When Anti-Choicers Choose

-->
abortion

It appears today is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Here’s an eye-opening page of accounts of what happens when an abortion clinic picketer encounters an unwanted pregnancy. They want an abortion, of course, but they think their case is “different.”

Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique — not like those “other” women — even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call “sluts” and “trash.” Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for “convenience”.

I remember reading about an abortion provider who said that whenever a woman came to her for abortion and said, “I’m not one of those women who gets abortions,” the doctor said “Oh, OK, I don’t guess you need me then.” And the woman would be refused treatment. That sounds harsh, but on the page linked it says that anti-choice women who get abortions will sometimes turn around and sue the clinic for some trumped up reason.

Share
9 Comments

9 Comments

  1. c u n d gulag  •  Jan 22, 2014 @4:38 pm

    God’s and Jesus’ special anti-abortion Christian snowflakes can’t possibly be like the sluts, skanks, whores, and ho’s!
    They’re God’s special Christian snowflakes!!!
    Besides, THEY have legitimate reasons!
    Not like THOSE cheap sluts, skanks, whores, and ho’s!!!!
    THEY, just wantonly had sex.
    God’s special Christian snowflakes, had an accident.

    And of course they’re more liable to sue!
    They’re more liable to have the means to get a lawyer, than other, poorer, women.
    Plus, they’re always the aggrieved victims – so, why not sue?
    Surely, they’re the victims of Something!!!

    These women are the ultimate hypocrites.
    Sadly, they’re incapable of self-reflection, or shame.

  2. moonbat  •  Jan 22, 2014 @5:27 pm

    It’s truly amazing how conservatives (or people who have been brainwashed into being conservative) compartmentalize.

  3. uncledad  •  Jan 22, 2014 @7:00 pm

    Since I’m a dude I stay out of this for the most part, I do believe Roe v Wade was the right decision and should be upheld and enforced. I cannot however understand why someone would brand themselves anti-choice, it seems really dumb? Pro-Life, Pro-Choice why not one of those?

  4. Doug  •  Jan 22, 2014 @9:30 pm

    The big picture (as I see it) is that the GOP, by the demographics of the electoral college, can’t win the White House. That means a democrat in the WH will make the nominations to the USSC for the foreseeable future. Roe v. Wade isn’t in jeopardy, but we need a USSC that will slap down the excessive restrictions placed on providers and clinics at the state level in a back-door attempt to prohibit abortion. A very hypothetical (i admit) decision by a liberal USSC on women’s rights could set a precedent which prohibits nullification attempts at the state level on other issues (like voting rights). Once a federal law is passed and affirmed by the USSC, laws at the state level which undermine the intent of the federal law could and should should be struck down by federal courts before they go into effect.

  5. Mike G  •  Jan 23, 2014 @2:58 am

    The big picture (as I see it) is that the GOP, by the demographics of the electoral college, can’t win the White House.

    Their next step is to change as many states as they can, where they lose electoral college votes in winner-take-all systems, into proportional representation; then gerrymander the crap out of districts.

  6. Bill Bush  •  Jan 23, 2014 @8:58 am

    @Mike G — I think that strategy is clearly already in operation. I’ve read several reports saying that districts are already drawn so that very few legislative seats are really competitive. Wish I kept track of good articles better than I do, and I’d cite a source.

  7. sluggo  •  Jan 23, 2014 @10:33 am

    Picture this country when a democratic gets 55% of the presidential vote and still loses the election. Pretty much the end of democracy. Just what the republicans want.

  8. c u n d gulag  •  Jan 23, 2014 @10:35 am

    sluggo,
    As I’ve said before – Conservatives don’t want to govern.
    They want to RULE!
    And to get to that point, the end will justify the means.
    It’s in the Bible – sort of. And least according to OUR uber-Christians!

  9. polyblog  •  Jan 26, 2014 @7:44 pm

    I think it’s unfortunate when men say they want to stay out of this conversation. I can certainly understand it, but there’s always the, “I support a woman’s right to control her own body.” It would help so much, dontchathink?



    About this blog



    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me


















    Support This Site







    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile