Abortion

Heretic wrote:

Plus, we all know you certainly don't really support adoption, otherwise you would have.  Like most conservatives, your care and concern for the unborn doesn't extend past birth.  They're just not worth lifting a finger to save past that point, and definitely if they don't look like you.  It's just way too much of an... inconvenience.  

Yep,and they're also the first ones to grab their pitchforks and torches,especially when it comes to minorities,screaming about "babies having babies"

This is awesome:

Indiana women are calling up their conservative governor to tell him about their periods

Quote :

If Pence cares so much about what goes on in their vaginas and uteruses, well, they should probably keep him in the loop. By telling him all about their periods.

For the past week, Hoosier women have been dialing up the governor’s office to fill him in on the details of their menstrual cycles. “I need to get a message to the governor that I am on day three of my period,” one caller told Pence’s office. “My flow seems abnormally heavy, but my cramps are much better.”

http://fusion.net/story/286941/periods-for-pence-indiana-women-calling-governor/

happy jack wrote:

Hope you didn't pull a muscle reaching for that rationalization.

It was a quote. Was that not obvious?

Perhaps you can explain to us your rationalization for ignoring "fetal pain" at every other time during a pregnancy except prior to an abortion.

I wrote:

Where's your research?

Still waiting.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/04/planned-parenthood-exec-slams-hillary-clinton-calling-fetus-unborn-child/

Planned Parenthood Exec Slams Hillary Clinton For Calling A ‘Fetus’ An ‘Unborn Child’

by DR. SUSAN BERRY4 Apr 2016343

A Planned Parenthood political advocacy executive changed her identification on Twitter after she slammed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for referring to a “fetus” as an “unborn child” and saying she is open to restrictions on abortion later in pregnancy.
Diana Arellano, manager of community engagement for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action, tweeted Sunday that Clinton “calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions,” a statement Arellano says “further stigmatizes #abortion.”

@Hillary Clinton further stigmatizes #abortion. She calls
a fetus an unborn child and calls for later term restrictions.



She calls a fetus an unborn child?!?!?
The nerve of her, calling something what it actually fucking is!!!!

happy jack wrote:

I have no problem differentiating, nor drawing a moral boundary, between the pain that occurs naturally in the course of a natural bodily process...

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?  That phrase says absolutely nothing relevant to the discussion.  A heart attack is a "natural bodily process".  So is death itself.  So no anesthesia?  How about any of the painful but "natural" complications that arise during a pregnancy?  What about pain prior to a "natural" miscarriage?  Still a dead baby that makes you feel all sad inside, but too bad for Happy Jr. 'cause there's no hose involved?  So essentially, you ignore pain at all other points during a pregnancy because you want to.  You can just say that...

Quote :

And I’m still waiting for research from you showing that you have done anything other than claim to have proven a negative.

Why? Do you think I need to? Is your understanding of science so incredibly poor as to believe science cannot prove a negative?  'Cause it does all the time.  

For instance, 4+4 does not equal 32. The earth is not flat. The earth is not 6000 yrs old. 9/11 was not an inside job. The towers were not brought down by explosives. Vaccines do not cause autism. GMOs are not dangerous. Unicorns and faeries do not exist. Fire is not cold. Deserts are not wet. Ingesting lead is not good for you. Global warming is not a liberal/scientist conspiracy. Smoking is not good for you. Dinosaurs did not exist alongside homo sapiens. Dinosaur fossils are not part of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Satan. In person voter fraud does not exist in any statistical significance as o warrant photo IDs.  Today's date is not 09/18/1913. A mother's thoughts do not create birth defects. Disease is not caused by bad air. The earth is not the center of the universe. Pilgrims did not watch The Walking Dead. The earth is not hollow. A planet-wide biblical flood did not happen. The moon is not made of cheese. Abstinence-only sex education is not effective. The world did not end on 12/31/1999. The world did not end on 12/21/2012. The United States is not a Christian country. Intelligent design does not exist. The current President is not Muslim, socialist, or Kenyan-born. Our universe is not static.
There is no fire-breathing dragon in my garage.

