Abortion

I'm With Stupid

The perennially embattled free speech zone over our chests

|

On April 29 a grassroots army of teenaged billboards, provocatively packaged in combed cotton agitprop, will be deployed across the land. Their goal? Raise consciousness, spark discussion, and, if all goes according to plan, get thrown out of class. The occasion is the sixth annual National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day.

"When school administrators harass students, tell them they can't wear the shirt, it raises awareness," says Erik Whittington, director of Rock for Life, the group that organizes the event. "The media gets ahold of it. The word gets out. The more people who hear the phrase on the shirt, the more we educate people."

This year, Whittington says his organization has big plans. To promote Pro-Life T-Shirt Day, they're creating a Rock for Life website where the young pronatalist participants can network with each other. It'll be like MySpace or Facebook, except that instead of connecting over a common interest in drunken snapshots and copyright infringement, the teens will bond via a shared passion for fetuses. Even with such Web 2.0 accessorizing, however, the key to the event's potency remains the all-powerful T-shirt. "It has abortion in big letters," says Whittington of this year's model. "Then we have three graphics side by side. The first two are images of small children in the womb at early stages. The third image is blank. Under those images, it reads, Growing. Growing. Gone."

Considering all the incendiary polemics that characterize both sides of the abortion divide, this rhetorical dinger is fairly benign. Yet some kind of escalatory alchemy occurs when free speech is wedded to casual wear; the mildly provocative becomes untenable, the sophomoric too obscene to bear. Compared to sexier media devices like, say, the iPhone, T-shirts are pretty clunky. Their storage capacity is limited. They're not Bluetooth-enabled. And yet they boast a sense of intimacy and authority few other content delivery systems can match. They come, after all, with a living, breathing byline attached. They're far more mobile than other forms of meat-space spam, such as billboards and posters; they literally get in your face.

In January of this year, several visitors wearing T-shirts emblazoned with various impeach-Bush-and-Cheney messages claimed that security guards at the National Archives Building—the place where the original version of the First Amendment now resides—barred them from the premises. In 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War, the Kuwaiti government sentenced one man to 15 years in jail simply for wearing a Saddam Hussein T-shirt. Today in the United States, we're far more enlightened: Selling a T-shirt inscribed with the names of military personnel who died in Iraq will only get you a maximum sentence of one year in Louisiana and Oklahoma.

Are you against sodomy or breast cancer? In favor of "hot moms" or John Edwards? In 2007 each of these convictions got at least one high school student kicked out of class. In Wisconsin, Edgerton High School enforces a zero tolerance policy against Insane Clown Posse T-shirts. In Aurora, Illinois, all it takes to earn a trip to the principal's office is a T-shirt with a large dollar sign on it.

How did endorsing capitalism or B-list presidential candidates become so controversial? In the 1980s and '90s, hoping to crack down on intracurricular violence and crime, a growing number of schools resorted to the sartorial communism of dress codes and uniforms. As President Bill Clinton put it in 1996, "If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms." In the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, message T-shirts and any other style of dress that undermined the notion that high school students were the new maximum-security inmates fell under suspicion. In the wake of 9/11—Columbine for adults—this attitude spilled over into our malls, airports, and presidential town hall meetings.

It's not just high school massacres and terrorist attacks that have left us so intolerant of our fellow citizens' chests. During the last decade, pretty much every major media innovation—Fox News, Google, Napster, iTunes, Digg—has involved filtering information more precisely, giving us more and more control over the data we ingest. But that uncompromising raw-foods zealot at the organic farmer's market whose shirt reads "Chewing is murder"? Or the perky fetus hugger who wants you to know that "Mean abortionists suck"? Steve Jobs hasn't figured out a way to delete them from your life yet.

"If people don't want to listen to you, what makes you think they want to hear from your sweater?" the satirist Fran Lebowitz quipped in her 1978 essay collection Metropolitan Life, published when message T-shirts were enjoying their first wave of cultural ubiquity. What this sentiment doesn't acknowledge is that it's exactly because people don't want to listen to us that the drive-by evangelism of T-shirts is so enduring. Body-borne messages can't be muted, fast-forwarded, unsubscribed, banished to the "ignore" list, opted out of, or dumped in the recycle bin. Unlike telemarketers or Jehovah's Witnesses, they don't invade anyone's privacy. Their zero-decibel proselytizing is simultaneously low-key and obtrusive, forcing any innocent bystander we share an elevator with to contemplate our thoughts on gun control, illegal immigration, and the availability of low-cost moustache rides.

