Duct Tape Your Legs Together Girls/Check Your Units Boys

I think by changing her stance on abortion, she has lost all credibility and is just looking for another 15 minutes.

Actually it looks like she had the babies (3), and put them up for adoption rather than aborting them. So it makes even less sense -- if abortion was made illegal again, she would... put them up for adoption? Keep them? Why didn't she keep them the first time around? If she wants her babies back, isn't that more a matter of researching adoption records? They're over 18 by now...

I saw this, did my "it's too early in the day to be plunged into a deep blue funk" skim, and tried to put it out of my mind for a while. Not working.

Hopefully this will be seen as the idiocy it is, anyway, with no real repercussions.

One the one hand I'd say it's easy for her to be anit-abortion now, after she prolly no longer CAN be preggers. On the other hand, I think that many women who go through abortions might find themselves in her shoes. It can be a very trying experience during which you must questions lots of things like your person, spirituality, what exactly life is, etc. On the other other hand, people should have enough fore-thought to not get pregnant in the first place (been lucky myself). One more hand - people just aren't that thoughtful, that's the whole damn problem, isn't it?

I must say - despite not usually weighing in on this issue (I am so conflicted about it - I am personally, FOR ME, against abortion, have all sorts of doubts about it - but feel I must, politically, be for it) - that a lot of women I have worked with HAVE had profound regrets. Sometimes not actually, really, so much about the decision - but more about how easily they MADE the decision. That is, as one woman described it, "I treated it like having a mole removed - now I know it was a huge decision, and I regret having made it so lightly." Other times, the regrets are more profound. It is a decision that often has to be made very fast, too (mid/late trimester abortion is not easy to get, here, though first trimester abortion is available easily on demand), and in most imperfect circumstances - sometimes by people ill-equipped by age or inclination to think things through in a mature and balanced way - and sometimes pulled hither and yon by those around them.

The other awful thing that I KNOW happened at the major family planning agency here - (I do not seek to generalize but, knowing the tenor of the times, I wonder) - was that counselling staff were so politically committed to the right to abortion, that they really did not give due weight to likely negative outcomes - emotional and physical - in their discussions with women pre-abortion.

This emerged in a meeting we had with staff from this agency, when our termination counsellor (dual social work/nursing qualifications) mentioned in passing how she, as well as the doctor, warned of medical risks (like the risks of ALL general anaesthesia, perforated uterus, infection etc.) - this was seen as appallingly negative and led to a huge airing of practice/ideological differences in staff views, including weight given to discussion of possible emotional sequelae. Fascinating.

As I say, I am politically pro-abortion - (in a perfect world it would almost never be needed - but this world is so imperfect) - but I do not assume that this woman is simply publicity-seeking - I think it very likely that, much as I regret her actions, that she is absolutely sincere. Having given up three children for adoption in her youth may have led her to a quite profound consideration of the issues - though "We're getting our babies back" is not a comment that leads one to be absolutely sure of that, however, as I freely acknowledge!

Is this thing of profound importance, legally, in the USA?

Roe vs. Wade is the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. So yeah, pretty important. I'm not sure if that's what you were asking, though...?

Excellent. This should be a real boon for my "Gas-and-Sip-and-Unsanitary-Abortion" business.

I'm joking, but I'm not laughing.

I did not realize she had babies and gave them up. I thought she had aborted them. If I am mistaken I withdraw my remark about her killing her babies, however she's still just a bought off ols carny whore in my opinion.

I hate to argue this endlessly, but I realize that if we don't stand firm every gain in a woman's right to choose may be lost. I support women's right to make their own determination.

I too support their decsion edgar...if it turns out that abortion IS murder and a grave sin...well then each person involved in one will have to work it out with God......not steve quinney.

Yes, Soz it was what I was asking.

Does the fact that she may wish the case ruling reversed and take it to court mean any more than anyone else trying the same thing - legally speaking?

Does her being the original plaintiff actually have a legal meaning?

The propaganda meaning is obvious.

dlowan if there was still such a thing as investigative reporting in the United States, I'm betting this old gal would turn out to be a compensated shill for the Bush administration, the Christian right and a tool for keeping votes in house.

Once a carny always a carny.

Right, Dlowan. It seems to be an actual, non-stunt motion that she filed to have the case overturned. So it would seem that it is not out of the question. But I'm curious about that too, and dunno the legalities. (Jes? Fishin'?)

sozobe, there's a wide gap between an actual motion, which it is and it having a legitimate purpose. It's a stunt, even though it might prove successful at overturning roevwade. THAT would be one helluva stunt.

My point is there's no noble purpose here and this old whore doesn't give a damn about her babies or anyone elses. This stinks to high heaven of self interest.

It's the part about it maybe being effective that I'm most curious about. I have no idea how that works, if this could really lead to having the whole thing overturned. The emphasis seems to be on "new evidence", so I don't think it's as simple as her saying "I'm the plaintiff and I changed my mind." But it seems like maybe she could actually force the whole thing to be reconsidered, and in today's political climate, that could be disastrous.

Indeed.

Every effective campaign by a group behind the scenes needs a simplistic face on it for the ignorant masses to hang the hook on........."Well gee Roz, if the very woman who started it has changed her mind, then maybe it's true...boy that new Fox news babe has a set don't she? I guess this new evidence must be true....get me a beer will ya hon?"

Huh. And I thought "Citizen Ruth" was a pretty funny movie.

Complex world. Many shades of freedom and responsibility.

Can't legislate morality, some muscles have to be exercised on their own before they can grow.

Is a clothes-hanger really that much better than a clinic?

Disrespect a fetus? Hell, we disrespect dairy cows far worse! Sounds like Karma-phobia to me.

The greatest good, for the greatest number of people.

Yeah okay, I don't know either. I'm still in love with Sozobe's brain though (oops! )