And fetal pain does not exist, because as previously stated:

I wrote:

[W]e know there's no conscious cortical processing.  That means, just like plants and Terri Schiavo, little Happy Jr. doesn't feel shit, with or without anesthesia.

So just admit what we all can see... Your bullshit has nothing at all to do with concern for the fetus or mother and it certainly wasn't based on any research or understanding of human development and biology. It just makes you feel warm and fuzzy when you think about it.  With the added bonus of punishing the whore.  That's it; that's all.  

Now, is this discussion really going to breakdown into an argument on the meaning of the word "prove", the nonsensical argument that's usually reserved to creationists and flat earthers?

Because I really don't want to have to use your hilariously stupid argument against you...

heretic jack wrote:

Can you prove that abortion is not a magical, mystical fun time experience unrivaled by any other in the known and unknown universe? NO YOU CANNOT. Because LOGIC.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I have no problem differentiating, nor drawing a moral boundary, between the pain that occurs naturally in the course of a natural bodily process... and the pain introduced by an external agent as the result of – oh, let’s say, just for example, let’s just throw this out at random – live dismemberment by vacuum.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? That phrase says absolutely nothing relevant to the discussion.

I really don’t know what the fuck that has to do with anything – I was kind of wondering myself. But, since you were the one who brought it up, ….

Heretic wrote:

And speaking of fetal pain, from that same article:

Quote :

   
“If you’re worried about pain at 20 weeks, what about pain at 40 weeks?” Price asked a representative who kept circling back to the topic of fetal development. “Are we going to ask babies to go through the birth canal still? Is vaginal delivery out of the question? If you take it to an illogical conclusion, that’s where you go.”

…. I thought I would address it. (The part of my quote that you, for some reason, omitted has been highlighted.)
If it truly bothers you to speak of such things, it would probably be best if you didn’t bring them up in the first place.

happy jack wrote:

…. I thought I would address it. (The part of my quote that you, for some reason, omitted has been highlighted.)

I omitted it because it wasn't relevant to my response. (We get it.  You hate vacuums. )  You, for known reasons however, ignored the rest of the paragraph which clearly addressed the line you are drawing at "a natural process" and the logical problems that poses.  

Feel free to actually participate in the discussion.

I wrote:

Plus, if abortion is acceptable in such situations, how do you prevent "I was raped" from becoming the new abortion?

And please, be as specific as possible.  Lives are literally on the line.

I wrote:

Why does the father being an asshole justify someone being "dismembered by being sucked through a vacuum hose"? Why does it only justify being "dismembered by being sucked through a vacuum hose" in utero?  Can we dismember you via vacuum hose if your father does something horrible tomorrow?  Why does it only justify "dismembered by being sucked through a vacuum hose" in cases of rape and not other equally/more horrific crimes?  What if the father rapes someone else outside his committed relationship?  Why are those victims given free pass to "dismember by being sucked through a vacuum hose" but not the individual he's been lying to?  Is your argument really "All life is precious.  Sometimes."?

Please, be as specific as possible.  Lives are literally on the line.

I wrote:

You adopted, right?  I can't remember.  'Cause this certainly couldn't be just feigned moral outrage, right?  Or was adoption too much of an "inconvenience"?  Too afraid of taking only  partial credit when Jr. scored the winning touchdown during the Big Game?  "That's my boy!  Sort of..." Too much of a narcissist to love your children if they didn't look a little like you?

I wrote:

My sister's first pregnancy was high risk, and the doctor ordered her on bed rest.  Thankfully, she doesn't work because her husband makes enough, so doing so wasn't a problem.  But would she be a murderer if she didn't listen?  What if she couldn't listen, stuck working a job that payed too little and different offer the time off necessary to care for the pregnancy?  Or is your moral outrage still limited to vacuum hoses?

I wrote:

[T]hey're exercising their bodily autonomy.  It's the legal concept that prevents you from being forced to donate blood or tissue to another person.  You have that "choice", because you're a man.  Women don't apparently.  "Because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside" seems like a profoundly poor reason to rob them of it.