Instead of avoiding such encounters with the dye-sublimated Other, we should embrace them as a kind of civic spinach: While we may not enjoy them, they're good for us. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that high school students have a First Amendment right to express political and social opinions in school settings, Justice Abe Fortas observed that "any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says that we must take this risk; and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom—this kind of openness—that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious society."

In the late 1990s era of no-logo vogue, cultural commentators fretted that the once-democratic medium of the T-shirt had been co-opted by corporations, and that T-shirt buyers were concerned only with raising the planet's Hilfiger consciousness and saving the FUBUs. "The slogans on contemporary T-shirts are increasingly meaningless," the novelist and columnist Russell Smith observed in The Globe and Mail in 2000. "Most of them are simply the brand name of the T-shirt itself."

Now that our T-shirts are so blithely outspoken—and deliberately offensive—on every issue from Medicare to Britney Spears, it sometimes seems as if we'd like to ban our way back to a more sartorially decorous era. Ultimately, however, the T-shirt skirmishes that continuously erupt are oddly reassuring. Can the public schools be as out of control as they're often alleged to be if all it takes to get suspended from one is an "I ? My Wiener" shirt? Has our public sphere grown as hopelessly coarse as our loudest cultural scrub maids insist if a shirt featuring a faux fishing theme and the phrase "Master Baiter" is enough to make Southwest Airlines ground you?

Shouldn't we take comfort in the fact that so many high school students are ready to fight for their right to champion the unborn, maternal hotties, and whatever else they can think of to test the limits of Tinker v. Des Moines? T-shirts may intrude upon our lives in the public sphere, but they're also our most vivid reminder that free speech is woven into the fabric of our culture.

Contributing Editor Greg Beato is a writer in San Francisco.

Advertisement

NEXT: Pick a Rocket, Any Rocket

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A friend of mine saw a guy wearing a kilt and walking around this snobby downtown area wearing a shirt that said “Jesus was a cunt.” The entertaining part must have been waiting to see who would end up beating him up.

  2. What if the T-shirts don’t sat anything, but are strategically moistened?

  3. Who put that Y key in the T spot?

  4. They’re not Bluetooth-enabled.

    That’s what you think…

  5. Can you sell a t-shirt with a message that, if written in a book or newspaper, would be libelous?

  6. Libel is libel, wherever you publish it. Except in the Congressional Record.

  7. Walk next to him with a shirt that reads
    “I’m not with this f**king moron.”

  8. You do have the right to offend people, but you do NOT have the right for other people not get offended!

  9. So much for my “Chris Hansen is a cock blocker” T-shirt.

  10. it should always end with: “…and all I got was this lousy shirt.”

  11. An emblazzoned T-shirt is no different from a printed sign. Anything with a remotely political message should be fair game.

  12. Of course, if it weren’t pro-life, Reason would be mocking the issue.

    Usually t-shirt stuff about kids being taken “to the woodshed” usually only rates a snicker on these pages, like bongs for jesus stuff, but it becomes serious news when it’s pro-life.

    Hmmmm…..?

    I’m sure there is a perfectly good reason that this isn’t a case of “conservatarian” politics.

    I just can’t think of it right now.

    (PS, pro-life, or bongs for jebus, I support kids in agitating the adults in their lives)

  13. Favorite T-Shirt line:

    Jesus Hates Me.

    The fact that it was on a fat, drunk guy puking in on the street was just icing on the cake.

  14. My new T-Shirt message:

    What the fuck are you talking about Lawrence?

  15. I gotta say, regarless of my views on the issue, the “Growing. Growing. Gone.” T-shirt as described is some damn good snark.

  16. Mustache rides aren’t as low cost as they used to be. The scarcity of mustaches coupled with rising inflation has allowed providers of mustache rides to set prices as high as an entire case of MGD.

  17. I’m not taking sides, but the Tee Shirt issue is more complicated because it is about wearing the tee shirt to public school.

