Pennsylvania mother who gave daughter abortion pill gets prison

73 ABORTION CLINICS SHUT DOWN

A Bloomberg report from late November finds that at least 73 U.S. abortion clinics have shut down since 2011, and that roughly half of these closures are due to new legislation passed in a wave of Republican-led efforts to restrict access to abortion.

rhrealitycheck.org...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whatever makes you feel better at night...lol...

Jaden

a reply to: NavyDoc

not only that, people have gone to prison for driving drunk and hitting a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the unborn child.. You can't have it both ways, either it's murder or it's not...

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Thats entirely different. A wanted and planned life is not the same as an unwanted unplanned life. A feutus that is about to be aborted does not have the same potential as someone who wanted to have a baby.

Your premise is false.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: NavyDoc

not only that, people have gone to prison for driving drunk and hitting a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the unborn child.. You can't have it both ways, either it's murder or it's not...

Jaden

There is no choice involved.

Have none of you noticed the ads when you read the article? My screen was full if Rx to be purchased. All Rxs have websites that include medical personal sections giving treatment instructions. Not to mention the package insert.

The article clearly stated the pill cost $45 and clinic treatment alone was $300- $600.

This is over regulation and, an attempt to scare women into giving the responsibility of their bodies over to others.

The only crime I see here is prosecution of a woman for handling her daughters health without involving others until they were needed.

a reply to: Annee

Ok so let me get this straight, your argument is that if the mother CHOOSES to end her pregnancy, it's a-ok, but if someone else chooses to, it's murder???

If that's what you're trying to argue, you are incapable of logical argument...

You probably also think that making guns illegal will keep them out of the hands of criminal with that level of logical argument...

Jaden

a reply to: Aural

You are trying to claim that MY premise is invalid, you are friggin nuts.

You are putting forth the premise that a fetus is more likely to survive if the mother doesn't choose to abort it(duh goes without saying but has no bearing on whether or not it would be murder)...and that choice makes it not murder...That's like trying to argue if A + B = C, then C=D...it's asinine...

The scenario has come up that a drunk driver hit and caused a fetus to be killed while the mom was on the way to the abortion clinic and guess what??? It was still considered murder, so your premise is destroyed by that unless you want to say that in that case it is NOT murder, because the unborn child didn't have a greater likelihood of successful birth...

You can't have it both ways...

Either killing an unborn child is murder or it's not, period... There is no logical argument that can be made otherwise without failing validity...

Jaden

originally posted by: Fylgje
She should get more time. I don't understand how anyone could kill their baby. If you don't want to get pregnant, then use protection and be careful. Don't play the game if you don't want the grand prize. Only special cases, like deformity or rape, should abortion ever be allowed.

So it is not okay to kill an unborn child, unless it is deformed? That seems like an odd statement to me considering you stated you don't understand how anyone could kill their baby. Because a deformed child would make life more difficult it is somehow the humane thing to do? I'm not getting on your case or anything, and I don't intend to sound mean or anything, so I apologize if it comes off that way. I am pro-choice myself, but I just wanted to point out the fact that a deformed baby is still a baby. I can understand how someone can say to just abstain or use protection, as it makes perfect sense...But then there is the biological factor. Our bodies are designed, via many different chemical and physical mechanisms, to mate. These biological mechanisms are not meant to be overridden by abstinence in my personal opinion, but I admit I could be wrong. Using protection is the best solution, so I agree with you there.

Where the case in question is concerned I am a bit torn. I am not knowledgeable on the issue in general, and I was thinking it was the morning after pill that I've heard about. But it seems this is a more powerful drug of some sort in that it can be used many weeks into a pregnancy. On the one hand there is the fact that it costs a lot to go to a doctor and have this done properly, which was probably the motivation for the woman procuring the drugs online, as they were much cheaper. So we should at least consider that she was not doing this out of malice, or not getting proper care for her daughter because she didn't care, but perhaps because she couldn't afford to. That is what I would think occurred anyway. Does that make it okay? I don't know to be honest. If anything it makes it more understandable. I don't think she was purposely trying to skirt the law or anything like that. I do NOT believe in sentencing people to jail or prison simply to deter other people. That seems like a violation of basic rights in my opinion.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Either killing an unborn child is murder or it's not, period.