I wrote:

Where's your research?  The language should be similar.  Or was your crack assessment based on nothing but fuzzy, feel good nonsense?

I wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I support contraception, adoption, and education in avoiding unwanted pregnancy.
What other policies do you suggest I should support?

Good, that's half of it.  But effective policy requires opposing programs that do not work, i.e. abstinence-only programs, lest they undermine such supported efforts.  Do you?

I wrote:

A heart attack is a "natural bodily process".  So is death itself.  So no anesthesia?  How about any of the painful but "natural" complications that arise during a pregnancy?  What about pain prior to a "natural" miscarriage?  Still a dead baby that makes you feel all sad inside, but too bad for Happy Jr. 'cause there's no hose involved?  So essentially, you ignore pain at all other points during a pregnancy because you want to.  You can just say that...

I wrote:

Is your understanding of science so incredibly poor as to believe science cannot prove a negative?  'Cause it does all the time.

I wrote:

Where's your research?

Jump in whenever you want.

It's fairly important you do so.  My sister was admitted into the hospital yesterday. She's having twins, but at barely 29 weeks, there's obviously complications.  Since you, Pence, and the GOP seem to know what's going on in her uterus better than her own doctors, any answers would be extremely helpful, especially concerning any anesthesia that may need to be administered. We don't want you getting all weepy when you think about it, so we're trying to accommodate you as best as we can.  Hopefully she won't miscarry for her third time. Since all fetal tissue must be buried or cremated (because of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with shaming those whores), no one is looking forward to fishing fetal tissue out of the toilet over the next few months if she does.

I'm so relieved conservatives are doing such a good job looking out for the women in my life.

happy jack wrote:

I accept that abortions may sometimes be necessary.

Good to see a conservative accepting Roe v Wade.

happy jack wrote:

I accept that abortions may sometimes be necessary. What I don’t accept is that abortions are cavalierly used as a casual first choice as a means of birth control.

Reality never asks for acceptance. But keep shaking your fist at the sky, Scarlett...

happy jack wrote:

Full page rants are tough to respond to...

They're not. They're not at all. As someone who has been fisking full page mental diarrhea from creationists, geocentrists, flat earthers, 9/11 twoofers, antivaxxers, pro-lifers like you, global warming deniers, conservative sex educators, GMO hystericals, etc. for well over a decade now, fisking an entire article takes very little time at all. All you need is a working knowledge of the topic at hand which should be readily available if you've already formed an opinion on a topic through honest and actual research. Your problem is obvious; you don't. You just regurgitate whatever the latest headline on Drudge was without any critical thought whatsoever and certainly without any thought necessary to defend such positions, which is why you predictably ignore the majority of my posts and rebuttals. It's only after repeated attempts to engage in a discussion that I'm able to display your ignorance with a list of ignored points in "full page rant" format. Not sure why you suggested pills for me; I'm clearly not the one that has difficulty coping.

The abortion debate isn't abortions vs. no abortions.  The idea we can stop women from having abortions is a fantasy.  In reality, the argument is abortions vs. this.

Quote :

The Natural Consequences of Banning Abortion

Here in the U.S. we are already saddled with some of the consequences that of necessity accompany such blanket bans on abortion—consequences abortion opponents are rarely fully honest about. I am speaking specifically about a willingness to play fast and loose with a pregnant woman’s health, prioritizing a fetal heartbeat over her very survival, and about the practice of investigating miscarriages.

Neither of these things are in the best interest of any woman, regardless of her views on abortion, but both are the inevitable consequences of fetal personhood, and neither is talked about often enough.

Here in the U.S. abortion is technically legal (with some restrictions, depending on the state) if a pregnancy endangers a mother’s life, but the Catholic Church’s investment in our hospital system means that this is not always true in practice. There are hospitals in the U.S. today that will let a pregnant woman bleed out rather than complete a miscarriage while a fetus’s heart is still beating. Just because performing an abortion to save a woman’s life is legal doesn’t mean hospitals controlled by the Catholic Church are going to do it.

. . .