    I’m pretty sure the school would frown on Big Johnson Trucking tee shirts, Big Beer, Big Wood tee shirts from Arrogant Bastard Brewery, tee shirts that claimed Gun Control Means Hitting Your Target, and probably would take issue with the girls that Tall Dave linked to, if they showed up at the local Junior High wearing them.

    The real issue is dress codes and how much authority (arbitrary or otherwise) our public schools are entitled to when it comes to our kids.

    I’m not clear about that even in my own mind. It is obvious that schools go overboard continuously, but where is the logical line to be drawn?

    Said it before, but my kid got hassled big time for bringing a toy rifle to school for use as a prop in a school play about Daniel Boone and the movement west.

  18. My favorite breast cancer shirt, which I was coincidentally telling my girlfriend about this morning:

    Save the boobies!

  19. If people don’t want to listen to you, what makes you think they want to hear from your sweater

    Gotta love Frannie………..

  20. Daniel Boone and the movement west without guns? And they call themselves educators.

  21. I’m not taking sides, but the Tee Shirt issue is more complicated because it is about wearing the tee shirt to public school.

    Given previous court rulings anything with a remotely political message should be fair game. The Big Johnson trucking company “T” wouldn’t pass muster.

  22. One of my favorite shirts. NSFW or little kids

  23. The Big Johnson trucking company “T” wouldn’t pass muster.

    How about the Gun Control T? That’s directly controversial and political.

  24. If we’re going to ban t-shirts, can I please ban those stupid fucking “Here, fishy, fishy” shirts?

  25. How about the Gun Control T? That’s directly controversial and political.

    In today’s climate, this would cause problems, but it should be allowed because students must be allowed to make politcal speech.

  26. “””In Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that high school students have a First Amendment right to express political and social opinions in school settings, “””

    I guess the current SCOTUS doesn’t believe that drugs and religion are “social opinions” since the Bong Hits for Jesus T-shirt was shot down.

  27. “The real issue is dress codes and how much authority (arbitrary or otherwise) our public schools are entitled to when it comes to our kids.”

    I agree TWC. I’m not sure, but I may be the only poster here who is in favor of public school uniforms. No dress code “shades of gray”.

  28. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that high school students have a First Amendment right to express political and social opinions in school settings, . . .

    I imagine that any new lawsuit that made it to the SCOTUS could result in reversal of this prior opinion (in the disguise of a refinement). So, it would require a pretty dedicated student to risk expulsion for wearing a controversial T-shirt then have to wait years for a vindication which might not happen in the current political climate.

  29. I guess the current SCOTUS doesn’t believe that drugs and religion are “social opinions” since the Bong Hits for Jesus T-shirt was shot down.

    The student involved basically said he had no political message, he was just trying to get on TV. If he had been vocal and adamant from the beginning that he was trying to make a politcal statement, he may not have lost.

  30. Rana, your probably right about being the only school uniform booster at H&R 🙂

    Tricky, that is correctomundo. As Nat Hentoff, formerly of the Village Voice once remarked….

    Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

  31. I think the worst thing we could teach our kids is that everyone should bow down to those who complain.

  32. The Wine Commonsewer:

    Just a side note, the Arrogant Bastard shirts are from Stone Brewing. And damn is Arrogant Bastard a tasty brew (along with Double Bastard “Double the Bastard, Bastard the Double”, and Oaked Arrogant Bastard “This Bastard’s got Wood!”).

    And for all the offensive shirts you could ever want, just hit this link, NSFW.

    And I was always fond of wearing my Lunch Money Humiliation shirt (Jesus hates you, and so do I).

    Nephilium

  33. “””The student involved basically said he had no political message, he was just trying to get on TV. If he had been vocal and adamant from the beginning that he was trying to make a politcal statement, he may not have lost.”””

    It does have to be political. In Tinker v. Des Moines, social opinion was considered protected speech. In the Bong hits for Jesus case, SCOTUS failed to recognize drugs and religion, or the combination thereof, as a social commentary.

  34. Everything that’s ever gone wrong in my life can be traced back to that tragic day when I was six years old and my virgin eyes were assaulted by the sight of a big fat guy in a T-shirt reading “Instant Asshole: Just Add Booze.”

