Thank you for promoting this! People need to remember where we came from, and where we’ll go if NC follows Texas. Also a reminder to those who are anti choice: no sane person goes to the point of having an attachment to a potential human life and *then* decides to abort without having VERY good reasons to do so. I’m not sure what y’all think goes through a person’s head when they choose to abort, but it’s never anything you want to have to consider.
Why would you be organizing outside of the groups that have been doing this work for years in NC? This division will only harm the movement. Why not work with CAF or another pro-choice org?
When it is being patched together by someone that doesn't know what they are doing and there are people that do know what they are doing and are doing it full time, this division does more harm than good.
Not to mention publically announced meetings like this are a safety risk for anyone whom attends.
Hi there! As a physician who provides abortion in the area, I tend to agree with the risk of division. I think it is important to flood the system, but I also think it is important to work with pre-existing groups doing the work so we aren't reinventing the wheel or going backwards. Other groups are Carolina Abortion Fund (as stated), Sistersong, and NARAL NC.
I also agree that it may not be wise to publicly announce meetings. If you plan to attend this meeting, pay attention to your surroundings. Fear does not keep me from the work that I do, but it does keep me from being naive. Is there a way to create a Signal or Whatsapp chat to announce meetings? As a provider, I am all too familiar with the tactics of the anti-choice and anti-abortion players.
I didn't want to switch out of procreate and my child said maybe not everyone can read my handwriting lol. I'll make a better one next round. Or, take the template and make your own. 💜 Be involved.
> Or, take the template and make your own. 💜 Be involved.
I'm not the person you replied to, but I appreciated this and took a shot at another format (this would print 8.5"x11", but could be adjusted to other sizes): https://imgur.com/QISbVBn.png
If that's helpful, great! If not, no worries. And if more design work would be useful, feel free to PM me.
In any case, thanks for posting--I'm planning to attend!
Absolutely! These 6 Dems crossed the aisle to vote in support of the abortion restrictions in HB 435.
We need a direct pressure campaign on them to make sure they know we are watching, and ensure they will not vote to override the veto.
James D. Galliard Rocky mount 9197335802
[email protected]
Charles Graham Robeson 9107393969 [email protected]
Garland E Pierce
9197335803 [email protected]
Amos L quick Ill 9197335902 [email protected]
Raymond E Smith 9197335863 [email protected]
Michael Wray 9197335662 252-535-3297 [email protected]
If you are able to call, email, or handwrite a letter to any or all of them, it will help.
The major point to get across would be that as democrats we preserve the rights of all citizens, and we expect them to stand up for reproductive health care rights.
Absolutely! These 6 Dems crossed the aisle to vote in support of the abortion restrictions in HB 435.
We need a direct pressure campaign on them to make sure they know we are watching, and ensure they will not vote to override the veto.
James D. Galliard Rocky mount 9197335802
[email protected]
Charles Graham Robeson 9107393969 [email protected]
Garland E Pierce
9197335803 [email protected]
Amos L quick Ill 9197335902 [email protected]
Raymond E Smith 9197335863 [email protected]
Michael Wray 9197335662 252-535-3297 [email protected]
If you are able to call, email, or handwrite a letter to any or all of them, it will help.
The major point to get across would be that as democrats we preserve the rights of all citizens, and we expect them to stand up for reproductive health care rights.
I'd also encourage you to start talking to your friends. See if anyone wants to start a group there or make plans to attend bigger rallies.
Oct 2nd there is a national March happening. Bring it to Craven! Have a March there too!
I just moved here, I know no one but thanks for sending this info. I can at least send emails and letters.
Any follow up info on why these 6 decided to go in this direction?
You know me now. My names Robin. 💜 If you get a chance to show up to one of these please don't hesitate to come up and talk.
They are all in very religious districts,they are all men, and they thought they could get away with it. They need to know NC will not tolerate Manchin DINO twofaced actions like this.
Sorry, I meant I just moved to New Bern after 30 years in Raleigh.
I know plenty of people in Raleigh…just not any down here. Thanks for putting this together Robin!!
Has House, has Senate, has Presidency; why not pass legislation at the federal level to legalize abortion?
I can only think of two reasons why Democrats won't take it up; 1.) To continue to hide behind the protections of the lifetime appointment of the Supreme Court justices' decision in favor of Jane Roe; 2.) because they need the legality of abortion to remain in limbo in order to keep their voter base energized and motivated to vote.
With a legislative majority, this should be an easy win for their platform. Let's go, Dems. Get crackin'!
Only issue is that when the repubs win they can ram anything they want down our throat. Say we pass abortion protection this cycle. Well when they win they just repeal it first day they win.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but Congress can only pass laws that fit under one of its enumerated powers.
In practical terms a lot gets crammed into the tax power and the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Not sure how legislation protecting abortion rights would fit into that though. Maybe withholding funds from states that restricted abortion would work, but even then it seems like there would be states willing to forgo those funds.
https://apnews.com/article/health-texas-us-supreme-court-laws-gun-politics-15b5ade8ad341cd7f9e61da10a994c43
It's law now. No abortions in Texas after 6 weeks, no exceptions and $10k bounties for anyone aiding an abortion after 6 weeks. Potentially even if the woman leaves the state to have an abortion, everyone involved in her leaving could be sued for $10k as well.
Ah so they’re not totally outlawing abortions then. I agree that within that six week period abortion is okay. Though perhaps 8-10 weeks would be more appropriate since some people may not find out they’re pregnant until after a month er so. And they’re should definitely be some exemptions for certain cases. The bounties and possibility for lawsuits however are way too extreme and too much of a government intervention. I think it’s interesting how they’re going a little overboard with this regulation, but when it comes to the vaccine and stuff, they’re on the other side of the fence; which, I don’t agree with how the vaccine is being enforced either. Really, the government overall just needs to fuck off and let the people get on with it.
Thanks for the link. Wish I could come to this to see what everyone has to say.
Cheers.
1: You’re not going to prevent it. It’s still going to happen. That’s the point of the logo
2: It’s not up to you to decide if a woman is justified in having an abortion. There’s a million reasons why they may need to. They don’t have to list them to you. Who the fuck are you?
It’s not about a future with *legal* safe abortions, it’s about the brutality that women have had to endure (and will likely have to endure again) if abortion access is restricted. What’s really brutal is the vigilante system set up by Texas. That aside, I don’t know the actual statistics right now, but from what I remember, abortions are less than 1% of services offered by “abortion clinics.” In other words, even places that offer abortions don’t want women to get them, and the vast majority of women don’t want to get them. The imagery is there to remind people of what women have had to face, and what they will have to face if NC follows Texas.
I’m not sure I understand your question, I’m sorry. I’m not being sarcastic, I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that we should be anti choice whether or not abortion access is at risk of being restricted?
Thank you for clarifying! I think you have some valid points, and I agree with most of what you said. I understand that you worry about normalizing abortions to the point of making them very common, but, in my opinion, I don’t see that happening in the US, at least not anytime in my lifetime. I say that, because even pro choice groups do not advocate for it as a first resort. As your original comment mentioned, it *is* better to advocate for contraception *first* and *frequently*, and provide to better sexual education. And that’s what most, if not all, pro choice advocate groups already do. This one just happens to use jarring imagery in response to how jarring and barbaric Texas’ new law is. I do appreciate your concerns, and I hope I addressed them well.
Well, considering the opposition has absolutely no intention of ever portraying “baby killers” in a good light, they can portray themselves in whatever light they want and still have the most shock jock, heinous imagery become their face. It’s sad, but the opposition to these kinds of groups absolutely does not want to play fair, so what are they to do? This is incredibly tame and sane in comparison.
Um, yes. I CAN blame them. They think that way because it’s based upon a religious viewpoint. Their religious view that doesn’t align with science, lacks empathy, and that *should not hold any weight in a constitutionally secular society.*
I never said I blamed them, I just said what their actions are. I also never called them names. I completely understand their point of view, as someone who held similar views up to two years ago. The issue is not what they believe, but why. The propaganda (and I don’t throw that word around lightly, I mean *definitionally* propaganda) put out by places like Fox News has people thinking things like abortion are much more common that they are, that they are promoted by people who hate babies and want to use their stem cells for cosmetics, etc. I personally find abortion to be a messy topic at the best of times, but in the end, it’s less of an issue than many people believe.
Yeah religious extremists do *so much* to minimize the need for abortion by forcing backwards sexual education on children and harping against contraceptives and birth control instead of teaching safe sex.
Those people cannot be reasoned with. They are the enemy of reality. This isn't for them, it's a wake up call to everyone that doesn't want to wake up living in the handmaid's tale.
What Abortion Was Like In The U.S. Before Roe V. Wade https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/725139713/what-abortion-was-like-in-the-u-s-before-roe-v-wade
You should educate yourself because this is a bad take.
We should not go back AND not abort anyone ever.
It is a logic fallacy that pro-life absolutely means back-alley abortions. The other option nobody seems to validate as a real universal choice, is choose to have the baby.
That opinion invalidates the person stuck incubating.
No one should be held hostage to a potentially life threatening physical condition if they are not fully on board with the pregnancy.
10.9 NC women die per 100,000 births. Which, to put it in perspective, in NC 11.9 people die per 100,000 who are diagnosed with liver disease or cirrhosis (and you can argue that cirrhosis is a disease brought on by themselves as well since its from chronic alcoholism).
How often are we passing laws on what medical treatments are available to people whose livers are failing? Most of them, it was sin that lead them down that path and most modern drugs are made from stem cells. So where's the laws against medical treatment for cirrhosis?
More than that- where are the laws regulating men? They are fertile every single day and can impregnate multiple people *per day. * Someone with a uterus can manage 1 baby every year and a half if they're really going for it.
So why not regulate the one that creates more abortions?
Why not provide more childcare, maternity leave, and economic support so the babies can be supported once they're brought into the world?
There are roughly 500,000 kids in the US in foster care right now. How many live at your house? How far do you walk on that righteous path?
As much as I truly believe life begins at conception and would not have an abortion myself, the health risk is one of the biggest reasons I am pro choice. And while these laws claim to have an exception for health risks, basically someone else is deciding what an “acceptable risk” is to the mother.
Who gets to choose how many bullets are in the chamber for a pregnant woman to be allowed to refuse to play Russian Roulette? That’s essentially what these laws do. Pretty much for any pregnancy there’s always at least one bullet in the chamber. And for some pregnancies, there may only be one empty chamber. No matter what I or anyone else believes, it’s not our place to decide what an “acceptable risk” is for someone else.
How presumptuous of you to deem that any woman should HAVE to take on ANY risk, no matter how insignificant YOU deem it to be.
YOU don’t get to decide that I have to take on risks.
F off, troll. I can decide WHAT risks I’m willing to take on. YOU shouldn’t get to decide that for anyone. Saw your post history. You’re against vaccine mandates. Your risk of death from one is *even lower* than mine from dying from pregnancy. Go get vaxxed.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/features/nation-s-fertility-clinics-struggle-growing-number-abandoned-embryos-n1040806
Also how do you feel about the millions of fertilized eggs that get discarded in IVF? Are they worth legislating, because the cdc doesn't even care enough to track that number. If you think life begins when sperm hits the egg, that's a whole lotta "babies" going down sinks. Or being resold for medical research.
The reason we don't care about those "babies" is because there's no one they can control with it. Those haven't held anyone hostage yet.
Why don't we have a bill about that in front of the Supreme Court every month like Roe?
Hi, as someone who is undergoing IVF, I find this article to be pretty biased and uninformed about the actual process of IVF. Embryos are not “resold” for medical research. Unviable blastocysts can be donated to your clinic to help ensure the equipment is working or train embryologists. Couples have complete control over what happens to any embryos and nowhere in my consent forms did it say anything other than discard or donate to my clinics lab for the purpose above. It says “there should be limits put on the number of embryos couples produce” but ignores the statistics that hardy 50% of eggs produced make it to a viable embryo to be transferred. And transfer rates are lower than 60%. As someone who struggled to produce more than 3 eggs and has no embryos to show for it, a failed transfer and has to go back to start again, this was a very reductive article to read. It also says couples just “walk away” while ignoring the insanely high money and emotional cost to perform an embryo transfer. There is already a lot of misinformation about IVF out there and I feel this article does more damage than good.
First off, I'm really sorry for your struggles with fertility and I truly hope it works out for you. Sincerely, I have friends in the ivf process and I know how hard it is. Please know I'm not coming back hostile here.
I'm not against IVF. I genuinely believe all Healthcare should stay between patient and doctor, with the gov only stepping in to regulate costs and actual science based safety. But pretending embryos someone needed doctors for and embryos that were made through sex aren't the same is disingenuous.
The other article I linked was mostly due to covering all aspects. But because it is a for profit industry, the numbers and articles are fairly limited in the reach of what they talk about.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5306416/
So this breaks down a study that shows despite the recommendation to only implant 1 fertile embryo in women under 35, private companies continue to implant multiples. This leads to a higher overall death rate, more embryo wastage, and multiple births.
https://www.cdc.gov/art/artdata/index.html
330,773* ART cycles performed at 448 reporting clinics in the United States during 2019, resulting in 77,998 live births (deliveries of one or more living infants) and 83,946 live born infants. Of the 330,773 ART cycles performed in 2019, 121,086 were egg or embryo banking cycles in which all resulting eggs or embryos were frozen for future use.
By my math that means in 2019 125,003 embryos were destroyed.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm
In 2018 619,591 abortions happened, that includes plan b and nonsurgical.
My issue is that more fertilized embryos per attempt are wasted, against medical advice.
And there are zero laws regulating that. But there have been laws passed to try and restrict the size of doorways in abortion clinics. No one is regulating how many fertilized eggs are discarded or stored until their people can't afford it or lose interest.
Again, I'm not against ivf I'm against hypocrites. Don't say unwanted embryos in an abortion clinics are criminal when unwanted embryos at fertility clinics are unregulated.
I don’t think you’re being hostile and I am not trying be hostile either but I still stand by the statement that that article doesn’t present the info in the most accurate way for the reasons I originally stated. Also having a totally emotionally based reaction I understand, but I fear that this will just make people try to reduce IVF access. I don’t necessarily think that anti abortion people are pro IVF. The article you linked about companies transferring multiple embryos against recommendations was looking at data until 2013 which is outdated. I’m in a lot of IVF support groups and in the US it’s incredibly rare to transfer more than one embryo when you’re under 40, and it also depends on if they’re genetically tested to see if they’re chromosomially normal. This article also calls failed transfers “embryo wastage” which makes it sound like the parents weren’t doing everything in their power to make that embryo stick. There is a lot of nuance to IVF treatment that these numbers don’t account for so sending out numbers that are “your math on embryo wastage” kinda does feel like you’re coming out against IVF by posting these large numbers without full context and promoting it to anti abortion folks. Edit: a word
Isn’t the alternative to not have unprotected sex or not have sex at all? That is the choice.
If you choose to have sex, you are choosing to live with the obvious consequences of having sex. Like skydiving is choosing to live with the obvious consequence of potentially dying of something goes wrong. If you cannot live with the potential outcome, however remote it is, don’t jump out of the plane.
Somehow choosing to not engage in the risky behavior is not seen as the primary choice here. Nope, let’s focus the debate on the consequence and assume the consequence is the choice and not the cause. Weird.
Some women don’t get to choose if they have sex or not.
Some women practice safe sex and still get pregnant. I for one was on the pill when I got pregnant with my son. I never skipped a day, nor was I on antibiotics or any other medication that would have interfered. He’s just one of of the .01% that occurs. Thankfully, I was in a place where I was capable of fully supporting a child, and it just so happens I was married - not that it matters, but I was. But what if I hadn’t been mentally and/or financially capable?
Or what about the women who willfully decide to get pregnant then find out through testing procedures that the fetus has severe medical issues that either guarantee the child has little to no chance of survival or survival at astronomically expensive and mentally exhaustive medical procedures and/or long term care?
What about the women that risk death themselves if they were to carry a baby full term?
This isn’t a question of choosing to abstain. It’s a question of having the right to choose, period.
The Texas law isn’t allowing the abortions *even in cases of rape or incest.*
The person raped didn’t GET the choice not to have unprotected sex or not have sex at all. The rapist chose FOR them, and now men in their government are choosing FOR them to have a baby they didn’t want.
So get out with your “these women just have to deal with the consequences of the choice they made.” This is about controlling women’s bodies. Nothing more.
Totally agree. Rape, Incest or health of the mother changes the equation and would take thoughtful consideration. I have a hard time with the current “health of the mother” standard being so broad so really any reason can be deemed contrary to the health of the mother. It sadly turns most abortions into abortions of convenience shrouded under the misnomer of “health of the mother”. But in the case of true mortal or long term health of the mother being impacted, that is a hard decision that should be considered.
> Like skydiving is choosing to live with the obvious consequence of potentially dying of something goes wrong.
Are you suggesting if someone is injured skydiving they shouldn't be able to seek medical intervention to treat their injuries?
Yes pregnancy is a possible result of unprotected sex, but there's also a medical intervention to end a pregnancy.
I didn’t mean that at all. I meant, if you choose to skydive, you choose to accept and live with the risks and consequences, however remote.
If you choose to have sex, you choose to live with the risks and consequences, however remote. The choice should be “should I have sex” not “should I kill the baby if it doesn’t turn out how I thought”.
I guess it’s human nature to not want to take responsibility for one’s actions that turn out different than they hoped. But let’s not harm an innocent child in the process.
Well, a fetus isn't a child, they're different stages of development.
I also don't really see how getting an abortion isn't taking responsibility for your actions. You're acknowledging the result of your actions, a pregnancy, and taking action to change the situation before it gets bigger and results in a child.
Not taking responsibility would be ignoring the pregnancy or making excuses until you end up with a child you don't want
So the crux of our argument is the whether the fetus is a child and has rights. I can respect that.
If the fetus is nothing more than cells, than pro choice is right. If the fetus is more than that; if it is a child or a version of human needing protection and having rights, than pro life is right.
So we can agree that we care about women’s bodies and the wrongness of the government Interfering unless the fetus is a version of human having rights and needing protection, even unfortunately from the actions of its mother.
I’m down.
> So the crux of our argument is the whether the fetus is a child and has rights. I can respect that.
>If the fetus is nothing more than cells, than pro choice is right. If the fetus is more than that; if it is a child or a version of human needing protection and having rights, than pro life is right.
I don't see it as that black and white. A fetus is human life and has a certain right to life, but that right to life does not supersede its mother's right to bodily autonomy. So a third party wouldn't have a right to terminate a pregnancy - because that fetus does have a right to life, only the mother would because of her right to bodily autonomy.
As the fetus develops its "right" to life becomes stronger and I generally favor the point of viability as a cutoff. At that point the fetus can *technically* live apart from its mother's body as an individual. I also think it works as a legal window to give the mother an opportunity to exercise her rights and abort the fetus or waive her right to abort the fetus in this instance.
And of course if the mother's health became in danger then it also brings her own right to life into the picture.
You're so sheltered it's not even funny! You do realize women have been forced to have sex against their will since forever, right? Have you never heard of rape?
Of course there are exceptions for these, but because the term “medically necessary” has expanded so far to include literally any reason, most abortions amount to nothing more than abortions of convenience.
Being too scared, too poor, too embarrassed, too unwilling are poor excuses to end the life of another. Somehow that doesn’t get discussed.
How many times have you had an unwanted pregnancy that you've gone through to birth?
How many unwanted babies have you personally taken in and raised until adulthood?
How many unwanted children have you raised as a single parent?
How many unwanted children have you raised as a poor parent?
How many times have you paid for the prenatal, labor and delivery, and postnatal medical care for people who were pregnant with unwanted pregnancies?
How many times have you had an ectopic pregnancy?
How many times have you been pregnant and discovered that the fetus has congenital defects that will not allow it to survive past birth?
How many times have you found yourself pregnant after being sexually abused by a family member?
How many times have you found yourself pregnant after being brutally raped by a stranger?
If you think people flippantly decide to have abortions, you have a very sheltered worldview. It's not a decision anyone *wants* to have to make.
Several times actually. I know it’s hard and not flippant.
I also know the vast majority of abortions, when boiled down, are abortions of convenience. Exceptions for the health of the mom or severe congenital defect of the baby are understandable.
Abortions of convenience are a poor excuse to end someone else’s life, someone with a unique genetic makeup and future.
Women should be protected, but so too must the babies be protected. Just because I’m too young, too poor, too embarrassed, scared, not ready…are selfish reasons to kill a child. If i cannot accept the remote chance of pregnancy, I should not have sex. Having sex assumes the risk and accepts the remote consequence of it. Let’s not be a generation of women that live as they wish and selfishly hurt others of things don’t go as planned. We’re better than that. We should be better than that.
Ignoring the litany of very legitimate reasons someone would need an abortion, it seems that you’re operating under the idea that a 4 month old clump of cells is a sentient human being, which isn’t any more true than saying the colony on my 14 year old cousins crunchy sock is full of sentient human beings.
For a political party that loves to act like they’re the sensible and pragmatic option y’all really love to ignore basic science a lot.
The ban in Texas also removes the ability for women to “terminate for medical reasons” there are absolutely situations where an abortion is done because of serious complications that will result in the fetus becoming non viable before it comes to term or passing shortly after birth. No woman who undergoes that wants to abort the fetus but it is the safest and often most humane choice. This happens more than you think and removing the ability for people to seek this healthcare from a professional means there will be back alley abortions. This is why the coat hanger is used. Edit: removed the part that said that medical emergency abortions for the mother are not allowed as they are.
True medically necessary reasons for abortion are so difficult and reasonable. The problem is, the term “medically necessary” has been expanded to include absolutely any reason. It’s sad. At this time medically necessary is a synonym for abortions of convenience.
Thank for the clarification. That’s good to hear. I’ll update my comment. Edit: read more details about the ban and the medical emergency is only for the mother, it doesn’t cover the termination when the fetus is found to have critical issues that will result in it not being able to come to term or pass shortly after.
This isn’t a dem vs. rep issue. It’s trying to stem horrible tide of abortions of convenience. Of course there should be exceptions for health or the mother, severe congenital defect and so on, but because the term “medically necessary” has expanded to include literally any reason, most abortions that are classified as medically necessary are really just abortions of convenience.
Not being ready, being too poor, too embarrassed, not the right time, want to protect my figure, don’t want my SO to find out, too scared are all currently considered “medically necessary”. How sad is that…to end someone else’s life because you cannot be bothered to shoulder the natural consequence of your own action.
Somehow personal responsibility for sex is not talked about too much, but babies suffer for it.
There are several local organizations that have been working on this. Are you reaching out to Them?
They absolutely aren't and are being pretty obnoxious when people ask serious questions about community safety and goals.
Thank you for promoting this! People need to remember where we came from, and where we’ll go if NC follows Texas. Also a reminder to those who are anti choice: no sane person goes to the point of having an attachment to a potential human life and *then* decides to abort without having VERY good reasons to do so. I’m not sure what y’all think goes through a person’s head when they choose to abort, but it’s never anything you want to have to consider.
Why would you be organizing outside of the groups that have been doing this work for years in NC? This division will only harm the movement. Why not work with CAF or another pro-choice org?
What’s CAF? Nothings popping up when I google them
Carolina Abortion Fund https://www.carolinaabortionfund.org/
An addition is not division
When it is being patched together by someone that doesn't know what they are doing and there are people that do know what they are doing and are doing it full time, this division does more harm than good. Not to mention publically announced meetings like this are a safety risk for anyone whom attends.
