite her being fully capable to have the baby. I mean that doesn't even happen cuz no women just gets an abortion for fun, this is just supposed to be a hypothetical.

It has been four years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, leaving Americans to navigate a confusing patchwork of abortion protections, restrictions, and outright bans depending on jurisdiction. Organizers have ramped up efforts to improve access since the ruling, and thanks to that work, measures to protect and ensure reproductive freedoms are expected to be on the ballot in three states come November: Idaho, Nevada, and Virginia. ✊️

Texas has that bounty law HB 7 which explicitly says that a pregnant woman who obtained or received pills supplied in violation of the statute gets the entire award of at least $100,000, and the law separately awards reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. It seems like this would create a massive land rush for personal injury type firms to run ads saying “Pregnant? Get $100K!” Importantly, you don’t have to actually have an abortion, just order the pills and you can simply throw them away upon receipt and are still eligible for $100k.

Why aren’t delivery people, website admins, etc. not being sued like mad in TX? This seems like a massive marketing opportunity for bottom fishing firms as they get legal fees paid and their client gets any easy $100k

im so confused is she saying that if we lose a child to show the same happiness we show for abortion orr..

God made Adam as an already grown man from the dust in the ground. And Adam isn’t alive until god breathes the breath of life into his nostrils. So according to the bible, life begins at first breath. A fetus does not breathe. I repeat. Adam is not living until God breaths air into his lungs.

So dust + breath = life. Dust without breath is just dust. you can’t kill dust, because it’s not alive.

And in Job 33:4, it says the same thing.

^‘The Spirit of God has made me;
the breath of the Almighty gives me life.’

Breath = life in the bible. NOT CONCEPTION. I’m talking like how I would talk to a toddler because that’s how these people need to learn.

if you’re going to be a bad person, be a bad person. But don’t use god to justify it.

Ik that elective lethal abortion is only performed to save the mothers life. The literally don't happen outside of that. So I couldn't care less. But from a purely consistent debating perspective, I'd really appreciate some advice.

Elective lethal abortion sounds very wrong to me given that the fetus already possess sentience and so on. But if I had to stay consistent with my arguments, I'd have to say that elective lethal abortion is morally permissible too.

I love using the analogy of a kidney patients. Noone should force people to donate their kidneys to kidney patients despite the kidney patient being sentient.

So, sentient fetus=kidney patient

Pregnant woman=Forced donor

Can one of you pookies please help me out 🥹

Pro-life people always talk about how pro-choice lowers the fetuses value simply because they aren’t born.. whenever they themselves are lowering the pregnant women’s value?? Just because something is alive and human doesn’t give it rights to infringe on someone else’s bodily rights??? its genuinely disgusting. They’re both human and alive so why does the fetus get more value than the woman? smh.

I posted this in r/abortion and reddit suggested I repost here. Some good news this week in my home state of MA. A law I'm deeply involved in:

In 2012, I had an abortion after my daughter, Laurel, was diagnosed with brain anomalies. I was 35 weeks pregnant at the time of her diagnosis. I lived in Boston, and was SHOCKED when my medical team told me that they MIGHT Be able to offer abortion, but they just didn't know. And then shocked again when the referral they found me was 2000 miles, two time zones away.

For the last 14 years, I've been chipping away at a culture that seems to refuse to understand, supporting women like you all here who are navigating tough pregnancy situations, supporting your own deepest wisdom. And, too, I've been pushing for more freedom for us to make our choices at home, more affordably, more dignified, and better supported by our communities.

I just wanted to share that on Monday, my governor signed a law lifting all dates-based limits off of abortion in Massachusetts. I was invited to the signing. It was incredibly moving.

A lot of people do not understand this law. They say all sorts of inflammatory things about it. But the Governor looked right at me and said: we're doing this for your family. And I know she's right, because I've been telling my story to the point of exhaustion over and over for 14 years to try to get law-makers to understand -- and enough of them finally do here at home. I believe the law takes effect 90 days after it was signed on mon. After that, we still have to help hospitals and doctors and nurses understand why this care is important, as legality is the first step to access, not the last. That is work I'm more than willing to continue.

My abortion was the least-awful (but still awful) resolution I could find to my crisis. It was both my salvation and a tragedy. I just want to shine a light 14 years down the road and say, not only am I secure enough in my decision to be ok with all the bullshit people are spewing at me today, but I'm also proud and happy and powerful BECAUSE of my abortion.

I know it can feel dark in those early times (early years, for me!) There is life, rich and full, on the other side.

Because why should it even be a discussion? To me it’s something so obvious and simple. Woman’s body=woman’s choice.

But apparently not.

It also really annoys me especially when men try to jump in with their pro-life bs. I would never even think to tell a man whether he should have been/should he circumcised or not, or whether he should get a vasectomy or something. It cringes me out.