All of this may seem extreme, but in some sense it is only the natural consequence of banning abortion. In a world where abortion is illegal, miscarriages are automatically suspect. In fact, in a world where fetuses are considered legal persons, every miscarriage of necessity has to be investigated, just as every death is, to determine whether it was natural or whether foul play was involved. Because abortions are simply induced miscarriages, telling the difference between a spontaneous and induced miscarriage is not always be easy.

On some level, I understand why so many people identify as pro-life. I get it. I grew up in a pro-life home and only changed my position on the issue halfway through college. The idea that we need to save unborn babies from being murdered can seem compelling. But we need to be clear about where laws banning abortion and granting fetal personhood will take us. Republicans reacted with faux shock last week when Donald Trump suggested that women who have abortions should be punished, but the unvarnished truth is that there is no way to ban abortion without creating negative consequences that affect every individual with a uterus.

Discussions of the unintended consequences of banning abortion often center on back alley abortions, but the problems go further. A total ban on abortion would mean investigating miscarriages looking for foul play, and letting hemorrhaging women die on the operating table because a fetal heartbeat is still detectible. The system created by the sort of restrictions Poland is talking about passing is a danger even to women with wanted pregnancies. We don’t talk about this nearly often enough.

And despite some conservative surprise and criticism over Trumps punishment comment, we are, in fact, putting women in jail for having abortions.

At some point, the pro-fetus crowd has to acknowledge the legal reality and logical consequences of their policies.

happy jack wrote:

What other policies do you suggest I should support?

Here's one:

Colorado Contraception Program Overcomes GOP Opposition

Quote :

Funding has survived for a successful contraception program in Colorado after a group of Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in supporting the initiative.

A recorded vote on the amendment Thursday confirmed that four Republicans joined Democrats in killing the anti-LARC amendment, the Denver Post reported.

Both pro- and anti-choice advocates knew that Republicans in Colorado’s senate would offer an amendment this week to eliminate funds from a budget bill for a state program credited with reducing the teen birth rate by 40 percent and the teen abortion rate by 35 percent.

Of course it was opposed by Republicans, because sex and stuff. And because they're stupid fucking morons:

Quote :

During a brief debate on the senate floor Wednesday, Neville expressed his concern about the “use of widespread and temporary sterilization products on women and girls in Colorado.” Such “temporary sterilization,” he said, does “nothing to prevent the spread of STDs.”

“There is nothing to suggest that the psychological and medical risks and costs associated with the increased sexual activity will be managed or addressed by these funds or this legislation,” Neville said.

LARC usage does not result in increased sexual activity, studies show.

Some state GOP lawmakers have said they stood against funding for LARCs because they considered that kind of contraception to be abortion.

“I have no moral problem with contraceptives. The problem is when you kill the child,” state Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud) told the Associated Press in November 2014.

Medical professionals have repeatedly shown that Lundberg’s assertion about LARCs is medically inaccurate.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

What other policies do you suggest I should support?

Here's one:

Colorado Contraception Program Overcomes GOP Opposition

Sorry, can't support this one.
I don't live in Colorado.

It's still an easy yes or no answer, watch:

Yes, if I lived in Colorado or any other state with this program, I would support it.

happy jack wrote:

Sorry, can't support this one.
I don't live in Colorado.

So your care and concern for the unborn is area specific? Do you agree with the Republican opposition to it?

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

What other policies do you suggest I should support?

Here's one:

Colorado Contraception Program Overcomes GOP Opposition

Sorry, can't support this one.
I don't live in Colorado.

It's still an easy yes or no answer, watch:

Yes, if I lived in Colorado or any other state with this program, I would support it.

Yes, but as it is IN COLORADO, I can’t support it.
Do you understand?
How many times, and in how many ways, do I have to say that I am in favor of contraception?

Great!
That means if we had the same program in Indiana you would support it.
Too bad it will never happen because as we all know the republicans in this state are all stupid fucking morons.
State law in Indiana requires abstinence only sex education.

happy jack wrote:

I really don’t quite know how to respond to your ramblings about . . . fetal toilet fishing (what do you use for bait?!?!?) . . .