  35. Having said that, you are probably right. If the kid’s shirt said, Bush votes bong hits for Jesus, he probably would have won.

  36. TWC,
    Then it is settled.

    Still, I dont know why Americans are against the idea of public school uniforms? can someone explain?
    Even for practical reasons: kids dont have to worry about what to wear everyday and how to impress their friends; parents dont have to spend ridiculous amounts of money so that junior stays in fashion; and kids may actually learn to make a statement or express their individuality through means other than wearing a stupid t-shirt.

  37. Correction: It does have to be political. Should have said, it doesn’t have to be political.

  38. the Arrogant Bastard shirts are from Stone Brewing

    Uhhh, I knew that…..

    I blame the fact that I momentarily stepped outside of my specialty

  39. “””Still, I dont know why Americans are against the idea of public school uniforms? can someone explain?”””

    If you can’t understand the freedom aspect of the debate, I’m not sure if anyone here can help.

  40. Still, I dont know why Americans are against the idea of public school uniforms? can someone explain?

    My dad used to say it was the school’s job to teach and his job to clothe me and to decide when I needed a haircut. [shrugs]

    I’m not against uniforms per se, but I don’t really see the utility. Not that I care very much.

  41. Well, this t-shirt offends women.

  42. “If you can’t understand the freedom aspect of the debate”

    TrikyVic. Freedom? Are you refering to the “freedom aspect” of someone expressing an opinion on a t-shirt or the “freedom aspect” of being required to wear a uniform to public schools? Because if it is the latter, I dont see a big infringement on anyone’s freedom. Since when does the Constituion protect a person’s right to wear? And if you want to argue this point, then why stop at uniforms or dress codes? Shouldn’t students be allowed to wear ANYTHING they pleased to school? including just a bikini? or simply underwear?

  43. Tinker v. Des Moines, social opinion was considered protected speech.

    That’s an example of my whole bitch with the entire legal system, it’s all about technicalities and not about getting to the truth. This whole ruling is like being kind of pregnant. You either have free speech or you don’t.

    Course, if I were king, public schools would be abolished tomorrow and all this stuff would be moot. Rana could send her kid to a school in uniform, and the Pro Lifers could wear their tee shirts to school, and guys like me would pick a school where the rules were somewhere between sensible and tolerable.

  44. Snorg-Tees Girls Rule!

  45. including just a bikini? or simply underwear?

    Like the late 1970’s? Hot pants sans undies. Those were good days. 🙂

  46. If I thought public school administrators were actually smart I’d say school dress codes are really a clever way to channel teen rebellion.

    BTW, the whole egalitarian argument for public school uniforms has a big hole. Unless the uniforms are in fact uniform – all issued from the same supplier – you can still separate the rich kids from the poor kids. Designer shoes vs Payless. Ralph Lauren Polo vs WalMart polo.

  47. What if I want to wear a snorg tee’s girl tshirt while she’s still wearing it too?

  48. What if your t-shirt causes riots in Pakistan?

  49. Hey! I finally found a Presidential ticket I can totally support!

  50. rana-

    Even for practical reasons: kids dont have to worry about what to wear everyday and how to impress their friends

    Which merely changes the focus from ‘their clothes’ to their: jewelry, shoes, accessories (“Oakley sunglasses”, etc.), tech gadgets, and/or if mom and dad will pay for your first ‘boob job’- among other equally trivial nonsense.

    (See also “MattJ” above…)

  51. TallDave-

    Hey! I finally found a Presidential ticket I can totally support!

    You “blew” the link– now you should probably just tell us about the weed!

  52. I’m fond of my copy of this Buzzcocks one. Not sure if it’s work-safe too look at (depends on how your employer feels about strategically placed smiles), but I’m pretty sure it’s not work-safe to wear.

  53. Is this article even about t-shirts? Isn’t it just the issue of public schools making laws that are at odds with the constitution? It’s framed as if wearing a controversial t-shirt anywhere will get you in trouble when that does not seem to be the case, except in that bizarre Louisana example you gave but unless I missed something did not elaborate on.

  54. The entertaining part must have been waiting to see who would end up beating him up.

    …peaceloving Christians?

  55. “””TrikyVic. Freedom? Are you refering to the “freedom aspect” of someone expressing an opinion on a t-shirt or the “freedom aspect” of being required to wear a uniform to public schools?”””