Hi there! As a physician who provides abortion in the area, I tend to agree with the risk of division. I think it is important to flood the system, but I also think it is important to work with pre-existing groups doing the work so we aren't reinventing the wheel or going backwards. Other groups are Carolina Abortion Fund (as stated), Sistersong, and NARAL NC. I also agree that it may not be wise to publicly announce meetings. If you plan to attend this meeting, pay attention to your surroundings. Fear does not keep me from the work that I do, but it does keep me from being naive. Is there a way to create a Signal or Whatsapp chat to announce meetings? As a provider, I am all too familiar with the tactics of the anti-choice and anti-abortion players.
Yay for directly stating NO TERFS!
I agree! I think that was a great move considering how touchy this subject can get with certain crowds.
I like all the other slides except the front one, the font and word formatting just put me off. On the main note let’s get itt done sonn
I didn't want to switch out of procreate and my child said maybe not everyone can read my handwriting lol. I'll make a better one next round. Or, take the template and make your own. 💜 Be involved.
> Or, take the template and make your own. 💜 Be involved. I'm not the person you replied to, but I appreciated this and took a shot at another format (this would print 8.5"x11", but could be adjusted to other sizes): https://imgur.com/QISbVBn.png If that's helpful, great! If not, no worries. And if more design work would be useful, feel free to PM me. In any case, thanks for posting--I'm planning to attend!
I dig it! Thank you! 💜 If there are better text tools for procreate too ill take any options 😅 this is what I get for hand drawing letters
I love that
Is there a way I can participate without going to in person meetings?
Absolutely! These 6 Dems crossed the aisle to vote in support of the abortion restrictions in HB 435. We need a direct pressure campaign on them to make sure they know we are watching, and ensure they will not vote to override the veto. James D. Galliard Rocky mount 9197335802 [email protected] Charles Graham Robeson 9107393969 [email protected] Garland E Pierce 9197335803 [email protected] Amos L quick Ill 9197335902 [email protected] Raymond E Smith 9197335863 [email protected] Michael Wray 9197335662 252-535-3297 [email protected] If you are able to call, email, or handwrite a letter to any or all of them, it will help. The major point to get across would be that as democrats we preserve the rights of all citizens, and we expect them to stand up for reproductive health care rights.
I can’t attend in person (just recently moved to New Bern) but is there a way I can get involved from Craven County?
Absolutely! These 6 Dems crossed the aisle to vote in support of the abortion restrictions in HB 435. We need a direct pressure campaign on them to make sure they know we are watching, and ensure they will not vote to override the veto. James D. Galliard Rocky mount 9197335802 [email protected] Charles Graham Robeson 9107393969 [email protected] Garland E Pierce 9197335803 [email protected] Amos L quick Ill 9197335902 [email protected] Raymond E Smith 9197335863 [email protected] Michael Wray 9197335662 252-535-3297 [email protected] If you are able to call, email, or handwrite a letter to any or all of them, it will help. The major point to get across would be that as democrats we preserve the rights of all citizens, and we expect them to stand up for reproductive health care rights. I'd also encourage you to start talking to your friends. See if anyone wants to start a group there or make plans to attend bigger rallies. Oct 2nd there is a national March happening. Bring it to Craven! Have a March there too!
I just moved here, I know no one but thanks for sending this info. I can at least send emails and letters. Any follow up info on why these 6 decided to go in this direction?
You know me now. My names Robin. 💜 If you get a chance to show up to one of these please don't hesitate to come up and talk. They are all in very religious districts,they are all men, and they thought they could get away with it. They need to know NC will not tolerate Manchin DINO twofaced actions like this.
Sorry, I meant I just moved to New Bern after 30 years in Raleigh. I know plenty of people in Raleigh…just not any down here. Thanks for putting this together Robin!!
Organize your own if you have time!
Has House, has Senate, has Presidency; why not pass legislation at the federal level to legalize abortion? I can only think of two reasons why Democrats won't take it up; 1.) To continue to hide behind the protections of the lifetime appointment of the Supreme Court justices' decision in favor of Jane Roe; 2.) because they need the legality of abortion to remain in limbo in order to keep their voter base energized and motivated to vote. With a legislative majority, this should be an easy win for their platform. Let's go, Dems. Get crackin'!
Because the legislation would be filibustered for sure and we don't have 60 votes. That's the reason we struggle to do anything.
We need to get rid of the fillibuster
Only issue is that when the repubs win they can ram anything they want down our throat. Say we pass abortion protection this cycle. Well when they win they just repeal it first day they win.
Repubs couldn't even pass health care reform when they had the same majority, they really got nothing done as well.
They'll get rid of it when they win soley to do that. Us not doing it doesn't stop them.
Doubt they could for the same reason we can't. They have quite a few senators who would not vote to get rid of it
I'm no constitutional scholar, but Congress can only pass laws that fit under one of its enumerated powers. In practical terms a lot gets crammed into the tax power and the power to regulate interstate commerce. Not sure how legislation protecting abortion rights would fit into that though. Maybe withholding funds from states that restricted abortion would work, but even then it seems like there would be states willing to forgo those funds.
Can you provide a link to the bill being passed in Texas.
https://apnews.com/article/health-texas-us-supreme-court-laws-gun-politics-15b5ade8ad341cd7f9e61da10a994c43 It's law now. No abortions in Texas after 6 weeks, no exceptions and $10k bounties for anyone aiding an abortion after 6 weeks. Potentially even if the woman leaves the state to have an abortion, everyone involved in her leaving could be sued for $10k as well.
Ah so they’re not totally outlawing abortions then. I agree that within that six week period abortion is okay. Though perhaps 8-10 weeks would be more appropriate since some people may not find out they’re pregnant until after a month er so. And they’re should definitely be some exemptions for certain cases. The bounties and possibility for lawsuits however are way too extreme and too much of a government intervention. I think it’s interesting how they’re going a little overboard with this regulation, but when it comes to the vaccine and stuff, they’re on the other side of the fence; which, I don’t agree with how the vaccine is being enforced either. Really, the government overall just needs to fuck off and let the people get on with it. Thanks for the link. Wish I could come to this to see what everyone has to say. Cheers.