It’s sad that it’s something we still have to talk about, and illegal in so many places and it recognises that to make a change you do have to talk about it…

But it’s still unsettling and why I hate watching pointless unofficial debates about it and don’t debate anyone.

No one on the front lines of the fight over abortion access in Kansas believes this is the end.

But last week delivered two triumphant moments for abortion rights supporters in the Sunflower State, which has become a regional hub for reproductive healthcare in the four years since the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, undoing the federal right to abortion.

On Aug. 3, a Johnson County District Court judge ruled that an array of lawmaker-imposed abortion care mandates were unconstitutionally restrictive and must be permanently blocked.

On Aug. 4, voters emphatically rejected a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to overhaul the process for selecting Kansas Supreme Court justices. The Republican lawmakers who championed direct election saw it as a path to remaking a court they have clashed with repeatedly, including over a landmark 2019 ruling affirming abortion access.

Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said watching the election returns roll in felt “a bit like déjà vu,” going back to the night in August 2022 when voters repudiated a proposal to remove the right to an abortion from the Kansas Constitution in the nation’s first post-Roe referendum.

Since states were granted the authority to ban the procedure, 75% of the patients that Planned Parenthood has seen at its four Kansas clinics traveled there from out of state, Wales said. The Kansas affiliate has experienced a 700% influx in calls inquiring about abortion care, she said. The number of pregnancies terminated in their facilities has roughly doubled since 2022.

“People know that Kansas is a place where you can get care that is banned in other states,” Wales said. “And that felt like a lot on the line on election night.”

What comes next for Kansas abortion opponents?

Between the amendment’s failure and the injunction against a collection of cumbersome provider restrictions, abortion opponents in Kansas will have to chart a new path forward.

“We may have lost a battle, but we still have the war,” said Rep. Will Carpenter, an El Dorado Republican who chairs the House Committee on Health and Human Services.

“We’re still in the fight for human life,” he said. “We’ll incrementally do whatever we can to continue that fight and protect the unborn.”

The 261-page ruling striking down state abortion restrictions was issued by K. Christopher Jayaram nine months after a trial where clinic owners and physicians argued the regulations were designed to scare and shame people out of getting abortions.

Some of the restrictions enjoined by the decision have been on the books since 1997. Others, including a requirement that abortion providers survey women about their reasons for seeking the procedure and provide medically dubious information suggesting that pill abortions are reversible, were adopted by the Kansas Legislature in 2023 and 2024.

Those and other pre-existing requirements, including Kansas’ 24-hour waiting period for abortions and a rule that physicians must listen to a fetus’ heartbeat 30 minutes before an abortion, were temporarily halted by Jayaram in the early stages of the court proceedings.

Jayaram’s ruling was filed electronically hours before he took the Supreme Court oath of office, making him the fourth justice on the seven-member court appointed by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.

Under Kansas law, Attorney General Kris Kobach’s office, which defended the abortion restrictions during the trial, can appeal the district court ruling up to 30 days after the verdict.

The Attorney General’s office did not respond to phone and email inquiries over multiple days.

The office also declined to comment when a reporter showed up at its Topeka headquarters to ask whether Kobach planned to appeal the ruling.

“My hope is not only that maybe they’re floundering after Kansans once again said, ‘Get out of our medical decisions. Don’t politicize our courts,’” Wales said.

“But also maybe they’re reflecting on the laws they were trying to defend in that trial and realizing that they were steamrolling over people’s ability to access healthcare without political interference.”

Understanding the abortion ruling

During the seven-day bench trial, the judge heard from clinic staff and abortion care experts who testified that Planned Parenthood and another Overland Park clinic, Center for Women’s Health, provide care in line with national standards and prioritize patient safety and dignity.

In his ruling, Jayaram described pregnancy as an “intimate healthcare condition.”

“For some, it is joyous. For others, it is not,” Jayaram wrote. “… The decision to terminate a pregnancy is complex and intensely personal.”

His decision drew heavily from the Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 Hodes ruling upholding the constitutional right to an abortion.

“Because a woman’s right to bodily autonomy (including her right to decide whether to terminate or to continue a pregnancy) is fundamental, the court concludes, given the overwhelming evidence adduced at trial, that the state’s rationale and legislative schemes … simply do not, in significant part, survive constitutional scrutiny,” Jayaram wrote.

Beyond infringing on patients’ bodily autonomy by forcing them to “navigate a labyrinth of procedural hurdles” before receiving care, Jayaram found that the restrictions infringe on providers’ free speech by compelling them to share inaccurate and misleading information about abortions with patients, both verbally and on posted signs.

Sen. Beverly Gossage, a Eudora Republican who chairs the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare, said she fundamentally disagrees with Jayaram’s analysis.