    The right to choose is the essence of freedom. If you don’t believe that people should have a right to choose, then no one can convince you that the schools are wrong.

    I believe that the ability of others to restrict your ability to choose is a serious matter. Freedom oriented people place a very high bar as to when a restriction is ok, some may never agree. So the question to examine is why the schools want to do it. Then we can determine if those reasons rise above the bar. I have heard no reason why the schools should require uniforms that reach the bar.

    Conformity is not a reason to give up choice is it? Nor is saving the parents money on clothes. For better security? Well we know what Ben Franklin had to say. But to entertain the security argument, we would have to rationally assess how bad the security problem is. A couple of kids mugged for their $200 sneakers should be a lesson of don’t bring your $200 sneakers to school, and that it. A school rioting over $200 sneakers may warrant a restriction of choice. But only where the problem exists.

    Disruption of the class is a valid reason to remove a student from the class. But I question if any of these clothes have ever actually caused a real distruption, or just complaints. Certainly people complaining or disagreeing, are not reasons to supress choice.

  56. “””Since when does the Constituion protect a person’s right to wear? And if you want to argue this point, then why stop at uniforms or dress codes? Shouldn’t students be allowed to wear ANYTHING they pleased to school? including just a bikini? or simply underwear?”””

    If it’s allowable to wear in public and does not cause a real disturbance, it’s fair game. If someone has a complaint, tough shit, get over it. Having said that, bikinis in an all girls school might not be a big deal. It would have certainly caused real disruptions where I went to school, but then again, nerds were a disrtuption, or the jocks beating them up depending on how you want to look at it. I’m not sure which group needs to be banned, since that would cross the disruption bar too.

  57. But I question if any of these clothes have ever actually caused a real distruption, or just complaints

    I’ll tell you what clothes caused real disruption in class. Patti Connelly’s micro mini skirts in 10th grade geometry. No complaints, but I could not get geometry.

    Thank God that the school required all girls to wear skirts and dresses. Loved that dress code.

  58. ‘Are you against sodomy or breast cancer?’

    Nice juxtaposition.

  59. Are you against sodomy or breast cancer?’

    Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?

  60. To be fair, all high schools should enforce a zero-tolerance policy against people who wear Insane Clown Posse t-shirts.

  61. Lawrence, you used tampon:

    First, your premise that Reason is anti-abortion is totally wrong.

    …the teens will bond via a shared passion for fetuses…the perky fetus hugger…

    You ever hear the anti-abortion crowd use the word “fetus” like that? In their vocabulary it’s always a “child” or a “baby.”

    Challenge you to provide examples of Reason being anti-abortion.

    Of course, if it weren’t pro-life, Reason would be mocking the issue.

    Wrong, again. Reason consistently defends first amendment rights of everyone, even if they later mock the sentiments being expressed.

    Usually t-shirt stuff about kids being taken “to the woodshed” usually only rates a snicker on these pages, like bongs for jesus stuff, but it becomes serious news when it’s pro-life.

    Wrong, yet again. Reason consistently defends the free expression rights of students in public schools.

    And all you Urkobolds(tm) are on report. Two major trolls unchallenged, Reinmoose misses a totally obvious “Blade Runner” ref. Slackers!

  62. Fletch,

    I went to school in Purto Rico and both private and public schools wore uniforms. In fact, the ONLY school on the whole island that did not use uniforms was an American school for children of mostly Americans living in PR who did not want their kids mixing with the Ricans or speaking Spanish (this is my biased assumption). Anyway, you are correct that kids would find other ways to show if they had money or not (watches, shoes, backpaks, etc). I also went my last year of highschool to a public school in the U.S., and I can tell you that, by comparison, the difference in social status was felt greater in the U.S.- and clothing, fashion, did play a BIG role in that (of course, I dont deny that other factors influenced- the type of car you had, where you live, etc).
    I’m not trying to debate the “freedom” aspect that trickyVic so greatly cherishes- good for him. From my personal experience, wearing a school uniform was positive and practical, many “dress codes dilemas” were avioded, and students found other, I would say more creative, ways to express their individuality and opinion. Yes, being required to wear a uniform might restrict your choice, but I believe the benefits outweigh the costs.
    Also, in Venezuela all elementary and highschools require uniforms and it hasn’t caused a big infringement of their personal freedom of choice- Chavez has taken care of that. 😉

  63. That’s Puerto Rico. damn typos.

  64. BTW, the whole egalitarian argument for public school uniforms has a big hole. Unless the uniforms are in fact uniform – all issued from the same supplier – you can still separate the rich kids from the poor kids. Designer shoes vs Payless. Ralph Lauren Polo vs WalMart polo.