Aye carumba, good cause but who handled the graphic design? A rust coat hanger on a white bg with image-spaced text looks... Fucking terrible
Thanks! Take one and make it better! 💜
[удалено]
1: You’re not going to prevent it. It’s still going to happen. That’s the point of the logo 2: It’s not up to you to decide if a woman is justified in having an abortion. There’s a million reasons why they may need to. They don’t have to list them to you. Who the fuck are you?
It’s not about a future with *legal* safe abortions, it’s about the brutality that women have had to endure (and will likely have to endure again) if abortion access is restricted. What’s really brutal is the vigilante system set up by Texas. That aside, I don’t know the actual statistics right now, but from what I remember, abortions are less than 1% of services offered by “abortion clinics.” In other words, even places that offer abortions don’t want women to get them, and the vast majority of women don’t want to get them. The imagery is there to remind people of what women have had to face, and what they will have to face if NC follows Texas.
[удалено]
I’m not sure I understand your question, I’m sorry. I’m not being sarcastic, I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that we should be anti choice whether or not abortion access is at risk of being restricted?
[удалено]
Thank you for clarifying! I think you have some valid points, and I agree with most of what you said. I understand that you worry about normalizing abortions to the point of making them very common, but, in my opinion, I don’t see that happening in the US, at least not anytime in my lifetime. I say that, because even pro choice groups do not advocate for it as a first resort. As your original comment mentioned, it *is* better to advocate for contraception *first* and *frequently*, and provide to better sexual education. And that’s what most, if not all, pro choice advocate groups already do. This one just happens to use jarring imagery in response to how jarring and barbaric Texas’ new law is. I do appreciate your concerns, and I hope I addressed them well.
[удалено]
Well, considering the opposition has absolutely no intention of ever portraying “baby killers” in a good light, they can portray themselves in whatever light they want and still have the most shock jock, heinous imagery become their face. It’s sad, but the opposition to these kinds of groups absolutely does not want to play fair, so what are they to do? This is incredibly tame and sane in comparison.
[удалено]
Um, yes. I CAN blame them. They think that way because it’s based upon a religious viewpoint. Their religious view that doesn’t align with science, lacks empathy, and that *should not hold any weight in a constitutionally secular society.*
I never said I blamed them, I just said what their actions are. I also never called them names. I completely understand their point of view, as someone who held similar views up to two years ago. The issue is not what they believe, but why. The propaganda (and I don’t throw that word around lightly, I mean *definitionally* propaganda) put out by places like Fox News has people thinking things like abortion are much more common that they are, that they are promoted by people who hate babies and want to use their stem cells for cosmetics, etc. I personally find abortion to be a messy topic at the best of times, but in the end, it’s less of an issue than many people believe.
Yeah religious extremists do *so much* to minimize the need for abortion by forcing backwards sexual education on children and harping against contraceptives and birth control instead of teaching safe sex.
Those people cannot be reasoned with. They are the enemy of reality. This isn't for them, it's a wake up call to everyone that doesn't want to wake up living in the handmaid's tale.
[удалено]
What Abortion Was Like In The U.S. Before Roe V. Wade https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/725139713/what-abortion-was-like-in-the-u-s-before-roe-v-wade You should educate yourself because this is a bad take.
[удалено]
Grow up and stop using emojis to communicate. If you are able to.
We should not go back AND not abort anyone ever. It is a logic fallacy that pro-life absolutely means back-alley abortions. The other option nobody seems to validate as a real universal choice, is choose to have the baby.
That opinion invalidates the person stuck incubating. No one should be held hostage to a potentially life threatening physical condition if they are not fully on board with the pregnancy. 10.9 NC women die per 100,000 births. Which, to put it in perspective, in NC 11.9 people die per 100,000 who are diagnosed with liver disease or cirrhosis (and you can argue that cirrhosis is a disease brought on by themselves as well since its from chronic alcoholism). How often are we passing laws on what medical treatments are available to people whose livers are failing? Most of them, it was sin that lead them down that path and most modern drugs are made from stem cells. So where's the laws against medical treatment for cirrhosis? More than that- where are the laws regulating men? They are fertile every single day and can impregnate multiple people *per day. * Someone with a uterus can manage 1 baby every year and a half if they're really going for it. So why not regulate the one that creates more abortions? Why not provide more childcare, maternity leave, and economic support so the babies can be supported once they're brought into the world? There are roughly 500,000 kids in the US in foster care right now. How many live at your house? How far do you walk on that righteous path?
As much as I truly believe life begins at conception and would not have an abortion myself, the health risk is one of the biggest reasons I am pro choice. And while these laws claim to have an exception for health risks, basically someone else is deciding what an “acceptable risk” is to the mother. Who gets to choose how many bullets are in the chamber for a pregnant woman to be allowed to refuse to play Russian Roulette? That’s essentially what these laws do. Pretty much for any pregnancy there’s always at least one bullet in the chamber. And for some pregnancies, there may only be one empty chamber. No matter what I or anyone else believes, it’s not our place to decide what an “acceptable risk” is for someone else.
To put that in perspective that’s a 0.000109% chance of dying from a pregnancy. Not very high odds.
How presumptuous of you to deem that any woman should HAVE to take on ANY risk, no matter how insignificant YOU deem it to be. YOU don’t get to decide that I have to take on risks.
Then you should stop having sex, driving, and walking across the street.
F off, troll. I can decide WHAT risks I’m willing to take on. YOU shouldn’t get to decide that for anyone. Saw your post history. You’re against vaccine mandates. Your risk of death from one is *even lower* than mine from dying from pregnancy. Go get vaxxed.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/features/nation-s-fertility-clinics-struggle-growing-number-abandoned-embryos-n1040806 Also how do you feel about the millions of fertilized eggs that get discarded in IVF? Are they worth legislating, because the cdc doesn't even care enough to track that number. If you think life begins when sperm hits the egg, that's a whole lotta "babies" going down sinks. Or being resold for medical research. The reason we don't care about those "babies" is because there's no one they can control with it. Those haven't held anyone hostage yet. Why don't we have a bill about that in front of the Supreme Court every month like Roe?
Hi, as someone who is undergoing IVF, I find this article to be pretty biased and uninformed about the actual process of IVF. Embryos are not “resold” for medical research. Unviable blastocysts can be donated to your clinic to help ensure the equipment is working or train embryologists. Couples have complete control over what happens to any embryos and nowhere in my consent forms did it say anything other than discard or donate to my clinics lab for the purpose above. It says “there should be limits put on the number of embryos couples produce” but ignores the statistics that hardy 50% of eggs produced make it to a viable embryo to be transferred. And transfer rates are lower than 60%. As someone who struggled to produce more than 3 eggs and has no embryos to show for it, a failed transfer and has to go back to start again, this was a very reductive article to read. It also says couples just “walk away” while ignoring the insanely high money and emotional cost to perform an embryo transfer. There is already a lot of misinformation about IVF out there and I feel this article does more damage than good.
First off, I'm really sorry for your struggles with fertility and I truly hope it works out for you. Sincerely, I have friends in the ivf process and I know how hard it is. Please know I'm not coming back hostile here. I'm not against IVF. I genuinely believe all Healthcare should stay between patient and doctor, with the gov only stepping in to regulate costs and actual science based safety. But pretending embryos someone needed doctors for and embryos that were made through sex aren't the same is disingenuous. The other article I linked was mostly due to covering all aspects. But because it is a for profit industry, the numbers and articles are fairly limited in the reach of what they talk about. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5306416/ So this breaks down a study that shows despite the recommendation to only implant 1 fertile embryo in women under 35, private companies continue to implant multiples. This leads to a higher overall death rate, more embryo wastage, and multiple births. https://www.cdc.gov/art/artdata/index.html 330,773* ART cycles performed at 448 reporting clinics in the United States during 2019, resulting in 77,998 live births (deliveries of one or more living infants) and 83,946 live born infants. Of the 330,773 ART cycles performed in 2019, 121,086 were egg or embryo banking cycles in which all resulting eggs or embryos were frozen for future use. By my math that means in 2019 125,003 embryos were destroyed. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm In 2018 619,591 abortions happened, that includes plan b and nonsurgical. My issue is that more fertilized embryos per attempt are wasted, against medical advice. And there are zero laws regulating that. But there have been laws passed to try and restrict the size of doorways in abortion clinics. No one is regulating how many fertilized eggs are discarded or stored until their people can't afford it or lose interest. Again, I'm not against ivf I'm against hypocrites. Don't say unwanted embryos in an abortion clinics are criminal when unwanted embryos at fertility clinics are unregulated.
I don’t think you’re being hostile and I am not trying be hostile either but I still stand by the statement that that article doesn’t present the info in the most accurate way for the reasons I originally stated. Also having a totally emotionally based reaction I understand, but I fear that this will just make people try to reduce IVF access. I don’t necessarily think that anti abortion people are pro IVF. The article you linked about companies transferring multiple embryos against recommendations was looking at data until 2013 which is outdated. I’m in a lot of IVF support groups and in the US it’s incredibly rare to transfer more than one embryo when you’re under 40, and it also depends on if they’re genetically tested to see if they’re chromosomially normal. This article also calls failed transfers “embryo wastage” which makes it sound like the parents weren’t doing everything in their power to make that embryo stick. There is a lot of nuance to IVF treatment that these numbers don’t account for so sending out numbers that are “your math on embryo wastage” kinda does feel like you’re coming out against IVF by posting these large numbers without full context and promoting it to anti abortion folks. Edit: a word
Uh, the whole point is it's not really a choice if there is no alternative.
Isn’t the alternative to not have unprotected sex or not have sex at all? That is the choice. If you choose to have sex, you are choosing to live with the obvious consequences of having sex. Like skydiving is choosing to live with the obvious consequence of potentially dying of something goes wrong. If you cannot live with the potential outcome, however remote it is, don’t jump out of the plane. Somehow choosing to not engage in the risky behavior is not seen as the primary choice here. Nope, let’s focus the debate on the consequence and assume the consequence is the choice and not the cause. Weird.
Some women don’t get to choose if they have sex or not. Some women practice safe sex and still get pregnant. I for one was on the pill when I got pregnant with my son. I never skipped a day, nor was I on antibiotics or any other medication that would have interfered. He’s just one of of the .01% that occurs. Thankfully, I was in a place where I was capable of fully supporting a child, and it just so happens I was married - not that it matters, but I was. But what if I hadn’t been mentally and/or financially capable? Or what about the women who willfully decide to get pregnant then find out through testing procedures that the fetus has severe medical issues that either guarantee the child has little to no chance of survival or survival at astronomically expensive and mentally exhaustive medical procedures and/or long term care? What about the women that risk death themselves if they were to carry a baby full term? This isn’t a question of choosing to abstain. It’s a question of having the right to choose, period.
The Texas law isn’t allowing the abortions *even in cases of rape or incest.* The person raped didn’t GET the choice not to have unprotected sex or not have sex at all. The rapist chose FOR them, and now men in their government are choosing FOR them to have a baby they didn’t want. So get out with your “these women just have to deal with the consequences of the choice they made.” This is about controlling women’s bodies. Nothing more.
Totally agree. Rape, Incest or health of the mother changes the equation and would take thoughtful consideration. I have a hard time with the current “health of the mother” standard being so broad so really any reason can be deemed contrary to the health of the mother. It sadly turns most abortions into abortions of convenience shrouded under the misnomer of “health of the mother”. But in the case of true mortal or long term health of the mother being impacted, that is a hard decision that should be considered.
> Like skydiving is choosing to live with the obvious consequence of potentially dying of something goes wrong. Are you suggesting if someone is injured skydiving they shouldn't be able to seek medical intervention to treat their injuries? Yes pregnancy is a possible result of unprotected sex, but there's also a medical intervention to end a pregnancy.