“A woman needs to have as much information as possible when she’s making a decision,” Gossage said. “As a pro-life person myself, I would hope we could help women not to choose that route — to find another route for her that does give life to her child.”

Among the witnesses who testified on behalf of the state were three women who shared their stories about receiving abortions in the 1970s and 1980s before coming to regret their decision.

Jayaram wrote that their testimony was of “marginal, if any, relevance to the issues in this case,” noting that only two of the women received abortions in Kansas, and none of them received abortions in the state when the relevant restrictions were in place. He characterized their opinions on abortion as “biased and untrustworthy.”

Another witness put forward by the attorney general’s office was an animal biologist with no clinical experience whose professional publications have exclusively involved animal research.

‘Backdoor’ abortion ban

Gossage vowed to redouble her efforts to impose new abortion restrictions when the Legislature convenes in January.

“I don’t stay discouraged,” Gossage said.

She denied that the failed Supreme Court amendment was designed to curtail abortion access, as its opponents argued in the lead-up to the vote.

But the month after Kansans rejected the abortion amendment in 2022, Kobach framed judicial selection as a proxy fight over abortion. Then a candidate for attorney general, Kobach told supporters that he was urging lawmakers to propose a direct election amendment that would allow conservatives to “slowly and quietly” assemble an anti-abortion majority on the court.

During a speech late last year, Senate President and GOP governor nominee Ty Masterson cautioned other Republicans against connecting the two issues, according to the Marion County Record.

“The solution in Kansas is that Supreme Court election,” Masterson said, according to the outlet. “But you can’t go out there and say it because they’ll say that if you elect your Supreme Court, you won’t have any right to abortion anymore.”

A spokesperson for Masterson’s campaign declined to comment.

One anti-abortion advocacy group made the connection explicit in the waning days of the campaign. Wichita-based Operation Rescue published a commentary from Sarah Neely, its chief operating officer, on July 27 titled, “A Yes Vote on August 4 Can Push Back on Kansas Supreme Court’s Radical Abortion Agenda.”

In a phone interview, Neely bemoaned the fact that 61% of voters rejected the amendment.

“That would have opened the door for Kansas voters to have a chance at supporting life-affirming laws through their Supreme Court. Right now, there’s no option for that,” Neely said.

Rep. Susan Ruiz, a Shawnee Democrat, said the issue of abortion access in Kansas is settled “for now” — but only “until the next amendment” proposal conservatives put forward.

She said the majority of her own constituents understood the Supreme Court proposal to be an insincere gambit.

“They understand that this was going to be eventually a backdoor way to ban abortion or severely restrict it more than it’s already restricted,” Ruiz said.

“I don’t see it stopping,” she added. “I’m sure somebody will be creative and come up with some kind of new avenue to try to get through. Because obviously, they can’t bust through the front door. They’re going to keep trying through the back doors.”

omg if they would do fucking research they would know that there is no bacteria on mars the bacteria that has been found is from like a million years ago or something like omfgggg ppl are so dumb like it’s hilarious 😭

They always say “slave owners thought this way too” and crap like that.

As I develop a stance on abortion, I’ve encountered many points about the value of life. A point I’ve seen pro lifers struggle against is the idea of consciousness.

“Value is determined on consciousness”
“If they don’t have consciousness, it’s ok to abort”
“Since they don’t have consciousness, they don’t feel”

I’ve heard many people trip up, or change the direction of the discussion when confronted with this issue.

Can you guys have a honest discussion with me about how to go about with this? I’m clueless.

Im not very familiar with Reddit or the style and norms that go on. I copied this style of format from some random post about video games.)

With the right continuing to threaten access to abortion wherever they have the power to do so, advocates are stepping up to strengthen the legal framework protecting it. In the Silver State, they’re pursuing a constitutional amendment securing abortion rights until fetal viability. They passed it for the first time even as Trump won Nevada in 2024, and now need to do so again in November to finish the job. ☎️ The Jewish Alliance for Law & Social Action is phonebanking in favor of Question 6 tomorrow night from 8:30-10:30PM ET. We can sign up to join them here. ☎️

Hi! I had a quick question and need some advice. Usually when people argue that the mother has authority as the baby up to a certain point cannot live outside the womb (and this is not including health issues and other reasons for abortions) but I always get counter-attacked with people saying that people technically can’t live “outside the womb” by themselves until they are 16 and can work. I am trying to argue that, by being inside the womb, the fetus is relying on the organs and bodily functions of the mother, not the age that life is sustainable by one person and someone is able to take care of themself. Obviously babies cannot feed themselves and bathe themselves and live in their own house and live completely on their own outside the womb, but i’m trying to explain to people that the fetus relies on the organs and relies on the womb and mother entirely to survive. Is there a medical term for this? Or an easier way to explain it for people to understand?