Of course it's not murder, and, any law that says that it is, is an unjust law. However, it is right to protect a woman's choice. Whether it be forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy or forcing her to abort, both are equally as wrong, and should be punished the same way.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Annee

Ok so let me get this straight, your argument is that if the mother CHOOSES to end her pregnancy, it's a-ok, but if someone else chooses to, it's murder???

Absolutely.

It's is the woman's Right of Choice.

It is not someone else's right to take that Choice away from her.

That is how the "legalize" explain the difference.

Hypocrisy at it's best...

The right has threads all over ATS b***hing and moaning that the left wants to tell them how to live or what they can or cannot do.

Remember the thread about school lunches and complaining about being told what they can or cannot put in their bodies... look over it and notice it is the same people complaining in that thread that are here telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body..

They seem to not even notice there is a conflict of interest here..

You cannot have it both ways people.

Also the same people who complain about taking care of other people's problems have no issue with telling the mother to give to social services if she doesn't want the baby.

See the conflict of issue there.

a reply to: Annee

We don't know that that is true. She very well could have wanted to do it in secret.

That's actually what I am getting from this. If she can afford to order what are presumably expensive drugs, and put her daughter at risk then she could afford to make the drive to the nearest clinic (which i doubt is far, but even if it is - i'd make the drive before i'd endanger someone i care about).

a reply to: Annee

I disagree with any republican that is trying to restrict access to clinics, but I would like to know what the law was that they claim was made in an attempt to restrict access. Sometimes it's agenda driven and to hate republicans. If they closed because a safety law was passed you can't really blame republicans for closing 30 (you put 70 plus closed but that number should be 30 because only half closed due to any political effort). The other half that closed were likely dangerous clinics. Remember Gosnell's clinic? And that they found 2 other vile clinics within a short span after that? I'm for passing laws that require inspections, etc.


I 100 percent support a woman's right to choose, but it seems you have taken an extreme position that I can't get behind and I would wager it hurts the cause you stand for more than it helps.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

No.. it's a little more than that. What if the doctor would have checked her out and decided that that pill would have been dangerous for the girl and that an actual procedure was the safer option?

It's not about the abortion, it's about the mom endangering the daughter giving her drugs that are illegal to obtain and administer unless you are a physician. It's not really any different than her buying illegal pain killers or nerve pills and giving them to her daughter for a broken bone or anxiety.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

47 Pennsylvania clinics closed just in 2013. It's the religious right wing nuts that are endangering women.

“Abortion is legal in our nation, and until we can restore the protection for every single life from the moment of conception to natural death, we need to see greater oversight of abortion,” Bilger said.
triblive.com...

There isn't even an attempt to claim that oversight and clinic closures are about the safety women seeking abortions. It's all about banning abortion or making them impossible to get.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: Annee

We don't know that that is true. She very well could have wanted to do it in secret

Seriously?

She wanted to keep her daughters pregnancy a secret? Had nothing to do with that the only clinic was 74 miles away.

This is not 1950.


PA Abortion Control Act

www.plannedparenthood.org...

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Annee

Ok so let me get this straight, your argument is that if the mother CHOOSES to end her pregnancy, it's a-ok, but if someone else chooses to, it's murder???

If that's what you're trying to argue, you are incapable of logical argument...


Jaden

Here's the way I look at it. If you decide to have a tooth removed from your own mouth, it's no big deal. If some stranger off the street forcibly removes one of your teeth, they can be charged with assault. Should you be charged with assault if you decide to remove your own tooth? According to your logic, it either should or shouldn't be considered assault either way. Does that even make sense?

"TRAP" LAWS

Commonly known as targeted regulations of abortion provider (TRAP) laws, restrictions like those placed on abortion providers in Ohio gained steam in 2010, when Republicans swept state legislatures across the country. A law that requires doctors performing abortions to secure admitting privileges with a nearby hospital could force one-third of Texas’s abortion clinics to close. In North Carolina, a regulation requiring abortion clinics to conform to the same building standards as ambulatory surgical clinics—facilities with sticter building codes designed for more sophisticated outpatient procedures than abortion—could spell ruin for almost all of the state’s providers. Anti-choice lawmakers argue that the laws will bolster clinic safety, but doctors, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and pro-choice advocates say these laws are unnecessary, a trumped-up excuse to drive abortion providers out of business. prospect.org...