You should care enough to try and educate yourself since it applies to every woman in your life.

What Everyone Is Missing about the Indiana Abortion Law

Quote :

Several weeks ago the Indiana legislature passed HB 1337, a law requiring abortion clinics to ensure that miscarried or aborted fetuses be cremated or buried.

...

Indiana already had a law requiring women to be given the option of burying or cremating a miscarried or aborted fetus if they so chose, and a law requiring health care facilities to bury or cremate miscarried or aborted fetuses of at least 20 weeks gestation. What’s different about this law is that it extends it before 20 weeks and applies to individuals as well as health care facilities.

...

Clearly, there’s a lot here to make things more difficult for abortion clinics to operate, and both sections appear to be geared at regulating how health care clinics dispose of miscarried or aborted fetuses. This bit appears to be most relevant to an at-home miscarriage or a medical abortion (though it still seems to assume that there is a health care facility automatically involved):

Quote :

If the parent or parents choose a location of final disposition other than the location of final disposition that is usual and customary for the health care facility, the parent or parents are responsible for the costs related to the final disposition of the fetus at the chosen location.

A lot rides on how “final disposition” is defined in Indiana law. I did find a legal site stating that: “By law, a licensed funeral director must oversee the final disposition of a body in Indiana.” If this is correct, under HB 1337 a woman in Indiana must either contract with a funeral home for fetal remains after a miscarriage or medical abortion, or surrender the remains to a health care facility, but would not legally be able to dispose of them herself.

. . .

This does lead to a question—how is one to identify the fetus in an early first trimester miscarriage? That’s asking the impossible. Is the woman to preserve all of her lost blood (which presumably means miscarrying over a bucket rather than the toilet) and then take that to a funeral home or health care facility? In fact, many women miscarry so early that they’re not aware that they’re miscarrying. Should we start collecting and preserving each period to ensure that we aren’t accidentally breaking the law?

Supreme Court’s Texas Decision Is the Greatest Victory for Abortion Rights Since Roe v. Wade
Red states like Texas have used “women’s health” as an excuse to gut reproductive rights for the past 20 years. That's all over now.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is the most monumental abortion rights decision in decades. In time, it may prove to be nearly as significant to a rising generation of American women as Roe v. Wade was to their mothers and grandmothers.

In a 5-3 decision authored by Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas abortion restriction passed in 2013

Quote :

“places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion” and that it “constitutes an undue burden on abortion access.”

Accordingly, the Texas law was found to be unconstitutional.

The Texas law, HB 2, required abortion providers to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers and to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The law has been stuck in legal limbo since Gov. Rick Perry signed it in 2013, ultimately getting appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

If the Court had tied 4-4, or ruled in favor of the Texas law, as many as ten of the state’s remaining 19 abortion clinics could have closed, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. Now, they will stay open.

But Whole Woman’s Health has consequences that stretch far beyond the Lone Star State. Most importantly, it will give abortion-rights advocates even more authority to argue that a recent deluge of state-level abortion restrictions are unconstitutional.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than one-quarter of all state-level abortion restrictions since Roe have been passed in the last five years, increasing in pace since the GOP gained control over more governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections. These laws have regulated everything from how long women must wait before an abortion to when women can receive an abortion to the width of abortion clinic hallways, prompting exasperated abortion rights advocates to ask: What good is legal abortion if access to it is severely restricted?

These restrictions were passed under the guise of protecting “women’s health” after the Court ruled in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey that lawmakers could not place an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion before fetal viability, generally considered to take place around 24 weeks. That decision was intended to prevent abortion opponents from passing laws with the express intent of closing clinics or restricting access without a health-based justification. But for the past six years especially, anti-abortion lawmakers have been stretching the meaning of the term “undue” with an unprecedented wave of restrictive legislation.

Quote :

“Texas argues that HB 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions,”

Justice Ruth-Bader Ginsburg wrote in a withering concurrence opinion.

Quote :

“In truth, ‘complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.’”

Monday’s decision could have direct consequences for dozens of states. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 22 states require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers; 10 states require clinics to be within a certain distance of a hospital; five require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital — privileges that hospitals are not always willing to bestow given the controversy surrounding abortion.