    The Australian schools I went to made a big to-do about that whole egalitarian thing. Uniforms there were a blazer and slacks with shirt and tie for boys and a blazer over a tunic and blouse for girls.

    Trouble was that you could tell which kids had parents with money. If you saw one boy in a new custom made wool blazer and trim neatly creased wool slacks next to one in an obviously year (or more) old polyester blazer (probably handed down from an older brother*) and worn, sometimes patched, pants you’d know the difference, wouldn’t you?

    Sorry, that whole, poor American and French children have to suffer the indignity of being identified by their clothes was a load of cobblers.

    And, to make it worse, the uniforms are expensive. When I was there for a visit in ’94 the Hobart Mercury had a sob story about a welfare mom who was all upset because she didn’t have the money to buy her kid a uniform to start high school with.

    I have never been able to determine the class of kids at American or Canadian schools by their clothes alone. And I’ve never seen a story about a mother who couldn’t afford to clothe her kid to go to school.

    *or to make it even more embarassing from an older sister. And, yes, not only are Australian kids not more any egalitarian than American kids they’re also not any less cruel.

  65. “””I’m not trying to debate the “freedom” aspect that trickyVic so greatly cherishes- good for him.”””

    Contempt of freedom is the essences of almost all our problems in America. My cherishing freedom is not just good for me, it’s good for the well being of our nation. It’s good for all nations that claim to be free. Your not free if you can’t exerise freedom.

  66. TrickyVic,

    I do not contempt freedom. In fact, I cherish it more than you can imagine given the present situation of the country in which I live (Venezuela). And while I see your point, and therefore, am not looking to debate it, I still believe that requiring uniforms is not a big a deal as denying freedom of speech. I mean, really get some perspective…

  67. I am into cause t-shirts – like,

    STOP PLATE TECTONICS!

  68. Senators Introduce Bill to Protect Pregnant Women

    (Washington, D.C.)4/1/08 – U.S. Sens. David Vitter, George Voinovich and Sam Brownback this week introduced the Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act, which would require physicians who perform abortions to hold admitting privileges at a hospital that the physician can travel to in one hour or less under average travel conditions.

    “This legislation is so important because it provides common sense qualifications for abortion providers,” said Vitter, the primary author of the bill. “As with all medical procedures, abortions carry a risk, and doctors who provide them should, at the least, hold admitting privileges at a hospital in close vicinity to the abortion clinic.”

    The bill also requires that physicians notify patients as to the location of a hospital where they can receive follow-up care from the physician in the event that complications arise. Further, the bill requires that any abortion clinic that receives federal funding be licensed and comply with current requirements relating to ambulatory surgery centers.

    The bill also provides that any physician who does not hold clinical privileges may only perform or induce an abortion in order to avert the imminent death of the pregnant woman.

    “Patients need to be aware of the possibility of complications arising from abortions,” Vitter said. “This bill requires abortion providers to make sure that a woman is aware of the location of the hospital at which she can receive treatment for any complications. It is time that we took the appropriate steps to provide for the safety of the women who undergo abortions.”

    “We must do all that we can to restore our nation’s once cherished culture of life,” Voinovich said. “I have always said if I had a magic wand the first thing I would do is reconstitute the American family. We will never be able to do that until we respect life – especially the lives of the most vulnerable among us.”

    Brownback said, “While we are working toward the day when every unborn child is welcomed and loved, we are unfortunately not there yet. The Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act will provide oversight of the abortion industry, which is badly in need of improved supervision. Too many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions, and too many women’s lives are at risk. As a compassionate society, we must work to ensure that women are adequately cared for.” ………..

    http://www.kalb.com/index.php/news/article/senators-introduce-bill-to-protect-pregnant-women/5429/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.