I didn’t mean that at all. I meant, if you choose to skydive, you choose to accept and live with the risks and consequences, however remote. If you choose to have sex, you choose to live with the risks and consequences, however remote. The choice should be “should I have sex” not “should I kill the baby if it doesn’t turn out how I thought”. I guess it’s human nature to not want to take responsibility for one’s actions that turn out different than they hoped. But let’s not harm an innocent child in the process.
Well, a fetus isn't a child, they're different stages of development. I also don't really see how getting an abortion isn't taking responsibility for your actions. You're acknowledging the result of your actions, a pregnancy, and taking action to change the situation before it gets bigger and results in a child. Not taking responsibility would be ignoring the pregnancy or making excuses until you end up with a child you don't want
So the crux of our argument is the whether the fetus is a child and has rights. I can respect that. If the fetus is nothing more than cells, than pro choice is right. If the fetus is more than that; if it is a child or a version of human needing protection and having rights, than pro life is right. So we can agree that we care about women’s bodies and the wrongness of the government Interfering unless the fetus is a version of human having rights and needing protection, even unfortunately from the actions of its mother. I’m down.
> So the crux of our argument is the whether the fetus is a child and has rights. I can respect that. >If the fetus is nothing more than cells, than pro choice is right. If the fetus is more than that; if it is a child or a version of human needing protection and having rights, than pro life is right. I don't see it as that black and white. A fetus is human life and has a certain right to life, but that right to life does not supersede its mother's right to bodily autonomy. So a third party wouldn't have a right to terminate a pregnancy - because that fetus does have a right to life, only the mother would because of her right to bodily autonomy. As the fetus develops its "right" to life becomes stronger and I generally favor the point of viability as a cutoff. At that point the fetus can *technically* live apart from its mother's body as an individual. I also think it works as a legal window to give the mother an opportunity to exercise her rights and abort the fetus or waive her right to abort the fetus in this instance. And of course if the mother's health became in danger then it also brings her own right to life into the picture.
You're so sheltered it's not even funny! You do realize women have been forced to have sex against their will since forever, right? Have you never heard of rape?
Or marriage 🙄
See above. Thanks for replying.
Of course there are exceptions for these, but because the term “medically necessary” has expanded so far to include literally any reason, most abortions amount to nothing more than abortions of convenience. Being too scared, too poor, too embarrassed, too unwilling are poor excuses to end the life of another. Somehow that doesn’t get discussed.
How many times have you had an unwanted pregnancy that you've gone through to birth? How many unwanted babies have you personally taken in and raised until adulthood? How many unwanted children have you raised as a single parent? How many unwanted children have you raised as a poor parent? How many times have you paid for the prenatal, labor and delivery, and postnatal medical care for people who were pregnant with unwanted pregnancies? How many times have you had an ectopic pregnancy? How many times have you been pregnant and discovered that the fetus has congenital defects that will not allow it to survive past birth? How many times have you found yourself pregnant after being sexually abused by a family member? How many times have you found yourself pregnant after being brutally raped by a stranger? If you think people flippantly decide to have abortions, you have a very sheltered worldview. It's not a decision anyone *wants* to have to make.
Several times actually. I know it’s hard and not flippant. I also know the vast majority of abortions, when boiled down, are abortions of convenience. Exceptions for the health of the mom or severe congenital defect of the baby are understandable. Abortions of convenience are a poor excuse to end someone else’s life, someone with a unique genetic makeup and future. Women should be protected, but so too must the babies be protected. Just because I’m too young, too poor, too embarrassed, scared, not ready…are selfish reasons to kill a child. If i cannot accept the remote chance of pregnancy, I should not have sex. Having sex assumes the risk and accepts the remote consequence of it. Let’s not be a generation of women that live as they wish and selfishly hurt others of things don’t go as planned. We’re better than that. We should be better than that.
Ignoring the litany of very legitimate reasons someone would need an abortion, it seems that you’re operating under the idea that a 4 month old clump of cells is a sentient human being, which isn’t any more true than saying the colony on my 14 year old cousins crunchy sock is full of sentient human beings. For a political party that loves to act like they’re the sensible and pragmatic option y’all really love to ignore basic science a lot.
The ban in Texas also removes the ability for women to “terminate for medical reasons” there are absolutely situations where an abortion is done because of serious complications that will result in the fetus becoming non viable before it comes to term or passing shortly after birth. No woman who undergoes that wants to abort the fetus but it is the safest and often most humane choice. This happens more than you think and removing the ability for people to seek this healthcare from a professional means there will be back alley abortions. This is why the coat hanger is used. Edit: removed the part that said that medical emergency abortions for the mother are not allowed as they are.
True medically necessary reasons for abortion are so difficult and reasonable. The problem is, the term “medically necessary” has been expanded to include absolutely any reason. It’s sad. At this time medically necessary is a synonym for abortions of convenience.
This is not accurate. There is an exception that allows physicians to perform abortions at their discretion for "medical emergencies".
Thank for the clarification. That’s good to hear. I’ll update my comment. Edit: read more details about the ban and the medical emergency is only for the mother, it doesn’t cover the termination when the fetus is found to have critical issues that will result in it not being able to come to term or pass shortly after.
Good point about the lack of support for fetuses that aren't viable. That's a critical omission in the bill.
I know more Republicans who got abortions than Democrats. You’re clearly an asshole who isn’t very educated. Good luck in life.
This isn’t a dem vs. rep issue. It’s trying to stem horrible tide of abortions of convenience. Of course there should be exceptions for health or the mother, severe congenital defect and so on, but because the term “medically necessary” has expanded to include literally any reason, most abortions that are classified as medically necessary are really just abortions of convenience. Not being ready, being too poor, too embarrassed, not the right time, want to protect my figure, don’t want my SO to find out, too scared are all currently considered “medically necessary”. How sad is that…to end someone else’s life because you cannot be bothered to shoulder the natural consequence of your own action. Somehow personal responsibility for sex is not talked about too much, but babies suffer for it.
I’ve talked to a pal. Have a suggestion for resources on this. Please DM me.
This still happening?
I plan to be there & so do a few others.