If you'd like to really have your blood pressure raised for the day, listen to the interview with the bill's Texas Co-Author Issacs. A piece of human excrement posing as an actual human, his response to the question traveling 300 miles being an undue burden was ""Hopefully," Isaac said, "they'll be more preventative and not get pregnant." Women who live far from a clinic should realize, he said, that, "Hey, that might still be an option legally, but now I live 300 miles away from the nearest place — I should probably be more careful.""

I'm still furious. I hope that statement come up in court because nothing makes the clearer that this is really about punishing women (and victim blaming)...

And let us not forget the last Supreme Court case regarding Planned Parenthood, regarding whether to institute a security buffer zone surround their clinics during anti-abortion protests (historically when murderers have slipped into their clinics) and was voted down by neocons Kagan and Sotomayor!

And remember, please, any thinking people still alive in America, once Hillary's Trans-Pacific Partnership is passed, killing all workers' rights, ALL rights will disappear!

@1 Though it's a super scuzzy justification for infringing on women's abortion rights, I think we can agree that preventing a pregnancy (through proper birth control) is better than getting pregnant and having an abortion. Of course, these people would rather spend a million dollars stopping women from getting abortions than $100 bucks to give them contraception.

@2 Get over yourself. Is Ginsburg a "neocon" too? Because she concurred with Kagan and Sotomayor on that case.

@4:

That's because these people flat-out don't want women to have teh secks at all UNLESS they're doing it to make babies.

sgt_doom pls go

@6, I think he has a problem with the TPP or something.

@2, I thought that ruling permitted BOTH peaceful protests (the justices were probably reluctant to infringe upon a constitutional right) AND safety buffer zones. I'm going to go look that up.
--------------------------------
Yep.
"However, in an encouraging sign for clinics—and common sense—the narrow ruling does not invalidate buffer zones in general. Presumably under this ruling, clinic buffer zones that are more tightly drawn and do not include public sidewalks and streets are still completely permissible under the Constitution."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20…

Women should have the right to an abortion anytime anyplace on demand without any cost. It works out best for everyone; a woman won't be burdened by an unwanted child and unwanted children will not be battered and tossed about in an uncaring environment of institutional or foster care. It makes for better economics.

Can't be sgt. doom. Didn't call Kagan and Sotomayor Kahitler and Sotohitler, respectively, of der SCOTUS.

@8

That is probably a pretty reasonable policy to have in lieu of competent comprehensive sex ed and reasonable access to birth control.

@10 - "In lieu of"? How about "in addition to"?

@11

Yeah, I guess I was going with the literalism of @8 and thinking that the nonexistent woman who decides she wants an abortion right at that moment when she's 8 months into an unplanned pregnancy and at the top of a rollercoaster in full view of first graders on their first field trip and thinking she should have been better off with access to birth control.

@8: Morally, there should to be more of a reason for an abortion than simply an "unwanted child". Legally however, there shouldn't be additional criterion. There is adoption.

(I know, I'll duck and cover from all those riled up about the misery of adoption, cost, and backlogs, but it can work out. Better than killing the kid.)

@14, no one has a problem with adoption. That's a strawman argument.
"Morally, there should to be more of a reason for an abortion than simply an "unwanted child""
You'd be surprised how many pro-choice advocates agree with you.

@14: Kid? What kid? We are talking about an unfeeling ball of cells here. There are no kids involved in abortion.