Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Carolina ultrasound abortion law ruled illegal by judge
Reuters ^ | January 17, 2014 | David Adams

Posted on 01/17/2014 10:17:13 PM PST by boatbums

A federal judge on Friday struck down a 2011 North Carolina law requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound and explain it to a woman before having an abortion, arguing it violated the constitutional right to free speech of doctors.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles found that a state does not have "the power to compel a health care provider to speak, in his or her own voice, the state's ideological message in favor of carrying a pregnancy to term."

The law "compels a health care provider to act as the state's courier and to disseminate the state's message discouraging abortion, in the provider's own voice, in the middle of a medical procedure, and under circumstances where it would seem the message is the provider's and not the state's," she added in her 42-page ruling.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; prolife
Since when is a doctor's "free speech rights" factored into giving a woman the information necessary for her to fully consent to an abortion?

Ultrasound allows the mother to HEAR her unborn child's heartbeat as well as to see for herself that it is indeed a beating heart and that there is a human life inside her. The only reason an abortionist would not want her to know this is she just might change her mind and NOT go through with the murder of her child and the "doctor" loses out on the money. Deplorable! How can this judge consider this is in the best interest of women?

1 posted on 01/17/2014 10:17:14 PM PST by boatbums
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: boatbums
...requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound and explain it to a woman before having an abortion...U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles found that a state does not have "the power to compel a health care provider to speak, in his or her own voice, the state's ideological message in favor of carrying a pregnancy to term."

What does explaining a medical test in medical and scientific terms to a woman have to do with a state's "ideological" message?

2 posted on 01/17/2014 10:21:18 PM PST by BlessedBeGod (Democrats are Cruz'n for a Bruisin' in 2016. / Obama=Unspeakable Audacity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
RE :”A federal judge on Friday struck down a 2011 North Carolina law requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound and explain it to a woman before having an abortion, arguing it violated the constitutional right to free speech of doctors. “

WTF??

You can bet he never used that line to strike down liberal laws like employer mandates, or Obamacare.,

3 posted on 01/17/2014 10:21:58 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; All
Since when is a doctor's "free speech rights" factored into giving a woman the information necessary for her to fully consent to an abortion?

Since 10th Amendment-ignoring activist justices have infiltrated the courts.

4 posted on 01/17/2014 10:23:35 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Funny what happens to this free speech of doctors when they want to coach someone out of sexual perversion, however!

It’s a sham, a charade, a farce. I feel that we might as well just laugh at it. Why dignify it with deep, deep logic?


5 posted on 01/17/2014 10:28:19 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar for you if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Well it is weird. Will Obamacare be as reticent about giving medical advice? I’m doubting it.


6 posted on 01/17/2014 10:29:38 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar for you if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

This week has been one judicial outrage after another. From declaring gay marriage a civil right in Oklahoma (overruling something like 76% of Oklahoma voters) and tossing out voter ID laws in Pennsylvania, to thwarting reasonable restrictions on abortion, these leftist/statist judges just don’t quit. Why should they? Congress consistently lets judges do this, because Congress actually LIKES judges who act as super legislators. It absolves Congress of any blame!

These black robed tyrants are going to have to be dealt with. If we are lucky enough to ever regain control of Congress, we are going to have to start impeaching a whole lot of judges. Otherwise, they will simply overrule whatever the new conservative majority in Congress attempts to do.


7 posted on 01/17/2014 10:30:31 PM PST by CitizenUSA (Sodomy and abortion. The only constitutional rights protected by Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Judge is an Obama 2010 appointee


8 posted on 01/17/2014 10:30:59 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Abortion is the only medical procedure a doctor doesn’t have to inform the patient of the details.

Rather shows how uncaring pro-aborts types are toward women.

A relative recently had a colonosccopy and the GI doctor went over every little detail of it prior. And afterwards he was monitored for an hour before leaving. Abortion doctors do the abortion and out the patient goes. No monitoring afterwards.


9 posted on 01/17/2014 10:32:53 PM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlessedBeGod

Isn’t withholding medical information a crime?


10 posted on 01/17/2014 10:36:35 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

There is absolutely no logic to it. Like you wrote. It’s a complete farce—grand comedy. Unfortunately, it’s not very funny. The judges are despots. They are little more than super legislators who make the law up as they go.


11 posted on 01/17/2014 10:36:48 PM PST by CitizenUSA (Sodomy and abortion. The only constitutional rights protected by Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I certainly think it would be.


12 posted on 01/17/2014 10:41:45 PM PST by BlessedBeGod (Democrats are Cruz'n for a Bruisin' in 2016. / Obama=Unspeakable Audacity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Judge: Knowledge is Bad!


13 posted on 01/17/2014 10:46:51 PM PST by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Figures!


14 posted on 01/17/2014 10:49:41 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Abortion lovers are afraid that if a woman sees the child they are about to have murdered that they might have a change of heart, that is what they are afraid of


15 posted on 01/17/2014 10:50:24 PM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Well, I mean laugh at it, then come at the issue at a different level.

We have folks lost in sin here. It’s going to be a seek and recover mission. Politically there can be some house cleaning, but unless the heart of the nation supports it, it won’t happen.

And here’s where I am even now getting into hot debates with other Christians. I’m making assertions about the fundamental redemptive desire and character of God that are getting panned big time, but nobody can actually disprove it. It’s like folks are counting the balance of gloomy and happy words in the bible and then puzzling out from that what God is like, rather than actually following (1) the story, and (2) the claims, of God.


16 posted on 01/17/2014 11:02:33 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar for you if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RginTN
You're right! All this talk about a "woman's right to decide what is best for her between her and her doctor", makes it sound like she has some kind of ongoing relationship with the doctor. In most cases, she's never met him/her before and never will again unless it's for another abortion. In many cases she never even TALKS to the doc before he comes in to do the deed. The compelling interest of the doctor is to keep women ignorant about what is going on or assuming they already know what they are doing and don't want to hear anything that might cause them guilt.

I think it is treating women shamefully and it is shocking how today's feminists don't care that it is going on. Read some of the early feminists like Elisabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Lousia May Alcott and what they thought of abortion. They called it "child murder" and something imposed on women by unscrupulous men who wanted to hide their adulteries and escape responsibilities for their children. See feministsforlife.org/. They have the history of these brave women and show that their cause is STILL ongoing.

17 posted on 01/17/2014 11:10:22 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10; All

Do you mean like the “activist justices” who decided that corporations were people, and money was speech; or that eminent domain could be used for corporate interests in addition to community interests like schools and hospitals.


18 posted on 01/17/2014 11:10:25 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"the power to compel a health care provider to speak, in his or her own voice, the state's ideological message in favor of carrying a pregnancy to term."

A moronic ruling. Utterly moronic. A woman this stupid should not be a judge. The doctor is not required to pronounce any views on abortion, but only to administer the procedure. And the law routinely requires private citizens to comply with regulations with which they might disagree, therefore forcing them to comply with the "ideology" implicit in the law.
19 posted on 01/17/2014 11:14:03 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlessedBeGod
"What does explaining a medical test in medical and scientific terms to a woman have to do with a state's "ideological" message?"

Nothing and everything. In other words, ALL law involves an implicit or explicit "ideology," but citizens are required to follow the law even if they disagree with it. This does not violate their "free speech." No doctor is compelled to make any anti-abortion comments, he is just required to perform the exam. The judge is an idiot.
20 posted on 01/17/2014 11:17:09 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

This is one of the most moronic judicial rulings I have ever seen.


21 posted on 01/17/2014 11:17:57 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
"It’s a sham, a charade, a farce. I feel that we might as well just laugh at it. Why dignify it with deep, deep logic?"

I have to agree with you. This is quite possibly the most absurd judicial decision I have ever seen. It is utterly laughable.
22 posted on 01/17/2014 11:20:30 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
RE :”This is one of the most moronic judicial rulings I have ever seen.”

Its total crap like this and the fact that the idiot sheep public are unknowing, uncaring or indifferent, about this judicial rule is what is scary and upsetting.

23 posted on 01/17/2014 11:21:28 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Abortion is the one area of “medicine” in which libs utterly retreat from their “informed consent” principle. They want women to know as little as possible about what they are contemplating.


24 posted on 01/17/2014 11:24:10 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles found that a state does not have “the power to compel a health care provider to speak,

But the Federal Government does??
Do you have a gun in the house?
Do you feel safe in the house?
etc etc.......
I call bullshit!


25 posted on 01/17/2014 11:30:30 PM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I go to sign up for the American Revolution 2014 and the Crusades 2014?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Doctors speak the state’s ideology all the time. One example is only prescribing those drugs which the state decides are legal. When they are prescribed they must be prescribed in the way the state has decided meets the State’s standard of health care. You also have doctors speaking the ideology of the state when the law requires the reporting of certain diseases. Not that I disagree with it but a doctor could be against reporting certain diseases.

The argument is without merit. The doctor is not required to be against abortion he just must present the facts about fetal development as supported by the ultrasound. Evil hates the truth, always has and always will.


26 posted on 01/17/2014 11:34:12 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA
"I call bullshit!"

Don't dignify it with that description! It's worse than that - using her "logic," you could strike down ANY law!

ALL laws involves some sort of implicit or explicit ideology, but we have to obey them, and obeying them does not mean we agree with them. This ruling will not withstand appeal. Even liberal Supreme Court justices will realize that the ruling is dumb and effectively negates ALL law.
27 posted on 01/17/2014 11:35:43 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

You state it very well.


28 posted on 01/17/2014 11:37:51 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Killing Babies = Choice = Good

Protecting Babies = Informed Choice = Bad

Yep, this Country is doomed.


29 posted on 01/17/2014 11:41:28 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Nobody owes you a living, so shut up and get back to work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
"Doctors speak the state’s ideology all the time."

Another example is the new California law prohibiting psychiatrists from initiating sex-orientation therapy for gays who are minors. That is very ideological, but there is no way this judge would strike it down on any grounds, much less the "free speech" rights of conservative psychiatrists.
30 posted on 01/17/2014 11:42:35 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

In today’s world “Money is Speech”, unless you think the Government should fund Political Campaigns.

Nothing “Activist” about it.

As far as your other point about Eminent Domain, you are correct. Property Rights have been attacked for decades.


31 posted on 01/17/2014 11:45:54 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Nobody owes you a living, so shut up and get back to work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
This is one of the most moronic judicial rulings I have ever seen.

I agree. I remember back in Florida in the late 80's early 90's the state senate was debating a law called "A Woman's Right to Know Act". It was along the same lines as this NC statute only it didn't have anything about ultrasounds in it. It mandated that a pamphlet be given to a woman and the doctor discussing what the pamphlet said prior to her undergoing an abortion. The pamphlet discussed fetal development, alternatives to abortion and the risks of abortion. Charlie Crist, a Republican at the time, was the lone hold out on that vote and it died. Some of the comments from the democrats had to do with whether or not women already knew all this information and if mandating the doctor discuss the points with them was "treating them like children" (that was an actual comment).

I really do think judges like this one imagine that all women know what they're getting when they seek an abortion so ANY impediment to just getting on with it is seen as illegal. As a former volunteer for many years with a crisis pregnancy center, I can attest that LOTS of women do not truly know the truth about abortion. They think it's just a "blob of tissue" and not a human life. We had an ultrasound machine and a tech in the center and gave free tests to any woman who wanted one. A big percentage decided NOT to go have an abortion and gave the gift of life to their babies. A fetal heartbeat starts at THREE weeks gestation!

I also counseled women who had abortions. The vast majority of them did NOT know the truth either about the development of their child, what happened in their abortion or how it affected them afterward both physically, emotionally and spiritually. Women deserve to know the truth. Judges like this one are allowing the abortion industry to play them every bit as much as the women they service. We MUST stand up together and do whatever we can so that abortion won't have to be made illegal - it will be unthinkable. Education is a big step towards that.

32 posted on 01/18/2014 12:07:50 AM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Yep! That is the main reason.


33 posted on 01/18/2014 12:08:16 AM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin
"Do you mean like the “activist justices” who decided that corporations were people, and money was speech;"

Congress - when authorizing corporations as legal entities - decided that corporations are people, because they are - in fact - comprised of people. And, in any modern social grouping larger than a village, it takes money to get a message out to the community as a whole. In a society of 350 million people spread out over an entire continent, it does indeed require a lot of money to get a message out, and limiting the money quite literally suppresses free speech.
34 posted on 01/18/2014 12:08:23 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

The black-robed tyrants strike again! Hell in a handbasket!


35 posted on 01/18/2014 12:09:33 AM PST by vpintheak (Thankful to be God blessed & chosen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Isn’t withholding medical information a crime?

Not if you're having an abortion but you can't even get your ears pierced without full consent.

36 posted on 01/18/2014 12:10:31 AM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

I agree. As I said in an earlier post, abortion is the one medical area where libs want to restrict information rather than require it. For example, think of all those TV ads for prescription medicines, where they must list all the possible side-effects, no matter how rare those side-effects might be or how uncertain the relationship of the side-effect to the medicine actually is. But with abortion, their attitude is “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.”


37 posted on 01/18/2014 12:15:13 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
Evil hates the truth, always has and always will.

Yes, it does!

The thief comes not, but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. (John 10:10)

38 posted on 01/18/2014 12:16:44 AM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Over the past year, I have been accused of being 'ideological' several times while 'in discussion' with Libs. Of course I am interpreting human nature, while they are slaves to ideology: projection on their part.

This 2010 Obama appointee is using a trendy liberal debating falsehood that has no legal import. Her use of "ideology" in this incendiary fashion demonstrates an absence of judicial temperament. May she be forever overturned.

39 posted on 01/18/2014 12:22:08 AM PST by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

You are right - there has been a fifty-year effort to obfuscate the nature of the human fetus/embryo, so many women really do not know the basic biological facts concerning their unborn child. They have been told it’s a blob of protoplasm, or something like a fish, or part of their own body, kind of like their appendix, but not the actual facts.


40 posted on 01/18/2014 12:24:38 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
"May she be forever overturned."

Since her idiotic ruling undermines the basis of ALL law, I think even liberal Supreme Court justices would overturn it.
41 posted on 01/18/2014 12:26:15 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BlessedBeGod

Hey satan... here is another judge for your furnace.


42 posted on 01/18/2014 3:40:41 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

“Judge is an Obama 2010 appointee”

The vote to confirm her in the Senate was unanimous. She is as much a product of the Republicans as she is of the Democrats.


43 posted on 01/18/2014 3:54:02 AM PST by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

“compels a health care provider to act as the state’s courier and to disseminate the state’s message

Hey, thats what zerocare does...


44 posted on 01/18/2014 3:54:14 AM PST by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Anything states do that tries to prevent the murder of pre-born children by their mothers will be struck down by the ungodly federal government. Their paid executioners in black robes will continue this purge of the next generation because 60 million dead babies isn’t enough to satisfy Satan.


45 posted on 01/18/2014 4:15:44 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles found that a state does not have "the power to compel a health care provider to speak, in his or her own voice, the state's ideological message in favor of carrying a pregnancy to term." The law "compels a health care provider to act as the state's courier and to disseminate the state's message discouraging abortion, in the provider's own voice, in the middle of a medical procedure, and under circumstances where it would seem the message is the provider's and not the state's," she added in her 42-page ruling.

Would be interesting to know how the same "judge" would rule on the birth control mandate as opposed by religious entities.....

46 posted on 01/18/2014 5:00:44 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Just another part of the Left's ongoing war against life....like the upcoming death panels.

In the liberal religion of which Obama is the Messiah, murdering unborn babies is the sacrifice to their pagan gods....just as drugs are their holy communion and plastic surgery is their "being born again".

Leni

47 posted on 01/18/2014 5:35:32 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

same can be said for Leon Panetta and his Senate conformation vote as DoD Sec.


48 posted on 01/18/2014 9:14:56 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: All
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, heralded the judge's ruling as, "[It] marks a major victory for North Carolina women and sends a message to lawmakers across the country: It is unconstitutional for politicians to interfere in a woman's personal medical decisions.". Because Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country, they have a vested interest (conflict of interest, really) in assuring NO barriers are erected to them giving the abortion and the money that gets paid (over a $1 BILLION a year industry).

Since 1994, the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services has required by regulation an ultrasound for any patient who is scheduled for an abortion procedure. Abortion providers use the information primarily to determine how far along the baby is rather than depending on the woman's guess as to when the pregnancy began. They then decide what procedure is used AND how much to charge since the further along the pregnancy is the more money it costs to end it. I find this ruling ludicrous on many levels. The "doctor" (and I use quotes because the person who would intentionally kill an unborn baby doesn't deserve the title) already has an ultrasound done before he/she can proceed. What this law did was allow the mother to see what the doctor sees and be told the gestational age of her baby, the beating heart, and, in many cases, the clearly defined body of that tiny human life (not a blob at all).

The rest of the law, called "The Woman's Right to Know Act", include:

    Patients must wait at least 24 hours between scheduling the abortion and having the procedure.

    Women must be given extensive information, including material about the medical risks of abortion, the gestational age of the fetus at the time of the operation, whether the surgeon has liability insurance for abortions, the resources available for birth and child care, the abrtion-alternative centers on the state website and told that the father of the child is liable for financial support. The law also states that doctors who violate it can be sued not only by the patient, but by the woman's spouse, parent or sibling. (taken from an article published today in the Charlotte Observer).

I think it is easy to see why the abortion rights advocates deplore laws such as this one as well as those in other states that limit when abortions are done in the term, who may perform them, the health conditions of the "clinics", admitting privileges to hospitals should complications arise and other regulations that actually DO put the best interest of women ahead of profits.

49 posted on 01/18/2014 1:25:11 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
You are right - there has been a fifty-year effort to obfuscate the nature of the human fetus/embryo, so many women really do not know the basic biological facts concerning their unborn child. They have been told it’s a blob of protoplasm, or something like a fish, or part of their own body, kind of like their appendix, but not the actual facts.

For those who profit mightily from abortions (over $1 BILLION a year industry), the LAST thing they want is an educated woman. In many cases, the pregnant woman is frantic and under duress either by the child's father, her parents, peers or society to not be pregnant. In my years of counseling these women, I have heard some of the saddest most heart-wrenching stories. RARELY is this a woman's choice all on her own. We really DO need to do more to help women make choices that are life-affirming.

50 posted on 01/18/2014 1:52:51 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson