Six weeks
The attacks on reproductive rights just keep coming. Today, Congress held a hearing on a bill that would outlaw abortion as early as just six weeks of pregnancy. This amounts to an effective ban on abortion, as many women do not even know if they are pregnant by that time. In fact, it’s the second unconstitutional pre-viability abortion ban that the House has considered in the last month. Just a few weeks ago, the House passed a bill banning abortion beginning at 20 weeks. And President Trump said that he would sign that bill if it landed on his desk.
It is clear that the goal of the president and leaders in Congress is to ban abortion completely, and the anti-choice activist behind this latest piece of legislation has boasted that the bill would prohibit abortion before a woman even knows she’s pregnant and was crafted “to be the arrow in the heart of Roe v. Wade.”
She also claimed that Mike Pence expressed support for her bill in a White House meeting.
Why? Why is the pussygrabber so keen to mess with abortion rights? Because he’s a sadist and because he hates women, is my guess.
Trump, who as a presidential candidate proposed punishing women who have an abortion and pledged to appoint only opponents of Roe v. Wadeto the Supreme Court, is carrying out a virulent anti-choice and anti-women’s health agenda.
He has reinstituted and expanded the Global Gag Rule, severely undermined the ACA’s birth control benefit by allowing virtually any boss to deny coverage to their employees, signed legislation weakening protections for Title X family planning providers, and pushed for the passage of an Affordable Care Act repeal bill that would cut patients off from care at Planned Parenthood health centers and gut Medicaid coverage for millions of women and families.
Sadist and hates women.
Let’s not forget Jeff Sessions, whose DOJ is now going after the ACLU lawyers who helped Jane Doe get the abortion she was entitled to.
WHAT??
Yep. More from the WaPo
I haven’t read the cert petition yet, but I’m told that it fails to cite any specific applicable rule of professional conduct that was supposedly violated. That’s a pretty big tell. I mean, citing relevant authority is always pretty important, but in the context of accusing opposing counsel of professional misconduct, you really better have the goods.
It seems that DOJ is bitter about its own screw-ups here. I remember being surprised that they didn’t seek an immediate stay from SCOTUS after the D.C. en banc ruling. They had to know that Jane Doe would seek the abortion as soon as possible.
Sorry, screwed up the WaPo link: here it is
Daaaaamn. I’m out of time now, will revisit this tomorrow. Thanks for alerting us!