The 5-3 ruling does not automatically roll back these restrictions, but abortion rights advocates will now be able to challenge them with a much greater chance of success. They are celebrating today’s ruling not just as a victory for Texas, but for all women.

EMILY’s List president Stephanie Schriock called the ruling

Quote :

“a victory for women everywhere, reaffirming our right to make our own reproductive health care decisions no matter where we live.”

Quote :

“We are thrilled that these dangerous provisions have been struck down,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards in a statement. “This is a win for women.”

And NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue said,

Quote :

“The Supreme Court has powerfully reaffirmed a woman’s constitutional right to make her own decisions about her health, family, and future, no matter her zip code.”

Moving forward, we can expect abortion rights advocates to issue swift challenges to myriad other abortion restrictions nationwide. In a statement issued minutes after the ruling, National Abortion Federation president Vicki Saporta promised as much.

Quote :

“While this decision will help with the barriers in Texas and gives a solid precedent to strike down similar laws in other states as unconstitutional, there are still many politically-motivated, medically-unnecessary barriers to accessing abortion care throughout the U.S.,” she said. “We will celebrate this win for evidence-based medical care today, but we will continue working with our members in Texas and across the U.S. to ensure that women can access the abortion care they need.”

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

You don't understand, do you?
This is not about who wins or who loses some pissant lawsuit.

OK,if you say so

Quote :

This is about shining a light on what really goes on at Planned Parenthood.

Nope,It's about shining a light on the bullshit that the anti-abortion community cooks up to fool simpletons like yourself.

Quote :

blah,blah,blah,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/last-charges-dropped-against-abortion-opponents-in-planned-parenthood-case.html?_r=0

Last Charges Dropped Against Abortion Foes in Making of Planned Parenthood Video
By MANNY FERNANDEZJULY 26, 2016

HOUSTON — A judge dismissed Tuesday the last of the charges against two anti-abortion activists who covertly recorded a video of themselves meeting with Planned Parenthood officials, effectively ending a case that had drawn national attention from both opponents and supporters of abortion rights.
The activists, David R. Daleiden, 27, and Sandra S. Merritt, 63, were indicted in January by a grand jury here in Harris County on charges of tampering with government records for using fake identification and offering to buy fetal tissue at a meeting at which Planned Parenthood officials explained how they provided the tissue to medical researchers. Their video, one of several widely circulated on the internet, said Planned Parenthood was guilty of selling fetal remains, accusations Planned Parenthood has denied.



That's a shame.

'Specially because it was only done on a technicality, not on a lack of evidence.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

You don't understand, do you?
This is not about who wins or who loses some pissant lawsuit.

OK,if you say so

Quote :

This is about shining a light on what really goes on at Planned Parenthood.

Nope,It's about shining a light on the bullshit that the anti-abortion community cooks up to fool simpletons like yourself.

Quote :

blah,blah,blah,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/last-charges-dropped-against-abortion-opponents-in-planned-parenthood-case.html?_r=0

Last Charges Dropped Against Abortion Foes in Making of Planned Parenthood Video
By MANNY FERNANDEZJULY 26, 2016

HOUSTON — A judge dismissed Tuesday the last of the charges against two anti-abortion activists who covertly recorded a video of themselves meeting with Planned Parenthood officials, effectively ending a case that had drawn national attention from both opponents and supporters of abortion rights.
The activists, David R. Daleiden, 27, and Sandra S. Merritt, 63, were indicted in January by a grand jury here in Harris County on charges of tampering with government records for using fake identification and offering to buy fetal tissue at a meeting at which Planned Parenthood officials explained how they provided the tissue to medical researchers. Their video, one of several widely circulated on the internet, said Planned Parenthood was guilty of selling fetal remains, accusations Planned Parenthood has denied.



[b]That's a shame.

But in the end,Planned Parenthood was cleared of any wrongdoing and you of course ended up again

Quote :

This is about shining a light on what really goes on at Planned Parenthood.

as the village idiot.